Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates

[Volkodav]

I can understand the starfighter for us Germans and Italians, literally strap yourself to a rocket to intercept the bombers ASAP min autonomy but that was our reality if we were invaded, everything would have been decided in literally minutes.

But for Australia long ranges?

I'm even realizing that I don't know what were the cold war threats for Australia. Chinese Bombers? Did they have range? Soviet SSBN?

What was your scenario?

On the Beach (novel) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

considering books like those wasn't Australia a safe "haven"?

While Australia was flying Sabres, the USSR was providing Badgers and Mig 21s to Indonesia.

There was a plan to acquire 30 Starfighters during the late 50s and I believe other types such as the Lightning, Tiger and Draken were looked at, while Air Marshal Scherger was apparently quite keen on the F-5 (NA56?). However the GotD decided the Sabre was adequate and ordered an additional batch.

 

[swerve]

Did Australia buy Sabres direct from the USA, or were they all CAC Avon Sabres? I can imagine that there'd be a bias in favour of buying more from CAC.

From what I've read the CAC Sabre stopped being built in 1961, the year before the first MiG-21 delivery to Indonesia.

 

[Volkodav]

Did Australia buy Sabres direct from the USA, or were they all CAC Avon Sabres? I can imagine that there'd be a bias in favour of buying more from CAC.

From what I've read the CAC Sabre stopped being built in 1961, the year before the first MiG-21 delivery to Indonesia.

CAC Sabres.

My reference to the MIG21 was in regards to the reactionary nature of Australian defence procurement. Basically Australian government's sat on their hands and did less than the bare minimum until defence became an election issue.

The quest for a supersonic fighter began before many other nations moved in that direction but didn't manifest in an acquisition until after the government realised they had limited strategic options due to long term under investment.

 

[south]

would be good to get another 12-24 super hornets before then. Taking a bit of time to fully integrate LRASM onto the f35s and P8s.

The US Navy want to stop buying Super Hornet.. for good reason. There’s no way buying more makes sense for the RAAF.

I could see value in a buy of EA-18G to bring the fleet to around 18.

 

[Reptilia]

The US Navy want to stop buying Super Hornet.. for good reason. There’s no way buying more makes sense for the RAAF.

I could see value in a buy of EA-18G to bring the fleet to around 18.

Buy from the u.s stocks…, not the production line.

 

[Todjaeger]

Buy from the u.s stocks…, not the production line.

Does the US have Block II or later production F/A-18F that are available for sale? AFAIK the US has been replacing F/A-18A/B/C/D examples with either the F-35B or F-35C, but has not gotten to the point where SHornets are being retired/replaced by F-35.

If the idea is that the US will stand down some of the F/A-18F's which are currently in use, so that Australia can buy and then operate them... that IMO is an unreasonable ask, which also does not make much sense.

 

[John Fedup]

Buy from the u.s stocks…, not the production line.

Not sure what possible orders still exist for the F-18 SH and the line is close to the end wrt completing out standing orders. If the RAN needs more EA-18Gs order now. There are a few C-17 users that missed expanding their fleets.

 

[south]

Buy from the u.s stocks…, not the production line.

Beyond saying that LRASM rollout on P8, currently on track for FY24, is slower than (you) expected, you haven’t really articulated a case to invest scarce funds and manning into a platform that’s a generation behind.

 

[Maranoa]

Marles said early this year that the RAAF would do 'very well' out of the DSR, but so far only reapprovals for F-35A Block IV, Super Hornet Block III and Growler Block II upgrades and a cut to replacement C-130J program. Hopefully the Minister of Defence has a surprise investment or two for Australia's airpower but I wouldn't bet on it.

 

[DDG38]

Imagery from the recent Williamtown Air Show in Newcastle (all sourced from the ADF Image Library)

 

[DDG38]

 

[hauritz]

Does the US have Block II or later production F/A-18F that are available for sale? AFAIK the US has been replacing F/A-18A/B/C/D examples with either the F-35B or F-35C, but has not gotten to the point where SHornets are being retired/replaced by F-35.

If the idea is that the US will stand down some of the F/A-18F's which are currently in use, so that Australia can buy and then operate them... that IMO is an unreasonable ask, which also does not make much sense.

From everything I am told USN hornets live a hard life. Everytime they land it is basically a controlled crash and life at sea in a salty environment would take its toll. To be honest if the USN stood down a few of its Super Hornets and made them available for sale I would be loath to touch them.

The Superhornets have had their day. While I do advocate for the RAAF to hang onto them until Gen 6 options become available I wouldn’t go as far as to say new examples should be bought. At this stage if the RAAF were to receive additional combat aircraft I would stick with the F-35.

 

[Redlands18]

From everything I am told USN hornets live a hard life. Everytime they land it is basically a controlled crash and life at sea in a salty environment would take its toll. To be honest if the USN stood down a few of its Super Hornets and made them available for sale I would be loath to touch them.

The Superhornets have had their day. While I do advocate for the RAAF to hang onto them until Gen 6 options become available I wouldn’t go as far as to say new examples should be bought. At this stage if the RAAF were to receive additional combat aircraft I would stick with the F-35.

Its why the F-35C exists and not just a F-35A with USN markings. It has stronger landing gear, with twin wheel gear, larger control surfaces, a larger wing that allows for a slower landing speed, and foldable wingtips, but is restricted to 7.5g max.

 

[Todjaeger]

From everything I am told USN hornets live a hard life. Everytime they land it is basically a controlled crash and life at sea in a salty environment would take its toll. To be honest if the USN stood down a few of its Super Hornets and made them available for sale I would be loath to touch them.

The Superhornets have had their day. While I do advocate for the RAAF to hang onto them until Gen 6 options become available I wouldn’t go as far as to say new examples should be bought. At this stage if the RAAF were to receive additional combat aircraft I would stick with the F-35.

Some of the USN SHornets might be fine, and I could see the US possibly cutting back on the number of active Block I SHornets in service. IIRC their nose cone whilst sized appropriately for the APG-73 was not backwards compatible with the APG-79 featured in Block II and later production. There might be, at some point, interest on the part of the RAAF for getting a few more SHornets which could be justifiable. When I speak of a few more, I mean a number one can count on one hand, with fingers to spare. If this were to happen, it would be to provide a source of spares and/or as a replacement for the catastrophic loss of an airframe(s).

I am also rather less certain that attempting to hold onto RAAF SHornets until 6th Gen replacements are available would be a wise course of action, and in reality it might just be simply unfeasible. Yes, the US (and others) have what are described as 6th Gen programmes either running or in the works, but that does not give any real idea of when a new aircraft gen is going to be ready for production. If one looks at the timeline of programmes and projects which culiminated in the USAF's F-22 Raptor, it was over 24 years between the start of the ATF programme, and the introduction of the F-22 in USAF service. If one looks at the timeline for the F-35 Lightning II, IMO it is even worse since the earliest precursor programme I could find was DARPA's ASTOVL which started back in 1983 to develop a replacment for the AV-8 Harrier then in use by the USMC and RN. The first F-35 variant introduced into service was the F-35B STOVL variant, in 2015 or over 30 years after the start of the earliest precursor programme.

With that in mind, I consider it quite possible that there might not be 6th Gen designs ready for production before RAAF SHornets hit the point were retirement might be advisable.

Additionally, there might be merit in exploring adding a few more EA-18G Growlers to the fleet. I believe that there is some work being done to adapt or fit some of the EW and jammer systems of the Growler to LO F-35's. Again the concern being that whilst such concepts are being looked at, there is no guarantee if there will be a replacement or when it would enter production.

Side note, has there been any agreed upon definition of what characteristics or capabilities comprise a "6th Gen" fighter? To date I have not come across anything and we might be waiting on that for a while yet too. Something to think about.

 

[ngatimozart]

I am also rather less certain that attempting to hold onto RAAF SHornets until 6th Gen replacements are available would be a wise course of action, and in reality it might just be simply unfeasible. Yes, the US (and others) have what are described as 6th Gen programmes either running or in the works, but that does not give any real idea of when a new aircraft gen is going to be ready for production. If one looks at the timeline of programmes and projects which culiminated in the USAF's F-22 Raptor, it was over 24 years between the start of the ATF programme, and the introduction of the F-22 in USAF service. If one looks at the timeline for the F-35 Lightning II, IMO it is even worse since the earliest precursor programme I could find was DARPA's ASTOVL which started back in 1983 to develop a replacment for the AV-8 Harrier then in use by the USMC and RN. The first F-35 variant introduced into service was the F-35B STOVL variant, in 2015 or over 30 years after the start of the earliest precursor programme.

With that in mind, I consider it quite possible that there might not be 6th Gen designs ready for production before RAAF SHornets hit the point were retirement might be advisable.

I would add that there is no guarantee that the 6th Gen project will mature to full capability. US national and USAF politics are very much involved and given the political shenanigans that are current SOP in US politics, nothing is certain.

Also, it is pointless and illogical at the moment to hang your air combat requirements on what is basically an unproven pipe dream at the moment. I say "unproven pipe dream" because there is nothing in the public domain to say that a viable platform has been designed and progressing to manufacturing and flight testing. Deal in facts, not wishful thing.

 

[Todjaeger]

I would add that there is no guarantee that the 6th Gen project will mature to full capability. US national and USAF politics are very much involved and given the political shenanigans that are current SOP in US politics, nothing is certain.

I just wish to point out that there a couple certainties given the current situation or climate in the US. In no particular order these certainties are chaos, corruption, dishonesty, and stupidity.

I am not quite at the point of feeling the need to factcheck everything a US pollie says, as I am still willing to accept on faith certain comments like, "water is wet..." but beyond this, it does seem like actions taken and statements made are more about 'points scoring' rather than getting anything necessary or worthwhile achieved.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Additionally, there might be merit in exploring adding a few more EA-18G Growlers to the fleet. I believe that there is some work being done to adapt or fit some of the EW and jammer systems of the Growler to LO F-35's. Again the concern being that whilst such concepts are being looked at, there is no guarantee if there will be a replacement or when it would enter production.

I think we are going in different directions regarding EW. We have growlers, but the MC-55 will be a nice compliment, and E7's and P7 compliment that.

We still have 72 F-35. That is as many as most air forces have period. The SH can do bomb truck, sensor and EW missions. The big issue with newer aircraft is capability doesn't happen just out of the box anymore. Look at F-35, can't fire half our inventory with it, EW capability are still formative. In terms of antishipping the F-35 is not a good platform yet.

SH can rack up hours and rack up flight time. In certain missions, you want to be seen patrolling. Its twin engine. Its a fairly sorted platform.
Can definitely see value in the Block III upgrades. 36 fighters is still a reasonable number and still has Australia operating over 100 top tier fighters. While having all the enablers, like E7, dedicated sigint, etc. Really one of the very few, possibly at this point, the only one with the right mix of capabilities going forward.

 

[Todjaeger]

I think we are going in different directions regarding EW. We have growlers, but the MC-55 will be a nice compliment, and E7's and P7 compliment that.

We still have 72 F-35. That is as many as most air forces have period. The SH can do bomb truck, sensor and EW missions. The big issue with newer aircraft is capability doesn't happen just out of the box anymore. Look at F-35, can't fire half our inventory with it, EW capability are still formative. In terms of antishipping the F-35 is not a good platform yet.

SH can rack up hours and rack up flight time. In certain missions, you want to be seen patrolling. Its twin engine. Its a fairly sorted platform.
Can definitely see value in the Block III upgrades. 36 fighters is still a reasonable number and still has Australia operating over 100 top tier fighters. While having all the enablers, like E7, dedicated sigint, etc. Really one of the very few, possibly at this point, the only one with the right mix of capabilities going forward.

The impression I had formed was the that MC-55A Peregrine would be tasked with EW/ISR roles not unlike those performed by US aircraft like the Compass Call, JSTARS, or iterations of the Boeing RC-135 under various Rivet names. If this is an accurate understanding (which is questionable, given how 'public' much of the EW data is...) then what capabilities these will bring to a fight is quite different from that of EA-18G Growlers. With that in mind, I can see scenarios where the RAAF might want to boost Growler numbers given that there is no direct replacement currently available or AFAIK in development.

In some respects it might be 'interesting' if the RAAF could get a Growler to conduct overflights near RAN deployments where they have been 'pinged' by sonars from certain nations. Not sure if the Growler has the ability to, but it might be amusing if suddenly certain unfriendly vessels found their radar arrays started either shutting down, or reporting rather odd contacts detected. Just a thought.

EDIT: Mispelers of the warld Untie!

 

[south]

We still have 72 F-35. That is as many as most air forces have period. The SH can do bomb truck, sensor and EW missions. The big issue with newer aircraft is capability doesn't happen just out of the box anymore. Look at F-35, can't fire half our inventory with it, EW capability are still formative. In terms of antishipping the F-35 is not a good platform yet.

SH can rack up hours and rack up flight time. In certain missions, you want to be seen patrolling. Its twin engine. Its a fairly sorted platform.
Can definitely see value in the Block III upgrades. 36 fighters is still a reasonable number and still has Australia operating over 100 top tier fighters. While having all the enablers, like E7, dedicated sigint, etc.

You talk as though the Super Hornet and Growler are interchangeable (SH can do EW missions, 36 Fighters etc). They most definitely are not, with significantly different installed components, loadouts and discrete training requirements for the differing mission sets these platforms undertake.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Oh they are definitely with a different focus MC-55 to EA18..
But the MC-55 has much longer reach, and broader focus as an intelligence asset.

EA18 just doesn't have the range to do long intelligence gathering missions. It is a short ranged fighter platform fitted with Electronic warfare.

You talk as though the Super Hornet and Growler are interchangeable (SH can do EW missions, 36 Fighters etc). They most definitely are not, with significantly different installed components, loadouts and discrete training requirements for the differing mission sets these platforms undertake.

They are both short ranged fighter platforms. They are not interchangable, obviously. However, their physics limitations and capabilities are broadly similar in comparison to a G550 based or 737 or C130 based aircraft or even a F-35.

My point is E7 and MC-55 help and assist the load off the EA-18. Obviously the USN doesn't have either of those aircraft, so it has to use EA-18 for everything.

You talk as though the Super Hornet and Growler are interchangeable (SH can do EW missions, 36 Fighters etc). They most definitely are not, with significantly different installed components, loadouts and discrete training requirements for the differing mission sets these platforms undertake.

What matters is the total capability, not the individual unit. They are based off the same fighter platform, the F-18 superhornet. So my comments about a sorted platform and it being twin engine, and EW is true. I don't know why that would upset people, both the EA-18 and the F-18F is a twin engine platform, and sorted in terms of capabilities. The F-35 can't fire LRASM, which is true, and it is single engine. Is this a shocking reveal? I hope the PLAAF doesn't get hold of this secret information.

Replacing the entire Superhornet platform capability (which includes Growlers and Fighters) would need to replace total capability, not just an individual capability of just the F-18F or the EA-18 Growler. Unless you think the RAAF is going to keep all the logistical support for the EA-18 just for 12 airframes? Unique engines, unique airframe, unique upgrades, unique maintenance and technical facilities. They are tied together.

I am also confused by the way you are talking about SH and Growler doing missions separately. AFAIK that is not how they are intended to operate in the battle space. You are not just flying 2 growlers into theatre by themselves, nor do you just fly 2 F-18F as some sort of wonderweapon. Neither is going to go it alone. Wouldn't it then make sense to talk about the capability of a combined platform rather than "mOrE SuPaHoRnEt for the win!". I don't see the acquisition of more of one type, adjusting the ratio, for the Superhornet platform.

But these are my opinions. Others may vary.

EA18 was a fast and great way to get EW capability at the time, we were acquiring the same platform for other reasons. Now however, much of those capabilities could be transferred to more effective platforms (MC-55 and E7) which are bigger, longer ranged, have more growth potential, cheaper flight hours, better able to handle the workload and F-35 IV block IV and future blocks making the embedded F-35 EW capability much greater on F-35. Its not here today, but in 5 years it will be.

So in the future, no, not sure more Superhornets are the future, as their mission is going to generally be acquired by F-35 and MC-55, E7 platforms, which will do it better. They will still be somewhat relevant, and the USN has less opportunity due to it needing a platform that can take off from carriers. But I am not sure more acquisitions are required.