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

7

76mmGuns

Active Member
"
Meanwhile, in the real world right now :
"A Royal Australian Air Force E-7A Wedgetail, two EA-18G Growler jets and two F-35A Lightning II aircraft fly in formation with two United States Air Force B-2 Bombers and two F-22 Raptor fighter jets." Image Source : ADF Image Library "

I really like this photo. Everything there is modern and advanced. And we have a lot of them (relatively). This is a complete contrast to the RAN. RAN has plans and is in the stages of doing things, but the RAAF is practically the most advanced complete air force in the world NOW.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
hauritz said:
Another defence review is due in 2026 and this will probably need to address the replacement of the Super Hornet and Growler fleet. Probably want to add the Wedgetails and refuelling aircraft into the mix as well.

Most likely we will be looking a complex system of systems replacement so it won’t be anything as straight forward as buying additional F-35s. So much will depend on technology that is still in development and may not even be sufficiently mature when the Super Hornet replacement falls due.

Australia could already be falling behind on working out a solution for this. The US has already started work on NGAD and the USN F/A-XX programs neither of which might be entirely suitable for Australia. Personally I think the British led FCAS may be better suited.

Australia may yet decide to work on its own unique solution. It is all very complex and given Australia’s propensity to procrastinate on these decisions we could even see us having to come up with an interim solution to replace the Super Hornets, which ironically were themselves an interim solution.
Click to expand...
FCAS is the French-German project, GCAP (Tempest) is the British-Japanese-Italian project.
 
StevoJH

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
John Fedup said:
Do we know which program Sweden is leaning towards? I imagine Saab would like to be involved in one of the programs as it is unlikely the government wants to fund a 5-6 Gen aircraft alone.
Click to expand...
Can Sweden afford to develop a Gen 5/6 combat aircraft alone?

The ratio of R&D to procurement would be horrendous given the size of their fast jet fleet.
 
G

Going Boeing

Well-Known Member
Bob53 said:
Update on JASSM XR. AGM-158 XR with probable range around 1500km. rhinos can carry them but no mention if F35 can.

www.twz.com

Everything We Just Learned About The Supersized AGM-158 XR Stealth Cruise Missile

Lockheed's XR variant of the JASSM family of missiles is stretched to accommodate more fuel, giving it a range that should approach or exceed that of the Tomahawk.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
Click to expand...
The extra range of the JASSM-XR would be a good fit for the P-8’s as it should allow them to launch from a safer distance. Theoretically, the Super Hornets be able to approach closer before being detected and have the speed to egress quickly after launch so they would probably use the JASSM-ER’s that have been ordered.

Lockheed Martin Presents JASSM XR: An Extreme Range Cruise Missile
 
B

Bob53

Well-Known Member
Going Boeing said:
The extra range of the JASSM-XR would be a good fit for the P-8’s as it should allow them to launch from a safer distance. Theoretically, the Super Hornets be able to approach closer before being detected and have the speed to egress quickly after launch so they would probably use the JASSM-ER’s that have been ordered.

Lockheed Martin Presents JASSM XR: An Extreme Range Cruise Missile
Click to expand...
I like the idea of the XR as it reduces the Refuelling logistical footprint by about 600kMs. if target was out at up to 2500km range there should be no need for refuelling.

The F/A-18E Super Hornet has an unrefueled combat radius of approximately 390 nautical miles (449 miles or 722 kilometers) on internal fuel. When external fuel tanks are added, its range can be extended up to 700 nautical miles (805 miles or 1,296 kilometres) without air-to-air refuelling.

Add to this approx 1500 KMs from the JASSM XR and it’s further than anything the F111 could tackle.

But the point re the P8s is a good one. How many could a F18 carry? I think it’s 2.
 
Last edited:
Todjaeger

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Bob53 said:
I like the idea of the XR as it reduces the Refuelling logistical footprint by about 600kMs. if target was out at up to 2500km range there should be no need for refuelling.

The F/A-18E Super Hornet has an unrefueled combat radius of approximately 390 nautical miles (449 miles or 722 kilometers) on internal fuel. When external fuel tanks are added, its range can be extended up to 700 nautical miles (805 miles or 1,296 kilometres) without air-to-air refuelling.

Add to this approx 1500 KMs from the JASSM XR and it’s further than anything the F111 could tackle.

But the point re the P8s is a good one. How many could a F18 carry? I think it’s 2.
Click to expand...
Aircraft mission and config make a significant difference, particularly with range performance. If one looks here (on page #10) at this Unclass SAR release by the US DOD from 2012, then one can see the F/A-18E in an air-to-air fighter escort role has an unrefueled range of 434 n miles. OTOH if the mission role is interdiction and therefore air-to-ground/shipping ordnance is carried, as well as drop tanks, the non-AAR range can vary between 419 n miles and 463 n miles, depending on whether two or three drop tanks are embarked. As for ordnance carriage options, the SHornets have 11 hardpoints and at least some of those under the wings and fuselage can be for larger ordnance or droptanks. I believe max JASSM/LRASM plus drop tank carried would be a total of four JASSM/LRASM.

Now of course the numbers for the RAAF would be at least a little different, since the F/A-18E is a single seater whilst the SHornet in Australian service is the two-seater -F, but I believe the numbers should be at least somewhat similar.

There is of course also the other practical issue in that Australia would likely have problems making effective use of extremely long-ranged ordnance simply due to the limitations of target awareness. How able/aware is Australia to get target quality location and tracking information for potential strikes some 1,500 + miles away from Australia?
 
B

Bob53

Well-Known Member
I don’t know 100% but probably our Targeting at that range would probably come the same way as the US ….. But JASSM is primarily for land based targets like ports, ammo storage, static formations, barracks, HQs, airfield etc so they don’t tend to move around a lot.
 
Todjaeger

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Bob53 said:
I don’t know 100% but probably our Targeting at that range would probably come the same way as the US ….. But JASSM is primarily for land based targets like ports, ammo storage, static formations, barracks, HQs, airfield etc so they don’t tend to move around a lot.
Click to expand...
A key difference being that the US has a sensing footprint, including satellite constellations, that is significant and AFAIK considerably greater than what Australia can manage on it's own. Between the coverage likely available, as well as time, IMO it is quite likely that the US either already has a list of potential targets/locations and their strike priority, or could at least put one together fairly quickly. Australia OTOH would likely have to rely upon the US for such information, or perhaps just the list itself.

A potential downside to relying upon others for such intelligence might be that the focus from the American perspective might be different than what Australia might wish to focus upon, and could therefore not pass something which would have been important to Australia.

Now I am not stating that Australia should not get a strike capability like the JASSM-XR might provide, I am just leery Australia devoting the coin and resources establishing a strike capability that is largely or perhaps entirely dependent on outside (i.e. non-Australian) capabilities to function.
 
A

Armchair

Active Member
Todjaeger said:
Now I am not stating that Australia should not get a strike capability like the JASSM-XR might provide, I am just leery Australia devoting the coin and resources establishing a strike capability that is largely or perhaps entirely dependent on outside (i.e. non-Australian) capabilities to function.
Click to expand...
THE ADF has A$28-$35 bn in planned investment In long range strike in the IIP out to 2034
2024 Integrated Investment Program

The current plan for F-18 long range strike is a hypersonic program jointly developed with the US rather than JASSM-XR though.

The IIP also includes a planned investment of around A$5bn in targeting.

Given the RAAF has E-7, P-8 (and F-18G potentially limiting defensive capabilities to detect targeting assets) and is acquiring Ghostbat and MC-55, and that the ADF has access to joint signals intelligence, submarine based ISR and human intelligence of unknown capabilities, and has competent special forces I don’t think a potential adversary would be dismissive of Australia’s sovereign targeting abilities.

The US is not the only power that could provide additional target relevant information to Australia (a problem that Russia has had with Ukraine) and that is something a potential adversary of Australia (with a wide range of friendly nations that it conducts military exercises with) would need to consider.
 
B

Bob53

Well-Known Member
Todjaeger said:
A key difference being that the US has a sensing footprint, including satellite constellations, that is significant and AFAIK considerably greater than what Australia can manage on it's own. Between the coverage likely available, as well as time, IMO it is quite likely that the US either already has a list of potential targets/locations and their strike priority, or could at least put one together fairly quickly. Australia OTOH would likely have to rely upon the US for such information, or perhaps just the list itself.

A potential downside to relying upon others for such intelligence might be that the focus from the American perspective might be different than what Australia might wish to focus upon, and could therefore not pass something which would have been important to Australia.

Now I am not stating that Australia should not get a strike capability like the JASSM-XR might provide, I am just leery Australia devoting the coin and resources establishing a strike capability that is largely or perhaps entirely dependent on outside (i.e. non-Australian) capabilities to function.
Click to expand...
The thing with a lot of fixed targets is that they are fixed and we know where they are already without too much help….ports, airfields, rail terminals satellite imaging is available in almost real time particularly if the US is assisting. .
 
B

Bob53

Well-Known Member
Of note to the RAAF…previously mentioned here no plans to integrate LRASM and JASSm to F35s. That could be changing.

www.twz.com

F-35 Shown Carrying Stealthy Long-Range Anti-Ship Missiles For The First Time

Work is now underway to integrate the low-observable AGM-158C Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) on the F-35. Work is now underway to integrate the low-observable AGM-158C Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) on the F-35 stealth fighter.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
 
G

Going Boeing

Well-Known Member
Bob53 said:
Of note to the RAAF…previously mentioned here no plans to integrate LRASM and JASSm to F35s. That could be changing.

www.twz.com

F-35 Shown Carrying Stealthy Long-Range Anti-Ship Missiles For The First Time

Work is now underway to integrate the low-observable AGM-158C Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) on the F-35. Work is now underway to integrate the low-observable AGM-158C Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) on the F-35 stealth fighter.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
Click to expand...
I understand that development work is being conducted for the USN/Marines F-35C’s but hopefully it is also suitable for use on Air Force F-35A’s.

It adds a significantly greater punch with greater range and much larger warhead in comparison to the internally carried Joint Strike Missile.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top