Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
MARKMILES77
Well-Known Member
P8 has 9 hardpointsWe have various options
Air:
P8 (11 hardpoints)
F-18SH
F-35
Then you get into C-130 or C17 palette weapon systems. Which honestly, I think are unlikely to get uses except for specific and unlikely situations.
The Case For Stripping The P-8 Poseidon Down Into An RB-8 Multi-Role Arsenal Ship
A non-maritime patrol variant of the P-8 could provide the Air Force with a highly flexible platform for augmenting the bomber force and much more.www.twz.com
It is also entirely possible that with the E7 replacement, we choose the P8 Platform for that. Its based off the same 737NG the current E7 use, its already in service and still in production. That would get us an additional 6 airframes that can be loaded up with weapons, if needed. They have pretty big radars and significant jamming/EW/sensoring potential. Maybe one day someone will make a long range maverick missile and she can wild weasel at 600km.
Coming in for a strike with (20x 11 = 210) around 200 JASSM just launching from our long range 737 based bomber fleet is pretty big. Throw in C17 rapid dragon (8 x 45) that's another 360... So now we are at 500 JASSM.. plus what ever fighters can carry, plus firing volleys off half a dozen to a dozen of tlam from subs and ships, its considerable combined capability.
4 underwing and 5 in the weapons bay.
Only the 4 on the wing have the capacity to carry heavy weapons in the 2000 Ib class.
JASSM weighs 2200 Ib.
So maximum carriage of JASSM by a P8 is 4 not 11.
The weapons bay can only carry light weight weapons.
Above quotes from the The War Zone article linked to in the original comment.
Number of JASSMs able to be carried by B21 is unkown.
Number of JASSMs able to be carried by B2 is known to be 16.
B-2's First Launch Of Stealthy JASSM-ER Cruise Missile Disclosed
In addition to longer-range cruise missiles, B-2s have been receiving upgrades to their nuclear capabilities and communications systems.
www.twz.com
B21 being a little smaller than B2 likely carries a few less.
Perhaps 8 to 12 JASSMs per aircraft.
P8 has 9 hardpoints
4 underwing and 5 in the weapons bay.
Only the 4 on the wing have the capacity to carry heavy weapons in the 2000 Ib class.
JASSM weighs 2200 Ib.
So maximum carriage of JASSM by a P8 is 4 not 11.
The weapons bay can only carry light weight weapons.
Above quotes from the The War Zone article linked to in the original comment.
Number of JASSMs able to be carried by B21 is unkown.
Number of JASSMs able to be carried by B2 is known to be 16.
B-2's First Launch Of Stealthy JASSM-ER Cruise Missile Disclosed
In addition to longer-range cruise missiles, B-2s have been receiving upgrades to their nuclear capabilities and communications systems.
B21 being a little smaller than B2 likely carries a few less.
Perhaps 8 to 12 JASSMs per aircraft.
[/QUOTE
P8 in service with the RAAF
We are to acquire 14 aircraft which will be supported by four MQ 4c Tritons.
Our P8s will get LRASM and potentially JASSM er.
Now I get the appeal of the B21 but to be fair it’s out of our league.
The above however is a reality.
An Ariel archer that can carry and deploy a missile in the 900 km plus range is utilising distance for defence
Yes it has limitations ,but it more importantly offers a lot of options
The P8 has a cruising speed similar to the non stealthy B52 which is still going to soldier on into the 2050s.
B52 will deploy the above
The combat radius for a P8 with four JASSM er on a strike mission is not available in the public forum but deleting the four hour on duty fuel load for a tradition flight out to 2000k we can gather it is considerable.
Add the range of the ordnance any adversary will know that when you are 3000 plus km from our coast you are very much on guard.
We should very much invest in the potential of this platform and suggest invest in a couple more.
Let’s not just treat it as a traditional maritime aircraft.
It’s so much more than that and needs a culture to match.
Like it or not it’s our B21
Cheers S
P8 has 9 hardpointsP8 has 9 hardpoints
4 underwing and 5 in the weapons bay.
Only the 4 on the wing have the capacity to carry heavy weapons in the 2000 Ib class.
JASSM weighs 2200 Ib.
So maximum carriage of JASSM by a P8 is 4 not 11.
The weapons bay can only carry light weight weapons.
Above quotes from the The War Zone article linked to in the original comment.
Number of JASSMs able to be carried by B21 is unkown.
Number of JASSMs able to be carried by B2 is known to be 16.
B-2's First Launch Of Stealthy JASSM-ER Cruise Missile Disclosed
In addition to longer-range cruise missiles, B-2s have been receiving upgrades to their nuclear capabilities and communications systems.
B21 being a little smaller than B2 likely carries a few less.
Perhaps 8 to 12 JASSMs per aircraft.
4 underwing and 5 in the weapons bay.
Only the 4 on the wing have the capacity to carry heavy weapons in the 2000 Ib class.
JASSM weighs 2200 Ib.
So maximum carriage of JASSM by a P8 is 4 not 11.
The weapons bay can only carry light weight weapons.
Above quotes from the The War Zone article linked to in the original comment.
Number of JASSMs able to be carried by B21 is unkown.
Number of JASSMs able to be carried by B2 is known to be 16.
B-2's First Launch Of Stealthy JASSM-ER Cruise Missile Disclosed
In addition to longer-range cruise missiles, B-2s have been receiving upgrades to their nuclear capabilities and communications systems.
www.twz.com
B21 being a little smaller than B2 likely carries a few less.
Perhaps 8 to 12 JASSMs per aircraft.
[/QUOTE
P8 in service with the RAAF
We are to acquire 14 aircraft which will be supported by four MQ 4c Tritons.
Our P8s will get LRASM and potentially JASSM er.
Now I get the appeal of the B21 but to be fair it’s out of our league.
The above however is a reality.
An Ariel archer that can carry and deploy a missile in the 900 km plus range is utilising distance for defence
Yes it has limitations ,but it more importantly offers a lot of options
The P8 has a cruising speed similar to the non stealthy B52 which is still going to soldier on into the 2050s.
B52 will deploy the above
The combat radius for a P8 with four JASSM er on a strike mission is not available in the public forum but deleting the four hour on duty fuel load for a tradition flight out to 2000k we can gather it is considerable.
Add the range of the ordnance any adversary will know that when you are 3000 plus km from our coast you are very much on guard.
We should very much invest in the potential of this platform and suggest invest in a couple more.
Let’s not just treat it as a traditional maritime aircraft.
It’s so much more than that and needs a culture to match.
Like it or not it’s our B21
Cheers
The P-8 is not a B-21. It is not even a strike aircraft. It is a maritime patrol aircraft which will predominately be tasked with ASW. We only have 14 and it will be heavily utilised in wartime in sanitising our maritime approaches to protect our convoys and amphibs from submarines.P8 has 9 hardpoints
4 underwing and 5 in the weapons bay.
Only the 4 on the wing have the capacity to carry heavy weapons in the 2000 Ib class.
JASSM weighs 2200 Ib.
So maximum carriage of JASSM by a P8 is 4 not 11.
The weapons bay can only carry light weight weapons.
Above quotes from the The War Zone article linked to in the original comment.
Number of JASSMs able to be carried by B21 is unkown.
Number of JASSMs able to be carried by B2 is known to be 16.
B-2's First Launch Of Stealthy JASSM-ER Cruise Missile Disclosed
In addition to longer-range cruise missiles, B-2s have been receiving upgrades to their nuclear capabilities and communications systems.
B21 being a little smaller than B2 likely carries a few less.
Perhaps 8 to 12 JASSMs per aircraft.
[/QUOTE
P8 in service with the RAAF
We are to acquire 14 aircraft which will be supported by four MQ 4c Tritons.
Our P8s will get LRASM and potentially JASSM er.
Now I get the appeal of the B21 but to be fair it’s out of our league.
The above however is a reality.
An Ariel archer that can carry and deploy a missile in the 900 km plus range is utilising distance for defence
Yes it has limitations ,but it more importantly offers a lot of options
The P8 has a cruising speed similar to the non stealthy B52 which is still going to soldier on into the 2050s.
B52 will deploy the above
The combat radius for a P8 with four JASSM er on a strike mission is not available in the public forum but deleting the four hour on duty fuel load for a tradition flight out to 2000k we can gather it is considerable.
Add the range of the ordnance any adversary will know that when you are 3000 plus km from our coast you are very much on guard.
We should very much invest in the potential of this platform and suggest invest in a couple more.
Let’s not just treat it as a traditional maritime aircraft.
It’s so much more than that and needs a culture to match.
Like it or not it’s our B21
Cheers
I don’t think the RAAF would want to risk these expensive and low density high demand assets on long range strikes against Chinese carrier battle groups and surface action groups. It’s not stealthy, it’s slow and it is not designed to fly low level for long distances. It just won’t be survivable in a contested environment in any offensive role without fighter escort and jamming support (even with stand off missiles). To survive you either need very high speed ingress and egress or very low observability. The P-8 has neither.
If the F-111 ceased to be a viable strike asset in the 2010s without fighter escort, you can be sure that an unescorted P-8 is going to be a sitting duck in the 2030s.
Last edited:
So why is the B52 continuing to serve?
Not fast or stealthily or on occasion escorted.
I would have no intention for a P8 to go anywhere near contested air space.
The platforms weapons range will do the dirty stuff, the aircraft will stay out of harms way.
Does that mean there are many scenarios we cannot fulfill
For sure.
We are at the end of the day just a middle power with only so much reach.
That said, we do have relatively long range reach with our various defence assets in our own neighbourhood.
The P8 is one of them.
Too much fixation with taking on a Asian super power on their home tuff
That requires asset acquisition that will be to the detriment of a balanced ADF.
We can only afford so much.
Cheers S
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #9,787
Rather inaccurate IMO, given the variety of standoff ordnance which is and will become available, as well as what the ranges are for some of these weapons. Take the AGM-158 JASSM-XR which LockMart is developing. Apparently this variant is intended to be backwards compatible whilst providing ranges out to ~2,400 km+
If this is accurate, then a RAAF P-8 Poseidon could be 1,000 km away from the target at time of launch. Not exactly 'sitting duck' range.
In that case What’s a B52?…. sorry duplicate post to an earlier comment.
What happens if Indonesia does not give us permission to fly our P-8s through its airspace (or it has been occupied by a belligerent)? How does the P-8 get to launch position without being intercepted in such a scenario?
Last edited:
Fair question
A parlous position to be in particularly if the Indonesian archipelago is occupied by another hostile player.
We have been in that position before and understand the challenge.
Given we are ranked eleventh in the world for military expenditure and we are at peace what do you propose.
I think there is scope for some dollar increase for defence but where is it to be spent.
I think the P8 covers many scenarios in peace and in conflict and believe it would be a prudent investment.
I’m sure others would bat for other candidates across the three services.
B21 is not and should not happen.
We will have a big enough challenge accomodating the SSNs while maintaining a balanced ADF.
Let’s put the B21 call in the not going to happen basket.
Cheers S
If their was an affordable modern stealthy F111 sized bomb truck in the market place it would be a good fit for the RAAF.
None were available when the decision was made to retire the F111 so we got the S Hornet which was really a stop gap for the delayed F35 roll out
As to the future when the SHornets retires we will see what manned / unmanned platform is the way forward.
If the Tempest comes to fruition, maybe that will be a part of the mix.
Cheers S
I am in complete agreement. The Tempest may be the best option going forward. Hopefully, we get involved in the programme in the near future.
It may be prudent to keep an eye on the US Navy’s FA-XX as it could fit the bill also.
It was a shame the FB-22 or FB-23 never came to fruition. A squadron of these in the RAAF would have been handy right about now.
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #9,795
One might stop and ask the question, why has no one developed a modern equivalent to the F-111 for strike/attack missions? The fact that apart from some paper designs, nothing has been developed is IMO rather telling.
One of the other things to keep in mind with the stopgap SHornet purchase, is that the strike range of a SHornet flight with air-to-air and standoff munitions was comparable to what an escorted flight of F-111's could do, without needing the same number of aircraft or pilots/flight crew.
You are correct.
But light weight weapons, could include JSM. or SDB. Etc. JSM is 900 lbs (but might be too long).
You can still perhaps fit mk83 1000lb bombs possibly with glide kits. Which is still the same size of kinetic power as LRASM (1000lb).
Not sure if you can fit smart racks to the internals, and carry BGU-52 storm breakers.
My point is if we are considering spending big money on buying a not in service platform, that is going to be crippling expensive, perhaps we should also look at maximising what we already have. Any B21 acquisition will have to justify what exactly and how exactly its capabilities are what we need for what senario, at what cost.
B21 will be an amazing aircraft. But the USAF doesn't seem terribly interested in using it for maritime strike. Its likely to be expensive to buy and operate and upgrade. It needs to be part of a system, not just an orphaned platform. We need the weapons we want to fire from it to be integrated. It will likely have a slow and small production run.
I also think that the RAAF hasn't operated a dedicated bomber since 1982.
In a world where we are talking about unmanned orbital fighters, not sure the manned bomber concept will be an easy sell for conventional strike capability. Where as something like the tempest is a bit more flexible in its roles.
Convincing leadership of a modern day F-111 with tempest seem like a more believable case than convincing them of the modern day canberra bomber, with the B21.
But I think we should watch both closely. And lobby both to have maritime strike capabilities.
I think it has a lot to do with the US being distracted by the war on terror. Trillions were spent on Afghanistan and Iraq. Had the US been focused on the threat of China in the early 2000s and 2010s we may very well have seen the F-22 remain in production and an FB-22 variant go into production.
The PLAAF certainly see the benefit of a medium regional strike aircraft for the vast Pacific theatre (see for example the J-20 and J-36).
The F-111 was a dedicated bomber. It certainly wasn’t a fighter.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #9,799
I guess you missed part of the point of my post then. The design of the F-111 originated 60 years ago, with several variants covering different specific roles getting developed. All F-111 variants in US service were retired by 1998, with the F-15E Strike Eagle taking over the role of medium-range precision strike aircraft. The US never developed a direct, dedicated replacement for the F-111 aircraft which had production end in 1976, decades before the 2000's and 2010's, or US involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq as part of the War on Terror.
By the time F-111 production ceased, the US was producing 4th gen combat aircraft which we are familiar with and which have become more capable and multi-role as time has progressed. By this time, the concept of a new, dedicated medium-ranged strike/bomber aircraft just did not make sense for the US for a variety of reasons. Had the concept really had legs, then the US would have developed a dedicated medium-range strike (as opposed to multi-role) aircraft at some point in nearly 50 years since the last F-111 was produced.
Correct
Really the aircraft was incorrectly named.
F stands for Fighter.
As in F 16 , F 15
F 18 and now F 35.
Really it’s a dated term and description.
Most of the teen series have evolved into multiple aircraft.
To make things more confusing variants with in the above have evolved special subsets with specialised roles in either air defence or strike .
F15 being a good example.
None the less they all have a multi role capability.
Back to the Fllll , it was kind of hoped it would be a multi role plane for both the US airforce and navy.
Navy stayed with the F14 and showed little interest with the F111 and Airforce persevered with it.
Its design made sense for the era but I think the F tag at the start was more politics than what the plane was actually used for.
That said as beyond range missiles became the way forward it would of been interesting if in the 80s and 90s if the F111 was given the avionics to carry both bombs and the full range of AAMs
available at the timetable.
Such an aircraft would of proved a formidable long range multirole platform and may of become what the F15 has evolved into today
Like many an aircraft
If only!
Cheers S