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

[John Fedup]

A Super Tomcat would have been great for he USN if maintenance issues could have been addressed. Still my favourite “teen” 4th generation jet!

 

[Todjaeger]

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

Just a reminder that the F-111 was from a design from the generation before the teen series of US fighters like F-14, F-15, F-16, F-17 & F-18 and therefore the naming and numbering convention used at the time as a little different. The F-4 Phantom fighter-bomber as an example, was originally to be the F-110 Specter before getting re-designated. Other designs which preceded the F-111 were the F-106 Delta Dart interceptor, or the F-105 Thunderchief fighter-bomber. My personal favourite though is the SR-71 Blackbird, which was supposed to be the RS-71 but IIRC a certain US political figure misspoke...

As a side note, much of the avionics developed for the F-111B was further developed and featured in the F-14 Tomcat, which filled the fleet air defense role for the USN that the F-111B was originally intended for. The basic F-111 aircraft was originally planned to have variants covering the fighter and strike/bomber roles. This is why the FB-111 also entered service, though it ended up getting replaced in the strategic bombing role once the B-1 bomber entered service. Once the strategic bombing role was gone, then it became used for more tactical bombing which was no longer done by B-series aircraft.

Now me being me, I personally think the that F-35 should be more properly designated as the F/A-35 since it very much have both fighter and attack/strike roles.

As for giving the F-111 the avionics for air-to-air missions... that actually did happen, before it was decided not to field such variants. Given the costs involved in continuing to operate the aircraft (and why it was completely removed from US service by 1998) trying to re-work the 1960's design seems like it would have been a waste of resources. Despite that, IIRC a certain Australian air power advocacy group had members that has developed at least a paper design referred to as a Missileer...

 

[Julian 82]

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.

Yes, the F-15E was the ultimate replacement for the F-111 in the USAF and apart from the lesser combat radius (which was not a big issue for the Central European theatre) was an overall superior combat aircraft compared to the F-111

The point I was trying to make was that there was talk of replacing the F-15E/F-111 in USAF service with a stealthy multirole strike aircraft with a decent range and payload like the ill fated A-12 and later the A/F-X. The post Cold War peace dividend and unipolar world meant there was no money and no justification for a longer range stealthy strike aircraft and these designs were sadly killed off very early on. Ultimately this led to the JSF program. Multirole but shorter range aircraft made sense in the tighter budgetary environment and for the interventions in Europe and the Middle East where the US had access to basing close by.

Had the A-12, A/F-X, FB-22 or FB-23 gone into production they would be very useful and highly relevant in today’s Pacific theatre. Maybe we will see something developed out of the US Navy’s FA-XX. Something for the RAAF to keep an eye on.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The F-111 was a dedicated bomber. It certainly wasn’t a fighter.

Was it just a dedicated USAF bomber program? Or was it a bit of mix, at least in its development?

• It could carry Aim9 and it was even equipped to fire Aim 7.
• It was designed to carry Aim-54 or Aim-47
• It could land and take off from carriers
• It had a 20mm cannon
• It carried harpoon missiles

AFAIK the B21 isn't going to be fitted with a gun, air to air missiles, or maritime strike weapons. The B21 isn't an obvious modern analog of a F-111. The B-21 is more akin to pure air force dedicated bombers, like the B2, B1, B19 , B21 or B57 bomber. AFAIK the B21 isn't designed to go hunting moving platforms like ships or aircraft.

More so, we never purchased any other US bomber after the F-111. The US didn't develop a replacement and the Navy A12 was canned and the F-14 had a fairly short life.

I'm not arguing that it was a Fighter either but it was born out of a program literally called the Tactical Fighter Experimental, so I think calling it a pure bomber is also not fair to what developed it, and became. Which was an aircraft that had bomber and multirole fighter aspects.

I think the reasoning that the B21 is a modern F-111 and would perform the exact some role with the exact same need and justification is perhaps not ideal. I would be hesitant to think that the B21 is going to pick up Navy missions immediately. I don't think the B21 is going to be firing Aim missiles (like 9 or 174 immediately either.

I think the problematic interservice rivalry with the F-111 is exactly why perhaps we should look at the Tempest concept. To see if that meets our needs better. As a land based, long range aircraft maneuverable enough to be useful in BVR combat, but also antishipping. At the very least looking at it may mean the US then takes our antishipping needs in mind.

 

[StevoJH]

Time and technology have moved on from single role strike aircraft in the size range of the F-111.

I was amazed at the size of the Pave Tack attached to the F-111C at Evan’s Head a few months ago, it’s huge.

A platform like Tempest would make (if the capability matches the hype) a good tier 1 strike/QRA platform to supplement and possibly even later replace F-35. It definitely has the potential to be hideously expensive though.

Anyone talking about LR strike from Northern Australia shouldn’t forget that Indonesian airspace is between us and any likely target, and that the distances are extremely large for any single seat or twin seat aircraft (fatigue).

 

[Meriv90]

It definitely has the potential to be hideously expensive though.

I would agree, but considering how broke are all 3 governments involved that we are bringing in the Saudis, I think there will be great focus to keep thing in line and in budget (also helps the Japanese are inside for this).

 

[Todjaeger]

The point I was trying to make was that there was talk of replacing the F-15E/F-111 in USAF service with a stealthy multirole strike aircraft with a decent range and payload like the ill fated A-12 and later the A/F-X. The post Cold War peace dividend and unipolar world meant there was no money and no justification for a longer range stealthy strike aircraft and these designs were sadly killed off very early on. Ultimately this led to the JSF program. Multirole but shorter range aircraft made sense in the tighter budgetary environment and for the interventions in Europe and the Middle East where the US had access to basing close by.

The above is mixing together and conflating several things.

There had been some thought to use a variant of the A-12 Avenger II as a replacement for the F-111 in USAF service, but that idea died in 1991 with the cancellation of the A-12 by the then SecDef Dick Cheney. Had the A-12 actually been successfully developed and brought into service to the desired specifications, there would have been some capability crossover between the F-111 and A-12, but overall they would have provided some serious differences in terms of performance and capability. Pretty much the only thing which might have been comparable is the strike range profile (w/o using drop tanks) for a particular F-111 mission profile. IMO people need to remember that the USN Advanced Tactical Aircraft (ATA) programme began in 1983, which is what led to the A-12, was started to develop a replacement for the Grumman A-6 Intruder all-weather carrier attack aircraft. The A-12 programme itself was supposed to achieve first flight in 1990, and be in service by 1994. USMC versions of the A-6 were retired in 1993, with the last variant, the EA-6B Prowler getting retired by the USN in 1997. The A-12 itself never achieved flight, so it is unknown how close the aircraft would actually have gotten to the specified performance, but if it did manage it, the LO aircraft would have had a combat range of ~800 n miles, whilst carrying up to ~5,000 lbs of ordnance in an internal weapons bay and flying at subsonic speeds.

At the time Cheney cancelled the A-12 programme, it had already cost USD$2 bil. and was behind schedule. It was also unknown how long before it would be ready for service, or how much it would cost to complete development given that there were still some significant development problems with the programme. This led to the A-12 getting cancelled in early January 1991, well ahead of the collapse of the USSR which happened in December 1991 and before the Cold War 'Peace Dividend' really came into being. Had the A-12 been completed and a version enter USAF service, it would have more closely been a replacement for the attack role of the F-117 Nighthawk and not the F-111.

As for the idea that the FB-22 could have been a replacement for the F-111, again this would be a no. The paper design work by LockMart on the FB-22 concept did not start until ~2001, five years after the last strike F-111 retired from USAF service. The EW version, the EF-111A Raven, was retired by the USAF in 1998 and had been the last type to remain in US service. However, the EW role would not have been appropriate for the FB-22 because the EW emissions would have negated the advantages a LO aircraft has.

 

[Volkodav]

There's is a lot of talk about platforms and very little about outcomes, i.e. knowing what who has where, what their intentions are, and options to do something about it, if needed.

Trained, experienced and capable personnel are perhaps the greatest constraint, followed by sufficient pool of people suitable to be trained, assuming there are enough people to train them. Then comes infrastructure, which includes the people to design, build and operate it.

Only then can we seriously talk about platforms and how many.

Even then it's a question of priorities and threat profiles. Would a dozen B-21s be able to get beyond the first island chain, would any survive to go again? Would they end up launching long range munitions from different vectors to complicate defence of an invasion force that is also dealing with deployed ground based missiles, surface ship launched missiles, P-8, F/A-18F/G and F-35s, while being stalked by SSNs?

B-21 would be a very useful extra string, and if the resources are available, a good choice, but there are many other priorities that are more critical, more game changing.

Mention was made of the B-24 force of WWII. It was useful, definately more so that the Vultee Vengeance dive bombers they replaced, but they were a late war acquisition, after we had all the tactical fighters, fighter bombers, strike and tactical bombers we could use.

 

[Bob53]

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

typing with boxing gloves on. Didn’t mean to replay but can delete? Mods?

 

[downunderblue]

AFAIK the B21 isn't going to be fitted with a gun, air to air missiles, or maritime strike weapons. The B21 isn't an obvious modern analog of a F-111. The B-21 is more akin to pure air force dedicated bombers, like the B2, B1, B19 , B21 or B57 bomber. AFAIK the B21 isn't designed to go hunting moving platforms like ships or aircraft.

Case in point, I thought the initial B-21 priority would be strategic deterrance missions under U.S. Strategic Command, where other units may be retasked for conventional long range strike missions.

I'm only guessing, but I would have thought the avionics package would be initially written for strategic ordinance, for conventional payload to catchup in the near future?

The B-21 is scheduled to first deploy to Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota, then Whiteman AFB in Missouri. By the time it deploys to Dyess AFB in Texas I assume it may then be tasked in the Global Strike Command in multirole missions but that may be some time down the track.

I may be wrong and it's not easy finding clarity on this, but I assume the initial priority would be strategic deterance considering it's importance to the nuclear triad concept. You'd want your most capable strike aircraft in this role to maintain that credible nuclear deterant.

 

[MARKMILES77]

Looks like 28 extra F-35s on the cards if Coalition wins the election.
If they feel extra fighters are needed urgently, might be better going for Super Hornets which are likely available much more quickly.
F-35s probably not available for 5+(?) years.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=TAWEB_WRE170_a&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2Fnation%2Fdefence%2Fkhaki-election-dutton-vows-to-buy-more-f35s-if-coalition-wins-office%2Fnews-story%2Fb5686446b2946ccc892103e3d1002666&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium

 

[Sandson41]

Looks like 28 extra F-35s on the cards if Coalition wins the election.
If they feel extra fighters are needed urgently, might be better going for Super Hornets which are likely available much more quickly.
F-35s probably not available for 5+(?) years.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=TAWEB_WRE170_a&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2Fnation%2Fdefence%2Fkhaki-election-dutton-vows-to-buy-more-f35s-if-coalition-wins-office%2Fnews-story%2Fb5686446b2946ccc892103e3d1002666&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium

View attachment 52384

Paywalled.
Does it specify they're talking about a new squadron? Because it sounds to me like they're talking about REPLACING the 24 Super Hornets in No.1 squadron.
Net increase would = 4.

 

[OldTex]

If (a big if at that) additional aircraft are to be ordered for the RAAF perhaps the priority would be for 12-14 F/A-18Fs before the line is closed by Boeing. This would provide an increase in the strike capability (including maritime strike). A later order for 12-14 F-35s could be made without any urgency as there will be no impending closure in the foreseeable future. The major concern is the provision of aircrew and ground crew to operate and maintain any additional aircraft.

 

[Todjaeger]

If (a big if at that) additional aircraft are to be ordered for the RAAF perhaps the priority would be for 12 F/A-18Fs before the line is closed by Boeing. This would provide an increase in the strike capability (including maritime strike). A later order for 12-14 F-35s could be made without any urgency as there will be no impending closure in the foreseeable future. The major concern is the provision of aircrew and ground crew to operate and maintain any additional aircraft.

There might not be a need for more crews, air & ground, if more F/A-18F's were to be acquired. It sort of depends on whether or not more active numbers are being sought, or if such a purchase was being done to spread the flight hours across more aircraft and a larger fleet. Such a move, whilst expensive up front, could reduce some of the longer term maintenance expenses because some of the major maintenance and overhauls might not be required as frequently. There could also be an added benefit in that more platforms are in inventory so that if something were to kick off, there might be more units for attrition and/or the possibility of surging more platforms providing extra crews are available in the future.

 

[OldTex]

There might not be a need for more crews, air & ground, if more F/A-18F's were to be acquired. It sort of depends on whether or not more active numbers are being sought, or if such a purchase was being done to spread the flight hours across more aircraft and a larger fleet. Such a move, whilst expensive up front, could reduce some of the longer term maintenance expenses because some of the major maintenance and overhauls might not be required as frequently. There could also be an added benefit in that more platforms are in inventory so that if something were to kick off, there might be more units for attrition and/or the possibility of surging more platforms providing extra crews are available in the future.

That is an interesting point. Going with such a strategy would mean the strike fleet could be extended until such time as a suitable replacement aircraft, such as the UK Tempest/GCAP, is available. As you point out as well it also allows for attrition and surge usage in a hotter scenario.

 

[MARKMILES77]

Paywalled.
Does it specify they're talking about a new squadron? Because it sounds to me like they're talking about REPLACING the 24 Super Hornets in No.1 squadron.
Net increase would = 4.

Article does not clarify if the extra F-35s would replace the Super Hornets. Just states Dutton promises to buy 28 more F-35s.

Australia would get an extra 28 F-35 joint strike fighters under a Coalition government, with Peter Dutton vowing to boost the RAAF’s stealth jet fleet to 100 aircraft if he becomes prime minister after this year’s election.

In the first major defence commitment in what looms a khaki-tinged election race, the Opposition Leader pledged to reverse Labor’s decision not to proceed with a fourth squadron of F-35s.

The Coalition would provide an initial $3bn in additional Defence Department funding for the jets, with the aim of securing the first of the jets within five years.

 

[MARKMILES77]

Here is the Liberal party statement on the extra F-35s.
Released Sunday 2 March.
Does not clarify whether the Super Hornets are retained or replaced by the extra F-35s.
If the Super Hornets are to be replaced, 12 of them were "prewired" and could be converted into 12 extra Growlers.

Dutton, Hastie - Media Release - Increase in F-35A Capability for the Royal Australian Air Force - Peter Dutton MP - Federal Member for Dickson

An elected Dutton Coalition Government will reinstate the acquisition of the fourth F-35A Lightning II squadron which Labor cancelled in their 2024-25 Budget. The Coalition’s acquisition of the additional fourth F-35A squadron will bolster the Royal Australian Air Force’s strike and air combat...

peterdutton.com.au

 

[StevoJH]

Here is the Liberal party statement on the extra F-35s.
Released Sunday 2 March.
Does not clarify whether the Super Hornets are retained or replaced by the extra F-35s.
If the Super Hornets are to be replaced, 12 of them were "prewired" and could be converted into 12 extra Growlers.

Dutton, Hastie - Media Release - Increase in F-35A Capability for the Royal Australian Air Force - Peter Dutton MP - Federal Member for Dickson

An elected Dutton Coalition Government will reinstate the acquisition of the fourth F-35A Lightning II squadron which Labor cancelled in their 2024-25 Budget. The Coalition’s acquisition of the additional fourth F-35A squadron will bolster the Royal Australian Air Force’s strike and air combat...

peterdutton.com.au

I just had that exact thought. The could increase the number of Growlers to 24 and the 12 un-wired F models could then all be used by the OCU.

If another Squadron of F-35's was stood up it would raise the question of where to base it. Would you put it at Williamtown, Amberley, Tindal or Pearce?

Pearce could be beneficial with the continued expansion of Henderson and FBW, and allowing people to stay in the west after completing a stint at 79 Squadron.

 

[Sandson41]

Here is the Liberal party statement on the extra F-35s.
Released Sunday 2 March.
Does not clarify whether the Super Hornets are retained or replaced by the extra F-35s.
If the Super Hornets are to be replaced, 12 of them were "prewired" and could be converted into 12 extra Growlers.

Dutton, Hastie - Media Release - Increase in F-35A Capability for the Royal Australian Air Force - Peter Dutton MP - Federal Member for Dickson

An elected Dutton Coalition Government will reinstate the acquisition of the fourth F-35A Lightning II squadron which Labor cancelled in their 2024-25 Budget. The Coalition’s acquisition of the additional fourth F-35A squadron will bolster the Royal Australian Air Force’s strike and air combat...

peterdutton.com.au

If they were planning to expand the combat strength of the RAAF to 124 they would lead with that in the statement, I'm sure.

So they're talking about replacing the still fairly young F-18Fs with F-35s. No word on what they'll do with the surplus F-18s - sell them to Canada?

Current plan is we wait and keep our missile trucks for another 15 years and then invest in something new around 2035-2040, right?

I thought we wanted the F-18s since they carry LRASMs. Wouldn't we have less maritime strike this way?

 

[StevoJH]

If they were planning to expand the combat strength of the RAAF to 124 they would lead with that in the statement, I'm sure.

So they're talking about replacing the still fairly young F-18Fs with F-35s. No word on what they'll do with the surplus F-18s - sell them to Canada?

Current plan is we wait and keep our missile trucks for another 15 years and then invest in something new around 2035-2040, right?

I thought we wanted the F-18s since they carry LRASMs. Wouldn't we have less maritime strike this way?

Not necessarily, they specifically did not mention the F-18's in any way.

It could go either way.