MARKMILES77
Well-Known Member
Accountants will say Williamtown. All the F-35 supporting infrastructure is there.
But I agree with you that Pearce is probably the best choice.
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
But I agree with you that Pearce is probably the best choice.
Given that the RAAF has its maritime strike capability and future hypersonic weapons tied to F-18F I reckon you are right.
Makes sense But are more growlers needed? 24 growlers is the same as 4 USN carrier squadrons.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 wonder how much input the RAAF gets into these thought bubbles before they get published? Assuming it’s in addition to the Super Hornets and growlers and MQ28s ….if your the leadership team of the RAAF is this what you want or might you consider something else for $3 billion?
or if it’s instead of the Super Hornets and growlers are you happy about it?
To me I would be looking further an airframe that can carry the biggest load the furthest distance. With long range offensive weapons I’m not sure stealth is as important for the Task. The RAAF seems to have no issue with the Shornets in this role.
Last edited:
downunderblue
Active Member
I'm all for an increased overall commitment, but am seriously sceptical about an opposition making a commitment so close to the election. Where is the logical and planning behind this beyond a great headline and a lot of bluster.
Do we need them? Serious q. Many will say yes as how can they not benefit us, but what additional capability or sustainment do they bring and how do they compare against other spending options or capabilities regardless of service?
The $ should be directly related to the capability to best address our strategy of deterant and denial and every dollar has to spent wisely in that pursuit. Where is the analysis from the Coalition that this is the best use of public monies in this pursuit, or is it just a good and easy headline to create a differential in what appears to be a defacto election campaign and one where every vote and headline matters?
Again, I'm not saying no, but I ask where is the analysis, when quite often Opposition policy (regardless of party) is formed without substantial reasoning after a thought bubble occurred after reading the back of a cereal box?
For me, its all about thinking smarter, not harder, which for me is never a given when you've added politics to the equation.
Maybe some of you can enlighten me and reduce my bias/ sceptasism by highlighting why this is the best use of $ given our strategic focus?
Do we need them? Serious q. Many will say yes as how can they not benefit us, but what additional capability or sustainment do they bring and how do they compare against other spending options or capabilities regardless of service?
The $ should be directly related to the capability to best address our strategy of deterant and denial and every dollar has to spent wisely in that pursuit. Where is the analysis from the Coalition that this is the best use of public monies in this pursuit, or is it just a good and easy headline to create a differential in what appears to be a defacto election campaign and one where every vote and headline matters?
Again, I'm not saying no, but I ask where is the analysis, when quite often Opposition policy (regardless of party) is formed without substantial reasoning after a thought bubble occurred after reading the back of a cereal box?
For me, its all about thinking smarter, not harder, which for me is never a given when you've added politics to the equation.
Maybe some of you can enlighten me and reduce my bias/ sceptasism by highlighting why this is the best use of $ given our strategic focus?
One thing I will give the current government some credit for is that they produced the DSR which will inform them as far as future acquisitions are concerned.
On the otherhand Dutton does seem to be addressing and urgent need to boost our defence capability. I am concerned that the navy is so heavily reliant on a rapidly aging and shrinking fleet. Acquiring a couple of dozen F-35s will add significantly to Australia's overall strike capability in about the same time it would take us to commission a single GPF.
Sad truth is that years of procrastination and buck passing has left the navy in a terrible state that might still take a couple of decades to rectify. Until that happens boosting spending on the airforce might be essential to cover that capability gap.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Don’t forget that the original plan when the 24 Super Hornets were ordered was for them to be an interim capability, to be replaced by a fourth squadron of F-35’s. The purchase was accelerated as the USN agreed to give up build slots.
The SH’s were to be locked into the USN upgrade path to reduce costs, and possibly to allow sale back to the USN when replaced.
Then it was decided to have 12 of them wired for possible future conversion to Growler specifications, followed after that by a decision to order 12 Growlers taking the fleet size to 36. And now it is 30% of our total fleet.
And then somewhere along the way it was decided to retain the SH’s and cancel or defer the 4th squadron of F-35’s.
The SH’s were to be locked into the USN upgrade path to reduce costs, and possibly to allow sale back to the USN when replaced.
Then it was decided to have 12 of them wired for possible future conversion to Growler specifications, followed after that by a decision to order 12 Growlers taking the fleet size to 36. And now it is 30% of our total fleet.
And then somewhere along the way it was decided to retain the SH’s and cancel or defer the 4th squadron of F-35’s.
Takao
The Bunker Group
There are sillier things, but not sure what.
It can't carry a worthwhile strike weapon without giving up stealth - in which case buy something like an F-15EX or FA/18F that can actually carry a worthwhile load.
We have 3 Sqn already - you know what we don't have enough of? KC-30, P-8, airlift, artillery, infantry fighting vehicles, AORs, destroyers, resilient infrastructure, weapons, fuel, spares for existing fleets. There are so many better things to spend money on. We already have Squadrons of fighters, why do we need more when other fleets are well below minimums?
Assuming it goes ahead, it's unlikely to fit in in the next decade - in which case, what can one talk about will be the strike fighter of the day in 2035? Will it be crewed? Will it be stealth? Will it fit in a network - or will the tension with Beijing have driven network-centric warfare out of reach? Come 2035 the F-35 will be 30 years old. Buying new ones then make not make sense....
Block 4 on the F35 appears to make it a very capable platform for a multitude of roles.
Once LRASM and NSM are both integrated the F35 appears to be the way forward.
As capable as the SHornet/ Growler force are the future opportunity should be with the F35.
One variable would be time to service.
The other is all the other demands across the services
cheers S
Bluey 006
Active Member
The proposed 4th F-35A squadron is an interesting development. While it may not seem to be the most urgent priority, it’s a relatively low-risk, politically safe move—an announcement that’s easy to roll out without committing to a major strategic shift. The RAAF already has the infrastructure, training pipeline, and logistics in place, so standing up a fourth squadron is just an incremental expansion rather than a whole new capability.
Additionally, it helps mitigate any capability gaps between the Super Hornet’s retirement and the eventual introduction of a sixth-generation aircraft. Any sixth-gen platform—likely NGAD (AF or Navy) or GCAP—is still at least a decade away. With the Super Hornets set to retire in the early to mid-2030s, maintaining a fast-jet fleet of respectable size and capability in the interim is essential. Moreover, with ongoing shifts in alliances, selecting the right next-generation platform or family of systems will require serious consideration.
Last edited:
It reminds me of discussions of the opportunity cost and unforseen consequences of other acquisitions in the past.
The F-111 instead of the perfectly adequate A-5B Vigilante, additional Skyhawks and Trackers instead of an additional pair of Oberon's.
The early replacement of the P-3B with an additional order of twelve P-3Cs, instead of a replacement carrier. Sold as a saving i.e. longer range ASW at less cost than a new carrier, it resulted in the transfer of the Seakings from the ASW role, retirement of the Trackers, and the neutering of Ikara, for an overall reduction in the ADFs ASW capability.
Loss of ikara turned the River class DEs into oversized patrol assets. Even worse, it pretty much forced the purchase of the Seahawk instead on the Lynx, and the expensive upgrade of the first three FFGs to operate them. I believe the final cost was greater than a helicopter carrier, able to operate the Seakings, would have been.
Passing on the Lynx led to the later Super Sea Sprite acquisition.
Maybe keeping the P-3Bs an extra decade wouldn't have been so bad.
But LRASM won’t be carried internally. Would be an issue along with limited capacity. Can a F35 carry 2 LRASMs or 2 LRASM-XR when available? If it’s not stealth something with longer legs and bigger load seems more suitable for the role….. Of which the only thing I can think of is F15 but I assume that would come with significantly added cost for support infrastructure and training. Then again I would also assume a change from SH to F15 would not be a massive change for the pilots.Block 4 on the F35 appears to make it a very capable platform for a multitude of roles.
Once LRASM and NSM are both integrated the F35 appears to be the way forward.
As capable as the SHornet/ Growler force are the future opportunity should be with the F35.
One variable would be time to service.
The other is all the other demands across the services
cheers S
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Block 4 and TR3 upgrades for the F-35 isn't a happy situation. Even if these upgrades were a go now, the ECU for the F135 engine is 2030 at best. The current engine durability will suck with the Block 4/TR3 package due to cooling issues. From a Canadian perspective, I think our 88 unit buy of F-35s should be delayed until the ECU and Block 4/TR3 situation is sorted. Furthermore, 30 F-15EXs and 40 F-35s might be a better option. The F-15EX is a better option for NORAD operations and perhaps these could be operational well before F-35 Block4 with the ECU engines.
I feel that additional F-35 right now would be a mistake. They won't get here in time, more like 2035.. Post conflict world. Acquiring them would put the F-18 on a death spiral, no more upgrades, weapons acquisitions (like LRASM? Aim174?) would stop, people don't want to attach their careers to a dying platform.
I would rather go with another 12 SH. They could be delivered 2028. There is a large pool of F-18 pilots that could/maintainers be re-trained into Superhornets. Stand them up to block III spec, with the CFT. Pickup up ex-USN F-18 drivers/maintainers is also a thing. Not sure how many retired F-35 Pilots/maintainers there are who we could convince to resettle/have a family in Australia.
- F-35 still has basically no antishipping capability. We will be lucky to upgrade all the F-35 to block IV before 2028. Even then, is there even a program for Aim174 on the F-35? F-35 integration work still appears backlogged.
- F-35 supply chain is still pretty fickle, its globalised, they are max trying to keep up with new builds, there is no bone yards for F-35s.
- F-35 is popular in NATO. In a European conflict, the european fleet will get all the attention, parts and supply.
Aim174 (sm-6 on a plane) is likely to be of great interest to us keeping chinese bombers, AWACs, etc far away from our region. Stealth doesn't really help in that mission.
That said, I'm not sure fighters are the priority, but F-18 is something we could get delivered before 2028 if we ordered now and maybe got some USN slots. P8's probably would be more of a boost in maritime strike/patrol but I don't know if we would get them in time, some big orders have just been placed (canada ordered 17?). We will be heavily dependant on that P8 fleet come war time. We should probably order 3 more an hope we get them.
At this point we should be making smaller more immediate orders for conflict preparation. Delivery dates are more important than cost currently. We should also expect that some of our ordered may be raided by nations who need it more than us. So if we order 18 F-18, the USN might want their slots back. That would be ok, we just helped the USN get 18 more airframes than they would have had. Keeping that F-18 production line hot until 2030 may be very useful.
We should probably make a priority list of every weapon/platform that could realistically see 2028 delivery, and place orders.
MARKMILES77
Well-Known Member
[Edit: StingrayOz. Only saw your post after I made this one. Agree entirely!]
Capability is one criteria but availability is another.
The reality is, if F-35s are ordered LM will offer to start delivering them from probably 2030 to 2031, with last delivery in 2032 or 2033 or so.
Boeing, on the other hand, is running out of orders, with Congress keeping the line open with an order for 17 in 2024. Deliveries to start in 2026 and be completed by 2027. Boeing is likely VERY keen to get new orders so that production doesn't end. So delivery of Super Hornets would be years earlier. Also, would Boeing offer a price much lower than LM? LM is unlikely to offer any discounts.
What if the price difference was large enough to allow the purchase of 28 F-35s or 28 Super hornets with enough money left over to buy two extra KC-30 tankers for example? Which would be a better option?
The answer may have nothing to do with the aircraft's relative capabilities but everything to do with your assessment of the Geopolitical risks re China/Taiwan etc. If you think nothing is likely to happen until after 2032/2033 then a buy of F-35s may be the best option.
If, on the other hand, you think there is risk of conflict prior to 2032 then clearly a buy of extra Super Hornets is the best option.
Personally, I think Australia needs to get as much capability as possible into place, as soon as possible.
Of course all of this is moot if Dutton's plan is to buy F-35s and use them to replace the Super Hornets rather than expanding the fighter fleet.
Capability is one criteria but availability is another.
The reality is, if F-35s are ordered LM will offer to start delivering them from probably 2030 to 2031, with last delivery in 2032 or 2033 or so.
Boeing, on the other hand, is running out of orders, with Congress keeping the line open with an order for 17 in 2024. Deliveries to start in 2026 and be completed by 2027. Boeing is likely VERY keen to get new orders so that production doesn't end. So delivery of Super Hornets would be years earlier. Also, would Boeing offer a price much lower than LM? LM is unlikely to offer any discounts.
What if the price difference was large enough to allow the purchase of 28 F-35s or 28 Super hornets with enough money left over to buy two extra KC-30 tankers for example? Which would be a better option?
The answer may have nothing to do with the aircraft's relative capabilities but everything to do with your assessment of the Geopolitical risks re China/Taiwan etc. If you think nothing is likely to happen until after 2032/2033 then a buy of F-35s may be the best option.
If, on the other hand, you think there is risk of conflict prior to 2032 then clearly a buy of extra Super Hornets is the best option.
Personally, I think Australia needs to get as much capability as possible into place, as soon as possible.
Of course all of this is moot if Dutton's plan is to buy F-35s and use them to replace the Super Hornets rather than expanding the fighter fleet.
It’s the same plan the Coalition had through it’s Force Structure Plan 2020, which the ALP discarded.
I’ve never quite understood why a non-stealthy aircraft carrying LRASM (or any other standoff weapon of choice) is considered a good capability, but an F-35 carrying the same weapons is frowned upon?
I’ve always assumed it‘s ability to switch between full LO configuration or full external load carriage is actually a tactical benefit, not a detriment…
The program and users certainly seem to think so as well.
Curious.
I don't think Price is a big factor here. Fighter jets are expensive, they are broadly similar in purchase cost. The F-18 is probably cheaper to operate currently. But it has weapons and mission capabilities we need. The F-18 is a USN aircraft, the F-35A is a USAF aircraft. F-18 has LRASM and Aim174 and is the only aircraft with those capabilities.
I personally think the fully 5th gen fleet idea is dead. The US and basically every other nation is moving away from it. 5th gen gives compromises, even if it's just cost, development delays and complexity. Again, in peacetime, sure, wait for the 5th gen fighters, but that isn't the situation we are heading into. In 1939 should we have not purchased fighters, and waited for jets to arrive in 1950?
I don't see us standing up a 4th squadron of F-35 before 2035, probably 2040+, there is no capability to push that forward. So that takes a lot of money, people, oxygen, planning on something very far off.
The F-18 line was meant to close this year, it was only a last minute special decision to acquire 17 jets that kept the line open till 2027. Perhaps we should try to buy those ~18 aircraft. USN may be happy to do that. USN gets their money back and they can plow it back into subs, destroyers etc. So this is probably the last chance to acquire those aircraft. We can also possibly acquire some of those pilots/maintainers(!). Particularly with the new administration looking at a ~10% defence cut, the current US situation, people may be willing to look at jumping across. RAAF still gets an extra squadron. It is the only way this extra squadron is going to happen in the next 40 years.
KC-30 would be interesting. There is a A330+ that may be worth considering, but 7% additional range/operation cost reduction may not be worth it.
Airbus launches A330 MRTT+ to deliver extended range - Breaking Defense. But again 2028 window is closing/closed.
I worry that both parties and the bureaucrats are travelling along a business as usual. I'm not sure that is the case anymore.
The days of long careful considered acquisitions, for new platforms are pretty much over. We are in a near war period. We buy what is available. There won't be production slots or capabilities, regardless of price, no matter the need. No matter how much we decide we needed it. Our allies and friends will look to us to try to fill their holes in capabilities . Its not just an opportunity cost, its you spend and buy this, or you buy nothing. Putting aside a peer conflict with China. I'm not sure we will be able to regularly buy weapons from the US, like we used to. They are likely to have many problems including programs finishing, programs cut, programs not starting. Look at the US 6th gen programs. Look at the Constellation class.
Its entirely possible that F-35 production or development will cease/halt during the next 4 years. It could also just become unavalible for sales to Australia. Unlikely, but it is entirely possible. Its also possible it gets further delays and production problems. I don't think that is something we have seen in the last 100 years of acquiring weapons from the US.
We often talk about fighter jets like they are family heirlooms. They are consumables. Big expensive, rare consumables. In a conflict they will be used up and lost doing their job. They consume parts, and having a junk yard full of decades of production is useful. We could buy airframes of F18 from boneyards today, ship them to Australia.
Even just continuing our P8 patrols, they will need escorts going forward to be credible. Even when operating in our own EEZ. That is a whole bunch of extra flight hours, China will try to wear us(and allies) down just through OP. Realistically P8's won't be doing those missions for ever. There will be fighters intercepting fighters in countries EEZ and territorial zones. Maybe we should start a bone yard of 737-700 and 737-800 aircraft to support P8 and E7 ops.
When we talk about increasing GDP spending on defence, it needs to be capability right away, not 20 years in the future, spending a whole lot of money paper work won't help our fight in 2028. We need to shift our mindset.
Sorry, how are there pilots, maintainers etc available for Super Hornet but not F-35? We were also able to negotiate more rapid access to UH-60M Black Hawk than the current order book suggests we could. Same might well be true for F-35. We are a development partner for F-35 after all, not just a customer as we are for Black Hawk.
Super Hornet has LRASM? RAAF doesn’t at this point (publicly at least) and like RAAF Super Hornet / LRASM integration, the same integration is on-going for F-35 (and P-8A Poseidon for that matter).
RAAF studied these issues at length and wanted the additional F-35 which was the plan under FSP2020. They could have easily opted for more Super Hornet / Growlers, but they want more F-35.
I don’t think the acquisition timeline is the issue that people are suggesting. The timeline has been to get ready for 2027. Well short of already made fighters, nothing more will be available by then. If it is no longer 2027 - then what year are we talking about for this “war” we are supposed to be getting ready for?
