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

[StingrayOZ]

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.

Superhornet was introduced in 1995. It was sold as an upgrade of the Hornet. While that isn't the reality. Basically no parts are common, the concept of the plane is similar. The 70's and 80's to a 1990's plane. Crews/pilots that worked on them in the 80s/90s/2000s/2010/2020s may still be useful. It uses logistics systems, warehousing systems etc from that era. We can target ex-raaf particularly from 2010) and ex-USN (from 1995! onwards). That is all I am really trying to communicate.

The F-35 is a paradigm shift. And was only introduced in small numbers to australia in 2018. Its a completely different game in capabilities, but also design, systems, logistics, warehousing, production etc. We are currently moving block III to Block IV a huge upgrade that is going to keep everyone in the F-35 world, pilots/maintainers/accountants busy.

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.

True. But I think we all get a bit fixated on the future rather than the here and now. In 2020ish, a functional US seemed probable, China hadn't conducted any ops in the Tasman, global order seemed likely to continue particularly around Australia.

But it is a huge risk to both politicians and career people in uniform, to shoot the baby horses and ride the horses you have into war. You are actively sacrificing future capability for the here and now. Perhaps than analogy is a bit brutal.

Perhaps it's more like last drinks. When the call goes out for last drinks, you buy whatever you can as much as you can and take it back to your table. Even if it means, some wastage, something you don't really want or need.

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?

As we get closer we know when the more opportune time is likely to precipitate.

2027 is still highly likely. We may even see smaller conflicts happen then related to the major conflict. China for example may take minor islands off Taiwan and Japan and Vietnam for example. There was a directive to be ready for war by 2027.

China, Taiwan, and the PLA’s 2027 milestones | Lowy Institute

Be prepared to be surprised.

www.lowyinstitute.org

We are already seeing frantic preparations, including hardened aircraft hangars, amphibious ship production, a rapid expansion of the ballistic missile stock pile by 300%. So much so the US is frantically fitting CIWS and defences to Guam, including Marines, to stop the chinese taking Guam. Taking Guam.

2028 seems like the most likely currently. There is a US election in 2028. Several Chinese projects come in on 2028. US also has its own challenges for 2028, including the SH production line ending, its cruisers being decommissioned etc. Chinese production lead means the waiting a year gives them the advantage. So now highly likely to be late 2028 to start. Maybe early 2029. Conflict before 2030.. We are talking trying to lock in a future date of a war by a matter of months.

I'm not saying the FSP2020 was not correctly performed. But things have changed very dramatically. The future isn't as certain.

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).

But will we be able to acquire, train, test and FOC that capability for the F-35 by 2028-2030? With the F-18 it is atleast a platform that is operational with Aim174.

I've already mentioned we should acquire more P8s. This isn't an either or type situation. I am saying acquire additional of any platform/munition we can. These capital costs can be written off over multiple years, presumable the defence budget will get some sort of increase in 2028 when we are fighting a peer war in the Pacific and the US looses half its airforce and carriers. Presumably.

Even acquiring the F-18s isn't a easy thing and may be too late. Even then it would be 5 single seat F-18E and 12 two seat 18F. So unless we want to horse trade with the USN, that is all that is on the shelf. It wouldn't even be available for anyone else than Australia, if we asked for it. In fact we may never receive them, we may have to give them back to the USN.

Maybe this is dumb. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed/considered. If we are talking about acquiring 28 F-35 (which we probably should order anyway), then perhaps a discussion on what is and is not possible. Having discussion right now, means the blame game doesn't have to get played later. Those F-18 may not be available, even if we wanted them.

 

[Julian 82]

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.

https://news.usni.org/2024/03/22/navy-makes-last-planned-super-hornet-buy-secures-technical-data-packages

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.

Except Norway, the Netherlands, Canada, Belgium and Denmark who are all moving to an all F-35 fighter fleet. Italy, Japan and the UK (when GCAP enters service) are also moving to a two type stealth fighter fleet. RAAF was meant to be a single type F-35 fleet. No serious Air Force is pursuing 4th gen fighters. The F-15EX was foisted on the USAF as Corporate welfare to Boeing. The US Navy is no longer purchasing Super Hornets. They are not survivable against J-20s and J-35s and their combat radius is anaemic and wholly unsuitable for the Pacific theatre. Ironic that they had combat aircraft in the 80s with better range.

The Super Hornet was sold as a stop gap interim solution for the RAAF due to the F-35 program delays but as is typical with Australian governments who do not want spend the required coin on defence capability, it will end up serving beyond its use by date.

 

[StevoJH]

The F-15EX probably actually makes sense in the US context as a pure NORAD assigned ANG defensive asset.

While expensive in terms of capital cost, they are supposed to be quite economical to operate. They also have a ridiculous designed service life of 20,000 flight hours.

Would they work in a contested environment against a modern IADS? Probably not, and in our context we don't have enough mass of assets to buy something without that flexibility.

Could additional F-35's be procured more rapidly if they came off one of the two non-US final assembly plants? Even if the production line for Super Hornets is still technically active until 2027, what scope do Boeing have to actually accept additional orders with regards to parts suppliers and workforce?

 

[StingrayOZ]

The Super Hornet was sold as a stop gap interim solution for the RAAF due to the F-35 program delays but as is typical with Australian governments who do not want spend the required coin on defence capability, it will end up serving beyond its use by date.

Im saying we are in the same problem now. The 4th squadron of F-35 is too far away. We should have ordered them initially.

Italy, Japan and the UK (when GCAP enters service) are also moving to a two type stealth fighter fleet.

I think that is a good plan, but can we reach that far into the future with our existing fleet? Or do we find ourselves with a capability shortfall again?

At the end of the day we will have to use what we have. Its likely just as we have seen with the PLAN warship visit, we will now have our airspace and territory overflown by Chinese warplanes. The idea is to push everyone far away and keep them busy at home.

So we should expect China to perform "Russian style" penetrations of bombers and long ranged aircraft over Australian territory and allies. ever increasing.

If our fleet is fine for that, then excellent. We sit and wait for the war to start.

Pursuing CFT may be quicker than new KC-30 procurement. Not that even with CFT we should pursue KC30 anyway. I am suggesting multiple parallel overlapping acquisitions in the time we have left. ~18 potential Super Hornets wouldn't replace 28 F-35s, we would order both, on for now, one for the future. I don't think disposing of F18 would be particularly hard even if they had some life left in them. It would cost perhaps a billion, as an insurance of having something now and something for later.

Seeing states like Poland in a near war state indicate what happens when you get very close to actual conflict.
This is why we are buying ships from an overseas build and also producing them locally. Because we are running out of time.

I struggle to understand a concept where the RAN is fighting a war several years before the RAAF. But maybe its more of a disconnect between the political/Foreign affairs and the uniform. Marles seemed surprised a frigate decision wasn't happening this year. I am sure he would be under pressure to announce some new real capability coming in the near term. If Dutton wins, I presume he would want the same. I don't think there is political push back, but political disbelief.

I would also point out that POTUS at the moment seems to want to kill the F-35 program. The administration it openly talking about leaving NATO.
It may be a good time to double down on acquisitions with the US to re-assure them about our commitment. They also want to make announcements. Our allies and region want to see that kind thing too.

They are not survivable against J-20s and J-35s and their combat radius is anaemic and wholly unsuitable for the Pacific theatre.

I would envisage them for Maritime strike and for use against bombers and long range large military aircraft AWACs, airlift, EW etc. Specifically armed with Aim174. Not dog fighting. They wouldn't be for J20 or J35. Cued with E7 or JORN or ships. The idea is that they would be frequently patrolling in the air, so China doesn't even think it's a good idea to fly down here with bombers or long ranged aircraft..

Thats it. We won't be deploying them Taiwan to Fight J20's. I doubt our F-35 are going to do that either.

We will deploy them to Darwin to protect the RAN and our northern approaches, Darwin etc. Presumably in this scenario, the Chinese have either defeated Indonesia, or the Indonesians have capitulated. The Americans would have either withdrawn or cut us loose.

Maybe this is too capability focused in near term. Maybe the Chinese aren't interested, and won't come pay us a visit.

 

[Stampede]

Which has the greater range with LRASM
SHornet or F35A?

Cheers S

 

[MARKMILES77]

The F-15EX probably actually makes sense in the US context as a pure NORAD assigned ANG defensive asset.

While expensive in terms of capital cost, they are supposed to be quite economical to operate. They also have a ridiculous designed service life of 20,000 flight hours.

Would they work in a contested environment against a modern IADS? Probably not, and in our context we don't have enough mass of assets to buy something without that flexibility.

Could additional F-35's be procured more rapidly if they came off one of the two non-US final assembly plants? Even if the production line for Super Hornets is still technically active until 2027, what scope do Boeing have to actually accept additional orders with regards to parts suppliers and workforce?

I agree with the sentiment of your first point. We need aircraft than can defend Australia.
We don't need any more fighters that can go up "against a modern IADS".
72 F-35s is enough for that role, if required but that should not be their role.
If war breaks out over Taiwan the RAAFs role will be the defence of Australia.
Not sending fighters to Asia to attack the IADS of China. Leave that to Taiwan, Japan, USN, USAF, USMC etc.
All the RAAFs fighters whether F-35, Super Hornets or anything else should stay in Australia.
So what will they do?
1.Defend Darwin, Fleet Bases East and West, Osborne Shipyards, the Oil refineries at Geelong and Brisbane and other vulnerable sites, particularly from submarine launched cruise missiles.
2.Provide Naval strike if Chinese Naval forces are active anywhere close to Australia.
The Super Hornet is perfectly fine for that.

 

[Julian 82]

I agree with the sentiment of your first point. We need aircraft than can defend Australia.
We don't need any more fighters that can go up "against a modern IADS".
72 F-35s is enough for that role, if required but that should not be their role.
If war breaks out over Taiwan the RAAFs role will be the defence of Australia.
Not sending fighters to Asia to attack the IADS of China. Leave that to Taiwan, Japan, USN, USAF, USMC etc.
All the RAAFs fighters whether F-35, Super Hornets or anything else should stay in Australia.
So what will they do?
1.Defend Darwin, Fleet Bases East and West, Osborne Shipyards, the Oil refineries at Geelong and Brisbane and other vulnerable sites, particularly from submarine launched cruise missiles.
2.Provide Naval strike if Chinese Naval forces are active anywhere close to Australia.
The Super Hornet is perfectly fine for that.

If we are defending Australia from a Chinese fleet in the 2030s (say multiple aircraft carriers with 5th generation fighters and ship borne AEW aircraft) we will have to fight against a modern IADS in our own backyard. I’m just not sure a Super Hornet is going to cut it in that environment.

By all means keep the Super Hornet in service until something like the GCAP is ready for service. However that does not mean we don’t need additional F-35s now. The idea we can defend a continent with 72 F-35s and 24 super hornets in a rapidly deteriorating security environment is just ludicrous. Norway has (or will have) 75% the number of F-35s we currently have and they have smaller population and territory to defend.

 

[MARKMILES77]

If we are defending Australia from a Chinese fleet in the 2030s (say multiple aircraft carriers with 5th generation fighters and ship borne AEW aircraft) we will have to fight against a modern IADS in our own backyard. I’m just not sure a Super Hornet is going to cut it in that environment.

By all means keep the Super Hornet in service until something like the GCAP is ready for service. However that does not mean we don’t need additional F-35s now. The idea we can defend a continent with 72 F-35s and 24 super hornets in a rapidly deteriorating security environment is just ludicrous. Norway has (or will have) 75% the number of F-35s we currently have and they have smaller population and territory to defend.

We can easily defend Australia with 72 F-35s and 24 Super Hornets and 12 Growlers (and 28 extra F-35s/F-18E/Fs) except from the U.S.A.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Which has the greater range with LRASM
SHornet or F35A?

Currently? Shornet. As the SHornet has LRASM and drop tanks.

Future?
F-35, with LRASM and drop tanks. When the LRASM integration is completed, and the drop tanks are developed and sold, and we then start a project to acquire them. So when will our F-35's be able to fire them? When will their block IV be finished...
The LRASM integration is going to happen soon, but will require block IV.
A F-35C was shown with LRASM last year.

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

Not known where the F-35A integration. External fuel stores are another thing.. They were meant to show up years ago.

But unfinished projects can be hurt badly/delayed if funding suddenly dries up, which is a genuine fear.
But if we are making acquisition announcements, the said status of such things should be clear and upfront.

Don't we remember the popeye acquisition and how that ended?

 

[Julian 82]

We can easily defend Australia with 72 F-35s and 24 Super Hornets and 12 Growlers (and 28 extra F-35s/F-18E/Fs) except from the U.S.A.

With roughly 48 operational aircraft at any particular time. Maybe now. I’m not so sure that will be the case in the 2030s vis a vis China. We are a long way away from the USA and I worry that they could be reverting to their traditional isolationist stance.

 

[Julian 82]

Currently? Shornet. As the SHornet has LRASM and drop tanks.

Future?
F-35, with LRASM and drop tanks. When the LRASM integration is completed, and the drop tanks are developed and sold, and we then start a project to acquire them. So when will our F-35's be able to fire them? When will their block IV be finished...
The LRASM integration is going to happen soon, but will require block IV.
A F-35C was shown with LRASM last year.

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

Not known where the F-35A integration. External fuel stores are another thing.. They were meant to show up years ago.

But unfinished projects can be hurt badly/delayed if funding suddenly dries up, which is a genuine fear.
But if we are making acquisition announcements, the said status of such things should be clear and upfront.

Don't we remember the popeye acquisition and how that ended?

The canted pylons on the Shornet detract considerably from its range. The more gear you hang off these pylons the greater the drag. I’m not sure a super Hornet carrying LRASM and fuel tanks would have longer range compared to an F-35 carrying LRASM externally (without fuel tanks).

F-35A can also carry JSM or AARGM internally which is pretty useful for maritime strike.

 

[the road runner]

Bring back Project Air 7003 and buy some MQ-9B/Sea Guardians.
I have never understood why Government cancelled the order in 2022 and directed the money into expanding Australian Signals directorate !
MPA is one thing this country needs and i think drones are a great way to help.
Drone pilots take a while to train/ develop and a Squadron of Sea Guardians would have been perfect for developing future Ghost Bat operators.

 

[StevoJH]

There have recently been photos released showing trial fits of inert Meteor's for internal carriage on the F-35. Hopefully they can get that integrated soon, it should be a significant improvement on AMRAAM.

 

[Catalina]

Excuse me, what air to air weapons could a Boeing Australia MQ-28 Ghost Bat carry thank you.

 

[StevoJH]

Excuse me, what air to air weapons could a Boeing Australia MQ-28 Ghost Bat carry thank you.

None (at this stage).

At least per publicly available information anyway.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The canted pylons on the Shornet detract considerably from its range. The more gear you hang off these pylons the greater the drag. I’m not sure a super Hornet carrying LRASM and fuel tanks would have longer range compared to an F-35 carrying LRASM externally (without fuel tanks).

Totally, it looks comically absurd with a full weapons payload, or worse in an ugly or double ugly configuration.


Hmm draggy! No wonder it's tailgating that F-35.

When people refer to it as a bomb or missile truck, that is literally what it is, cause it will be slow, consume huge amounts of fuel, have terrible handling and have a radar signature of a planet. They will be not even high subsonic, more like DHC-4 Caribou speed to get any sort of range out of them. Pilots will hate it. So patrolling with it will be a pain and use up significant resources, flight hours etc.

But if its chasing H6s, KJ2000, KJ200s and the like they too are slow, cumbersome targets.

But realistically we may be limited to 1 or 2 weapons per platform. Which also needs to factor into our calculations.
But the Aim174 isn't an internal carry, I think on anything. Maybe if the E7 replacements are made off the P8 737-800 frame with weapons hardpoints we would end up with a more suitable platform for these giant things. But when will that happen?

F-35A can also carry JSM or AARGM internally which is pretty useful for maritime strike.

JSM is still pretty short range. As is ARRGM, particularly at low altitude. Not sure how many we would need and how close we would need to get to a type 55.. China has a whole lot of ocean it can sit in, and its own long range weapons and sensors. If we are going to go at them we need long sticks from a lot of platforms. I wouldn't be holding all my money on a few JSM or AARGM sinking a Chinese Taskforce. They can likely deal with that. We would have to deplete their magazines. If its 5 or 6 ships, that's several waves of squadrons of aircraft. They won't make it easy. After the first wave, I think we might lose the element of stealth and surprise.

The F-35 is still the plane for us. But the que is long (essentially all of europe has ordered), production is slow, integration is slow, and you have customers like the USAF and USN ahead of us who have way more power and influence on what gets integrated when. We have only just this year received our last of the initial order!

Maybe we should ask the RAAF if F-18 now would be useful if we had concrete commitment/money to more F-35 in the future. Asking the RAAF if they want more F-35, will just give you one answer in return, always.

At what $100m an airframe, 17 airframes, its seasprite money. Not free, but even if they have short lives, it wouldn't be the worse defence procurement we have made in the last 20 years. If anything it may be received as not doing enough. Maybe we should order 24 F-15EX?

 

[StevoJH]

The F-15EX has the potential to be a bit of an orphan unless the USAF orders more depending on how much commonality it has with previous F-15E derived platforms. There are currently only 105 aircraft on order.

Saying that, if considered as a replacement for Super Hornets and there is enough appetite for risk to integrate new weapons onto a platform it is likely more capable then a Super Hornet.

 

[Takao]

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?

Because you have paid a premium for a expensive capability that you are not using. If you are going to not use stealth, then why spend all the $$ buying it and sustaining it. A Super costs significantly less, and the delta in up-front cost will pay for years of sustainment.

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).

Yes, the AGM-158C is integrated onto the F/A-18F. Has been for a while, and our Hornets are (with one exception that is being cleared up), in lock step with the USN. So it's just a case of us getting the missiles - which are on order. Integration is happing on the P-8 (which will carry over to ours), and for external carriage on the F-35C. Which has two problems - it's not our F-35 and it's for external carriage. Which wrecks the stealth and goes to my point above.

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.

Not quite - see below.

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?

Hmmm....I'm trying to find a source on 2027, but I can't find anything other than bloggers making claims. I seem to recall there is an open source review of the AUKUS nations, highlighting that all are focused on 2035 at the expense of the next four years, but can't find it right now. Either way, I don't think you can say the focus is on '27. If it was, we wouldn't be buying anything new except weapons and fuel. The force that fights in 2027 is today's force - it's simply too late to alter. Also remember, there are other customers expecting their aircraft in 2025, 26 and 27. To get an F-35 you have to be having the US as an ally, with the associated Defence questions since Januarary - who can afford to look weak on Defence by push

The Super Hornet was sold as a stop gap interim solution for the RAAF due to the F-35 program delays but as is typical with Australian governments who do not want spend the required coin on defence capability, it will end up serving beyond its use by date.

And, at this point, the Super's are still stop gapping. The F-35A cannot do, today, what the F/A-18F can. And is unlikely to exceed that (outside a very niche task of penetrating land IADS - not really a task likely to face us in the near future) for a while.

It’s the same plan the Coalition had through it’s Force Structure Plan 2020, which the ALP discarded.

Not quite.

I've already addressed this at least twice (there may be some stuff from 2019 or 2020, but I'm in a rush) - but it's got a specific and broader history.

From 2009-ish (ALP) until 2016 (LNP ), it was explicitly called '4th F-35 Squadron'. It was also seen as a separate tranche of AIR 6000 Phase 2 (with Phase 2 being specifically acquiring F-35s, other phases acquired other parts of the air combat system like new weapons and the like). In 2016 it was changed to a separate phase (now Phase 7) and retitled 'Additional Air Combat Capability'. Both of these mark a step away from explicitly buying A35-073 - A35-100.

In 2020 (LNP), we used this pre-existing idea to flesh out the idea of what 'Additional Air Combat Capability' meant. With the bright future (at the time) of Loyal Wingman, the options of new missiles (from air and surface launchers), and 'cheaper' crewed aircraft that can be bomb trucks, there was widespread understanding that we couldn't predict what the future optimal mix was, so "F-35" was removed from all the paperwork. It was designed to enhance the F/A-18F/G + F-35A + teaming air vehicles capability writ large. And that could be anything. Fast forward 5 years, and that answer could be AIM-174, for instance.

Noting that, regardless of what the DSR or NDS was going to say, the starting point was the FSP20 force structure. Which meant, for the project to go back to being explicitly another 28 F-35As, the AIR 7000 Phase 7 capability would have to be reworked. But DSR introduced minimal viable capability - which has been taken to mean a couple of things. But noting GWEO production rates, the increased funding of MQ-28A and the fact that the RAAF's fighter force is in pretty good health compared to other key parts of the ADF (frigates, submarines, long-range strike), the additional air combat capability was already being met partially, and had itself fallen in priority.

The lack of a project in the 2024 IIP does not indicate whether or not the government thinks it is important. It simply means that there are other, higher priorities. There is a shed load of priorities - transitioning the ADF from 2023 to a war footing in an unpredictable and high risk environment demanded a whole bunch of stuff quickly. And there is only so much money (again, what is being cut?) and resources to bring the priorities into service.

 

[Reptilia]

Recent article in the APDR says Ghost Bats will be in full rate in 2028 and the facility at Wellcamp will be able to produce dozens per year at a cost 1/10th of a crewed fighter.

Im not sure how quickly we could get another 28 F35s but we could have 50+ CCAs in 2030.

 

[MARKMILES77]

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.

Sometime between 2027 and 2030.

https://media.defense.gov/2023/Apr/24/2003205865/-1/-1/1/07-AMONSON%20&%20EGLI_FEATURE%20IWD.PDF

38 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS  MARCH-APRIL 2023