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

[Stampede]

Yet another user that thinks it”s a good idea…

Flash News: US Confirms First F-35B Fighter Jet Test Flight with AGM-158C Missile for Enhanced Anti-Ship Capability

Flash News: US Confirms First F-35B Fighter Jet Test Flight with AGM-158C Missile for Enhanced Anti-Ship Capability

armyrecognition.com

The USMC with AGM-158C LRASM, on their F-35B’s now…

View attachment 52404

Lockheed Martin lists the F35b as having a combat radius with two internal AIM 120c and two 1000 pound JDAM as 833km.

Allowing for some drag for the external LRASM with its own range of up to 370km, then as a package with internal AAMs only and ASM externally this is a lethal combination I’d suspect of over 1000km.

Not bad for a VTOL aircraft.

I’m not comparing it to any other aircraft but the old Harrier as it’s the only one that can land vertically.

The F35B is maturing into the platform it was hoped for.

Just saying

Cheers S

 

[ADMk2]

OH I see, your saying we should get F-35Bs?
All jokes aside, it would be useful to know where the F-35 are with weapons integration. I am always sceptical of the USAF with USN weapons, we have seen a F-35C and a F-35B... interservice fighting is definitely a thing in the F-35 program.

My point about F18s are not that its a superior aircraft, its not, its just about FOC and delivery. Both of which could still be in the F-35 favor.

I'm not even sure the F-18s are on the table even if we wanted them. There are only 12 F-18Fs being built if that is what we were after, presumably because we don't operate any F-18Es. While the aircraft may be available do we have the pilots and crews for them. If that can't be built robustly in time then early delivery of F_18 over F_35 makes no sense anyway. Taking planes off a USN order would have to be arranged and approved. These SH were forced onto the USN by congress, presumably they hope some foreign buyer wants them. Kuwait? They do operate E's and F's. Maybe Kuwait already has designs on them.

Are we still upgrading superhornets to blk III? was that cancelled/delayed?

If the idea is to carry LRASM, P8 may be the better platform for that, with longer range. Which makes F-35/F-18 more of a secondary role.

P-8 LRASM testing expected to wrap this summer, Boeing official says - Breaking Defense

Boeing will also soon begin flight testing a multimission pod developed with internal funds, according to company official Jon Spore.

breakingdefense.com

Have we committed with P8 mod 2?

https://www.navair.navy.mil/news/US-Navy-delivers-first-P-8A-Poseidon-aircraft-Increment-3-Block-2-modifications/Tue-03262024

In that sense it may make more sense for more P8 over fighters.

Not quite, but there is significant commonality between the F-35B and F-35A in terms of wing design, pylon design (they both use the same SUU-96 pylon for example) and so on. Whether stores separation, flutter, loads testing etc has been conducted with F-35A I can’t currently find but if so, undoubtedly they will leverage the work PAX has already done. Integration into the F-35 avionics system has already been done though, so I imagine that would substantially decrease the time required for F-35A integration.

RAAF’s Super Hornets are being incrementally updated with most of the approved BLKIII capabilities. The CFT’s you mentioned earlier were dropped by the USN years ago, so there is no chance RAAF will “go it alone” on them. Kuwait haven‘t shown interest in funding them either, so there goes that idea.

LRASM is already being integrated onto P-8A so I expect RAAF variants will carry them in due course, but they have a lot of responsibility in other areas and we will only have 14 of them. They can’t be our primary strike capability, even leaving aside all the other issues of trying to employ what is at it’s core, a civilian airliner in combat… Our frontline striker aircraft for the forseeable future are F-35 and Super Hornet. The P-8A is the secondary capability in that regard, not the other way around.

 

[seaspear]

There were reports of a few years ago China had converted old fighters into uav,s, Australia could of done something similar with its retired aircraft add some fuel tanks and some suitable missiles could be an interesting option bringing the aircraft back may not be the most important gain if doubling the range to a target

PLA Chinese Air Force old J-6 and J-7 jets being converted into kamika

China is believed to convert some of its old fighter jets dating back to the Cold War into drones, Christopher McFadden reports in Interesting Engineering.

armyrecognition.com

 

[Todjaeger]

There were reports of a few years ago China had converted old fighters into uav,s, Australia could of done something similar with its retired aircraft add some fuel tanks and some suitable missiles could be an interesting option bringing the aircraft back may not be the most important gain if doubling the range to a target

PLA Chinese Air Force old J-6 and J-7 jets being converted into kamika

China is believed to convert some of its old fighter jets dating back to the Cold War into drones, Christopher McFadden reports in Interesting Engineering.

armyrecognition.com

The US has operated target drones using converted fighters for a few decades now. QF-4's were used by the USAF until 2016 whilst the USN retired them back in 2004. The QF-16 in USAF had first flight back in 2013.

One major difference between what the US can do vs. Australia, is that the US has a significant inventory of retired military aircraft that can be made flightworthy, at least for some applications. For the RAAF, the handful of F-111's which were decommissioned were largely at the end of their useful lives in terms of airframe life and avionics. Of course monies could have been dumped into them to turn them into drones or UAV's but I rather think it would have been quite expensive, particularly for the small number of units which could have been made. The situation is slightly different but still mostly similar with the RAAF Classic Hornets. Most of these which still had some potential life left in them were sold to the RCAF to help extend and sustain their Hornet fleet. This would again have left only a few units available for conversion and these would likely have been the end of their viable flight lives.

Then of course there would have been a need to develop the interfaces, controls and communication systems to make the aircraft into remotely piloted vehicles.

All in all, not something I think Australia could do effectively or efficiently (at least when compared to other options) given the likely small number of platforms which could serve as a base for development.

 

[downunderblue]

OH I see, your saying we should get F-35Bs?
All jokes aside ...

I'm surprised someone hasn't bit already on this gold nugget (or is it actually fool's gold?) ...

All jokes aside, has any work or modelling been done about the survivability of our aircraft given the 'long range precision fires threat' posed by China?

Does the STOL/VTOl nature of Fat Amy B being able to operate from a range of austere and remote locations add to it's survivability, sustainability, additional mission sets and overall effectiveness in time of conflict?

The Swedes seem to think so and make STOL a priority. In looking at F-35B purchases, only really Singapore seem to be focused on this angle, with Italy, ROK, UK, USMC, and Japan all primarily using their airframes off a carrier/ LHD etc.

Would it benefit Australia more to equip that 4th squadron with F-35B's rather than A's. We also have the LHD's, and no I'm not going there but having the ability to deploy (at a pinch) that way must add value?

Yes its the pocket knife of combat jets, but a pocket knife can be really handy in time of trouble?

I offer this question assuming the RAAF has already considered this, wargamed it etc and have done sufficient analysis to know what they need in a future conflict, but wonder if it actually has? Yes I'm sure there would be logistic and training challenges too, but some overap with the F-35A. Surely it provides greater flexibility and options to a defense planner, but again maybe it has been considered and firmly rejected, I just don't know so thought it was a good question to pose.

We do as humans get stuck in fixed, boxed thinking about what actually possible. Maybe this is actually achievable and of benefit?

 

[StingrayOZ]

I offer this question assuming the RAAF has already considered this, wargamed it etc and have done sufficient analysis to know what they need in a future conflict, but wonder if it actually has? Yes I'm sure there would be logistic and training challenges too, but some overap with the F-35A. Surely it provides greater flexibility and options to a defense planner, but again maybe it has been considered and firmly rejected, I just don't know so thought it was a good question to pose.

RAAF hates the idea of the F-35B. In every possible way and will fight any suggestion. They would rather nothing gets procured instead. You would have more of a chance of the RAN acquiring it and operating it with the RAF than any RAAF support.

F-35B is still a pretty different aircraft with a different leading service. I don't ever think we need a whole squadron either, I think 12 would be fine and would most likely be some sort of ready force for the pacific or based out of Singapore or Japan. Its good to see it actually carrying useful maritime strike weapons. Its production que is the same basic que as the regular F-35 anyway. But the USMC operates around the water and gets along with the USN. USAF isn't like that.

RAAF’s Super Hornets are being incrementally updated with most of the approved BLKIII capabilities. The CFT’s you mentioned earlier were dropped by the USN years ago, so there is no chance RAAF will “go it alone” on them. Kuwait haven‘t shown interest in funding them either, so there goes that idea

It would require extraordinary circumstances to get them. Like Albo would have to meet Trump, get Trump to agree to give them to Australia, and force as much as possible the USN to sell us the aircraft. It would have to be done immediately. It would only be 12 aircraft (unless we wanted the E variants...

At this stage I wouldn't try to understand what other nations are doing. The idea of being able to make new acquisitions off production lines is quickly coming to an end. So if that ends, it raises the problem of how do you increase defence spending effectively, particularly how to gain capabilities in that environment.

 

[seaspear]

Another aircraft we have not discussed is the C130-J in the role of a bomb truck

Lockheed’s Low-Cost Cruise Missile ‘Truck’ Is Now In Testing

The modular Common Multi-Mission Truck is now being proposed for launch from both air and ground platforms to carry out a wide range of mission sets. The modular Common Multi-Mission Truck is now being proposed for launch from both air and ground platforms to carry out a wide range of mission sets.

www.twz.com

another proposal refers to Rapid dragon
RAPID DRAGON – Air Force Research Laboratory
Certainly this start up company has interesting proposals in cheaper missiles

New 'Cheap' Cruise Missile Concept Flight Tested By Silicon Valley-Backed Start-Up

The need for cheaper stand-off munitions that can be produced quickly at scale has jump-started a growing non-traditional weapons industry.

www.twz.com

 

[Takao]

If there’s extra coin and restricting additions to the RAAF only where would you invest the money.
Additional aircraft and if so which ones?
Infrastructure?
Personal?
Weapons inventory?
Something else?

Regards S

Can only be spent on RAAF assets? No sneaking with 'air domain'? And ignoring what needs to get cut?

Priority 1 - infrastructure. Split two ways - anything that will complicate targeting of Australian air operations (pre- and post-strike - so decoys, dispersal, HAS, etc) and then ensuring that trainee and enlisted accommodations are as good as quality as possible (we can't compete on money in technical trades, so have to offer other things)

Priority 2 - weapons. Anything with a range over 150km, double so if it kills ships.

Priority 3 - proper airlift. Airlift is the only thing outside nukes that air power can offer independently that has strategic effects. For all the pointy grey noise, air lift is what genuinely matters. Ideally something in the C-17 class; but really anything worthwhile that is C-130J or bigger.

 

[ADMk2]

But there are 5 squadrons of fast jets now. I understand your view and agree on this point. I was, however, trying to encourage commenters who are advocating for new aircraft to specify whether they are arguing to replace one or more of the existing squadrons or to add a sixth squadron (I accept some have and have discussed bases etc).

So far as I know, the Coalition has not specified its position on this matter. As a major party announcement in the lead up to an election that seems worth discussing here (without discussing the politics).

6 Squadron is not a strike fighter squadron. It is an EW squadron. Whilst it has certain combat capabilities, it is not it’s role to conduct strike fughter operations. It is no different in that regard to 11 Squadron or 292 Squadrons flying P-8A.

Consequently we only actually have 4 fighter squadrons.

There were reports of a few years ago China had converted old fighters into uav,s, Australia could of done something similar with its retired aircraft add some fuel tanks and some suitable missiles could be an interesting option bringing the aircraft back may not be the most important gain if doubling the range to a target

PLA Chinese Air Force old J-6 and J-7 jets being converted into kamika

China is believed to convert some of its old fighter jets dating back to the Cold War into drones, Christopher McFadden reports in Interesting Engineering.

armyrecognition.com

The retired fighers that we sold to Canada or the ones we broke up for parts?

 

[John Fedup]

Can only be spent on RAAF assets? No sneaking with 'air domain'? And ignoring what needs to get cut?

Priority 1 - infrastructure. Split two ways - anything that will complicate targeting of Australian air operations (pre- and post-strike - so decoys, dispersal, HAS, etc) and then ensuring that trainee and enlisted accommodations are as good as quality as possible (we can't compete on money in technical trades, so have to offer other things)

Priority 2 - weapons. Anything with a range over 150km, double so if it kills ships.

Priority 3 - proper airlift. Airlift is the only thing outside nukes that air power can offer independently that has strategic effects. For all the pointy grey noise, air lift is what genuinely matters. Ideally something in the C-17 class; but really anything worthwhile that is C-130J or bigger.

C-17s, Canada and Australia should have bought more....and NZ should have bought 2-3. Too bad that window has closed. Had the world geopolitical situation at present occurred much sooner, it is likely the C-17 order book would have kept the line running at least a decade longer. India wanted more but didn't act fast enough. A400M has been somewhat of a disappointment. Maybe 4 turbofans would help.

 

[seaspear]

6 Squadron is not a strike fighter squadron. It is an EW squadron. Whilst it has certain combat capabilities, it is not it’s role to conduct strike fughter operations. It is no different in that regard to 11 Squadron or 292 Squadrons flying P-8A.

Consequently we only actually have 4 fighter squadrons.


The retired fighers that we sold to Canada or the ones we broke up for parts?

I was thinking of these ones

Lapsed contract could deliver Aussie fighter jets to Ukraine

Plans to transfer old RAAF jets could be revived while Canberra will consider Ukraine’s request for year-round supply of Australian coal.

www.afr.com

 

[ADMk2]

I was thinking of these ones

Lapsed contract could deliver Aussie fighter jets to Ukraine

Plans to transfer old RAAF jets could be revived while Canberra will consider Ukraine’s request for year-round supply of Australian coal.

www.afr.com

That was then, they are now no longer flyable is my understanding. Hence why the requests to receive them have stopped. They have been briefed on the materiel state of the aircraft.

The Tiger ARH’s on the other hand…

 

[Armchair]

6 Squadron is not a strike fighter squadron. It is an EW squadron. Whilst it has certain combat capabilities, it is not it’s role to conduct strike fughter operations. It is no different in that regard to 11 Squadron or 292 Squadrons flying P-8A.

Consequently we only actually have 4 fighter squadrons.

I used the term “fast jets” not “strike fighter” or “fighter” and the point stands (at least in relation to the combat capable squadrons). Growler is different to P-8A in part because, as I understand it, many of its EW functions are intended to be taken on by F-35 - the aircraft that the Coalition proposes 28 more of. Moreover Growler pilots are fast jet qualified pilots. They can presumably be re-roled to become F-35 pilots fairly rapidly.

RAAF like the USAF is a F-35A operator. The USAF does not operate Growler and has no plans to acquire it (unlike RAAF it does have other capabilities through platforms such as F-22 and B-2).

If the Coalition proposal is to have a sole F-35A fleet and return the SH and Growlers to the US and deliver the kinetic and EW functions through 4 squadrons then that seems plausible from a financial and personnel perspective. A problem with that idea is that it probably comes 5 years too early in terms of maritime strike for F-35A.

If the Coalition proposal is to retain both SH and Growler and add a 6th squadron of combat capable fast jets then that sounds very expensive and difficult to achieve from a personnel perspective and I agree with the posters arguing that there are higher priorities.

 

[Armchair]

Do we have to have any change to structure? Why cant existing squadrons get another 10 airframes each?

I am not advocating a change of structure but asking if you, and others, are. We know that the Coalition is proposing a 4th squadron of F-35 but we don’t if / when that replaces others.

 

[Julian 82]

I used the term “fast jets” not “strike fighter” or “fighter” and the point stands (at least in relation to the combat capable squadrons). Growler is different to P-8A in part because, as I understand it, many of its EW functions are intended to be taken on by F-35 - the aircraft that the Coalition proposes 28 more of. Moreover Growler pilots are fast jet qualified pilots. They can presumably be re-roled to become F-35 pilots fairly rapidly.

RAAF like the USAF is a F-35A operator. The USAF does not operate Growler and has no plans to acquire it (unlike RAAF it does have other capabilities through platforms such as F-22 and B-2).

If the Coalition proposal is to have a sole F-35A fleet and return the SH and Growlers to the US and deliver the kinetic and EW functions through 4 squadrons then that seems plausible from a financial and personnel perspective. A problem with that idea is that it probably comes 5 years too early in terms of maritime strike for F-35A.

If the Coalition proposal is to retain both SH and Growler and add a 6th squadron of combat capable fast jets then that sounds very expensive and difficult to achieve from a personnel perspective and I agree with the posters arguing that there are higher priorities.

We had 4 frontline mirage fighter squadrons and 2-3 bomber squadrons up until the 70s when Gough Whitlam disbanded 76 squadron on the justification that the detente with the Soviet Union meant less geostrategic risk. We now face the most challenging security environment since WW2. If ever there was a justification for increasing defence spending, it is now.

 

[Bob53]

There were reports of a few years ago China had converted old fighters into uav,s, Australia could of done something similar with its retired aircraft add some fuel tanks and some suitable missiles could be an interesting option bringing the aircraft back may not be the most important gain if doubling the range to a target

PLA Chinese Air Force old J-6 and J-7 jets being converted into kamika

China is believed to convert some of its old fighter jets dating back to the Cold War into drones, Christopher McFadden reports in Interesting Engineering.

armyrecognition.com

What retired aircraft?

 

[seaspear]

That was then, they are now no longer flyable is my understanding. Hence why the requests to receive them have stopped. They have been briefed on the materiel state of the aircraft.

The Tiger ARH’s on the other hand…

seems a waste

Australia dumps old fighter jets to rust in the middle of the Pacific

Australia has left multi-million dollar jet fighters to rust in the middle of Pacific with a top defence expert saying they are now too old and rusted to be any use, even for Ukrainians fighting off the Russians.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Aardvark144]

They are not stored in Guam. That image was from Cope North 2019 when the jets were undercover in the hangar due to an approaching Typhoon. Image from the Cope North 2019 images on Defence - Defence Imagery: 20190222raaf8206953_036.jpg

 

[seaspear]

This article from may 2023 stated they were stored in Guam identical picture

What Ever Happened To Australia’s Retired Legacy F/A-18 Hornets?

Besides those sold to Canada or donated to museums, the status of Australia's old F/A-18s is unclear.

simpleflying.com

 

[Stampede]

We had 4 frontline mirage fighter squadrons and 2-3 bomber squadrons up until the 70s when Gough Whitlam disbanded 76 squadron on the justification that the detente with the Soviet Union meant less geostrategic risk. We now face the most challenging security environment since WW2. If ever there was a justification for increasing defence spending, it is now.

Add to the mix the fleet air arm with the old skyhawks

Cheers S