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

[Aardvark144]

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

The issue was the image. That image was not of long term stored Hornets. They were in Guam for CN19 at that time.

 

[StingrayOZ]

What happened to our P3 Orions? Were they cut up?
Is there any chance we could acquire the NZ p3's?

If war was imminent in the next 12 months, is there anything not currently in service we could re-introduce, or re-acquire?

 

[Bob53]

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

Cheers S

so in the 70s what would the number have been for the entire attack and bomber fleet?

 

[Aardvark144]

What happened to our P3 Orions? Were they cut up?
Is there any chance we could acquire the NZ p3's?

If war was imminent in the next 12 months, is there anything not currently in service we could re-introduce, or re-acquire?

Majority were shredded, I think one is with HARS and one with the Museum in QLD, partial fuselage in the Museum in Adelaide and another is Gate Guard at Edinburgh. Finally maybe AWM?

 

[Sandson41]

so in the 70s what would the number have been for the entire attack and bomber fleet?

28 F-111Cs, eventually. 20 A-4 Skyhawks. Maybe F-4 phantoms instead of F-111s, if you're talking about the early years if the decade.

Situation got a lot better into the 80s when the 75 multirole F-18 were introduced, of course.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I would be also interested in DT opinions on Anduril Unveils Barracuda-M Family of Cruise Missiles

A munition designed to be rapidly produced.

 

[Stampede]

so in the 70s what would the number have been for the entire attack and bomber fleet?

Yes numbers versus quality
It’s all relative to the era.
The mirage fleet had a lot of attrition
That said
Mid to late 70s a balanced mix of fighter bombers and some Carrier capability with one aircraft carrier.
80s. 90s. 10s etc take your pic which was the correct mix for the time
Airborne control platforms and refuelling aircraft were certainly welcome additions and force multipliers.

Not many Airforces today have the RAAFs attributes and balance for a nation of our size

Cheers S

 

[SammyC]

I would be also interested in DT opinions on Anduril Unveils Barracuda-M Family of Cruise Missiles

A munition designed to be rapidly produced.

There's not a lot of information outside of Anduril's own media releases. As far as I am aware there is not an active production line or any prototypes that have been subject to any live testing. So for the most part it remains a concept.

There also does not seem to be much regarding actual purchase price. I have seen some stuff that indicates a manufacturing model that is 30% less than traditional approaches. While not insubstantial, that is not enough of a cost reduction to transition to mass missile production.

Furthermore, compare a $1.5M LRASM against a Bara 250 at $1M.

The LRASM, comes with confirmed low observability, hardened systems, jamming resistance and (my personal favourite) fancy terminal manoeuvring. If the Bara comes with these capabilities for the lower cost then fine. Otherwise it is not a day one weapon.

And there are far cheaper day two mop up weapons available.

If it is to be a game changer, then in my view it needs to be able to deliver costs at about 10%, such volume orders can be financially affordable.

In regards to their software, perhaps their competitive advantage, it would appear they have a good product via the ghost shark development. I'm interested to see where this goes.

 

[Armchair]

Yes numbers versus quality
It’s all relative to the era.
The mirage fleet had a lot of attrition
That said
Mid to late 70s a balanced mix of fighter bombers and some Carrier capability with one aircraft carrier.
80s. 90s. 10s etc take your pic which was the correct mix for the time
Airborne control platforms and refuelling aircraft were certainly welcome additions and force multipliers.

Not many Airforces today have the RAAFs attributes and balance for a nation of our size

Cheers S

The spectacular change is in the numbers of large jets (often with large crews) operated by the RAAF. The 1970s RAAF had a few VIP jets. Contemporary RAAF adds 7 MRTT and 8 C-17 and 6 E-7 ( and replacement of the functions performed by turboprop P-3 through three types of jet aircraft).

 

[Bob53]

28 F-111Cs, eventually. 20 A-4 Skyhawks. Maybe F-4 phantoms instead of F-111s, if you're talking about the early years if the decade.

Situation got a lot better into the 80s when the 75 multirole F-18 were introduced, of course.

So
28 F111
20 A4
100? Mirages

 

[DDG38]

(and replacement of the functions performed by turboprop P-3 through three types of jet aircraft).

Sorry I'm confused by this statement you made - the P8 replaced the P3, what 2 other aircraft types are you saying have replaced the P3 functions ?

 

[Volkodav]

So
28 F111
20 A4
100? Mirages

I read that the fall back, should the F-111 fail and never be delivered, was 36 F-4E, 12 RF-4C and 8 KC-135. This wasn't a numbers game, it was a rare case of determining what was needed to deliver the required effect, as opposed to an arbitrary number of squadrons.

Initially the F-111 order was meant to include six RF-111, an option that was changed after that type was cancelled, to additional F-111C (modified F-111A) as attrition replacements.

There were also long planned, but unfunded needs for tankers, AEW, strategic transports, and other force enablers, from the 60s, through the 70s and 80s into the 90s.

Ironically, an A-5B acquisition in the early/mid 60s, supplemented by RA-5C, would have met Australia's requirements, been in service a decade earlier, and could even have been assembled if not built locally.

It would also have tailed nicely into a replacement in the 80s or 90s with F-15E, F/A-18D (or even block I F/A-18F), Tornado or Mirage 2000D.

Opportunity cost is a killer. Waiting for the perfect solution often results in greater cost and a contraction in numbers and capability. Expensive life extensions become a must, maintenance cost go through the roof, availability drops through the floor, and retention becomes much harder.

Holistically Australia stuffed up pretty much all of its combat aircraft acquisitions post WWII through timing, aiming too high, missing, then going too low, while trying to save money by extending service lives, cutting numbers and skipping generations.

We really needed a generation of, good enough, combat aircraft between each of those we had. Smaller numbers (fewer attrition airframes needed), continuous production, no major upgrades, just build new aircraft with the required upgrades incorporated.

 

[Volkodav]

Sorry I'm confused by this statement you made - the P8 replaced the P3, what 2 other aircraft types are you saying have replaced the P3 functions ?

I would guess P-8, Triton and Peregrine.

The Triton (Global hawk) is technically a jet.

This is one case where moving from a common platform with increase capability and potentially save money compared to what it would cost to achieve the same effects ( if possible at all) through bodging it.

Being able to hook into existing sustainment and spiral development programs can be very efficient.

 

[Armchair]

I would guess P-8, Triton and Peregrine.
The Triton (Global hawk) is technically a jet.

Yes Peregrine as proposed replacement for the ELINT/SIGINT functions of P-3.
It was in the context of discussion of the relative decline in ADF aerial combat squadrons that need to be considered alongside increased numbers of (expensive) enablers and multipliers.

 

[seaspear]

Is there clear information with the American tariff war whether aircraft like the f35 built from multiple international partners will have its price affected with the U.S also putting tariffs on imported steel and often the U.S steel industry unable to supply enough steel for the manufacturing of naval ships it seem a possibility this makes U.S naval ships more expensive,this article is perhaps long read with some of its reasoning for steel tariffs

Adjusting Imports of Steel into The United States

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A PROCLAMATION 1. On January 11, 2018, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) transmitted to me a

www.whitehouse.gov

Trump tariffs could backfire on military, some experts warn

Defense programs, particularly shipbuilding, will experience high costs and delays if the administration's tariffs target crucial materials, analysts said.

www.defensenews.com

Escalating Trade War Raises Questions Over Canada’s F-35 Future

Canada’s place in the F-35 program is under scrutiny once again, this time due to tit-for-tat tariffs with the United States. Once again, Canada’s place in the F-35 program is under scrutiny, this time due to a growing trade war with the United States.

www.twz.com

 

[Volkodav]

Is there clear information with the American tariff war whether aircraft like the f35 built from multiple international partners will have its price affected with the U.S also putting tariffs on imported steel and often the U.S steel industry unable to supply enough steel for the manufacturing of naval ships it seem a possibility this makes U.S naval ships more expensive,this article is perhaps long read with some of its reasoning for steel tariffs

Adjusting Imports of Steel into The United States

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A PROCLAMATION 1. On January 11, 2018, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) transmitted to me a

www.whitehouse.gov

Trump tariffs could backfire on military, some experts warn

Defense programs, particularly shipbuilding, will experience high costs and delays if the administration's tariffs target crucial materials, analysts said.

www.defensenews.com

Escalating Trade War Raises Questions Over Canada’s F-35 Future

Canada’s place in the F-35 program is under scrutiny once again, this time due to tit-for-tat tariffs with the United States. Once again, Canada’s place in the F-35 program is under scrutiny, this time due to a growing trade war with the United States.

www.twz.com

A euro heavy fighter is looking more sensible than more F-35s with every new stage of idiocy from the US.

Get rid of your DEI, sack trans service members and remove female pilots or we won't give you the software tokens you need to operate your fighter fleet.

The rhetoric alone is concerning, if actions follow there will be major trust issues.

 

[hauritz]

I would be also interested in DT opinions on Anduril Unveils Barracuda-M Family of Cruise Missiles

A munition designed to be rapidly produced.

One of the things that has been exposed with the Russia/Ukraine war is just how slowly missiles are actually produced. Hard to find actual numbers but it is no secret that missile stockpiles are depleting. These are old designs often decades old that are complex and expensive to manufacture.

By the numbers: US missile capacity depleting fast

Our industrial base isn't keeping up with the pace of weapons transfers to Ukraine and Israel

responsiblestatecraft.org

Of course time moves on, and new production techniques utilising additive manufacturing technology (3d printing) should allow for faster and cheaper production. One thing about this technology though is that you can't just print anything. Any missiles or drones need to be specifically designed to allow them to be printed. That is of course why the barracuda concept is so interesting.

 

[seaspear]

Certainly the Tempest program is becoming more tempting than just acquiring more of the F-35s,This article suggests the Tempest will be available in mid 2030s although no specifics are given about performance its wing structure and size suggest a longer range than the F35 with possibility of carrying larger long range missiles still in development e.g. hypersonic

UK Emphasizes Need To Arm Tempest Stealth Fighter With Larger, Longer Range Air-To-Air Missiles

Giving the Tempest ‘bigger sticks’ is seen as critical to keeping pace with adversary developments, particularly the rapid pace of China’s airpower evolution. Giving the Tempest ‘bigger sticks’ is seen as critical to keeping pace with adversary developments, particularly the rapid pace of...

www.twz.com

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Certainly the Tempest program is becoming more tempting than just acquiring more of the F-35s,This article suggests the Tempest will be available in mid 2030s although no specifics are given about performance its wing structure and size suggest a longer range than the F35 with possibility of carrying larger long range missiles still in development e.g. hypersonic

UK Emphasizes Need To Arm Tempest Stealth Fighter With Larger, Longer Range Air-To-Air Missiles

Giving the Tempest ‘bigger sticks’ is seen as critical to keeping pace with adversary developments, particularly the rapid pace of China’s airpower evolution. Giving the Tempest ‘bigger sticks’ is seen as critical to keeping pace with adversary developments, particularly the rapid pace of...

www.twz.com

Certainly I think Australia would be a welcome customer for GCAP. It has good relations with all three members, especially the UK (thanks, AUKUS). Japan would see the benefit of having a friendly state like Australia equipped with long range, sixth-gen aircraft. Italy would be happy for the extra income, even if it's a bit shruggy over the Pacific.

But a word of caution, Australia would be a customer, not a partner. The 2035 delivery window is vital for Japan, and unless Australia is already in discussions about joining there simply won't be time to reorganise work shares and the like. Maybe it could be involved in the project down the road, but not as a core member.

 

[John Fedup]

Certainly I think Australia would be a welcome customer for GCAP. It has good relations with all three members, especially the UK (thanks, AUKUS). Japan would see the benefit of having a friendly state like Australia equipped with long range, sixth-gen aircraft. Italy would be happy for the extra income, even if it's a bit shruggy over the Pacific.

But a word of caution, Australia would be a customer, not a partner. The 2035 delivery window is vital for Japan, and unless Australia is already in discussions about joining there simply won't be time to reorganise work shares and the like. Maybe it could be involved in the project down the road, but not as a core member.

Yes, I get that and understand. For Australia and Canada, it makes sense of offer financial support in the hope it speeds things up. Workshare will have to wait.. Certainly given our situation, GCAP or less likely FCAS for Canada is the future as our former best friend isn't. The relationship may improve but the trust never will which is why alternatives are needed.