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

[Takao]

All of the RAAF jets have been delivered with APG-81 and there is no publicly known project to acquire a replacement radar nor is it known whether APG-85 will even be released for export.

In either case, I don’t see how this is a “major impact” for the RAAF? At least for the forseeable future…

Is Northrop Grumman suddenly going to stop supporting the APG-81 any time soon?

All our aircraft have APG-81; it was part of the Block 3F build that most of our aircraft were delivered as.

The problem lies in the chequered history of AIR 6000, what Lockheed promised, what we signed for, and what has actually been delivered. Our aircraft are meant to be Block 4 aircraft. That is the peer capable, carry all our weapons, fighting capability that we were promised and signed for.

Except Block 4 was harder than people thought. So you have it delayed, and some of the upgrades to Block 3F delivered under tech refresh 3.

The problem now is what Block 4 ultimately looks like (will it still include APG-85 if that can't physically fit? what about all the other stuff?). Add questions about what was promised under Block 4 (and paid for in 2018-2023) and what is being billed now as separate. And through all this, we haven't got an aircraft that we were promised - and built a bunch of our strategy on.

I'm ambivalent about the F-35 - but I'd like Lockheed Martin to deliver their promises and I'd like our people to stop being taken in by glossy brochures (I know, I know.....). There should be questions asked about TR-3/Block 4 and if the RAAF is getting what we were told.

 

[John Fedup]

All our aircraft have APG-81; it was part of the Block 3F build that most of our aircraft were delivered as.

The problem lies in the chequered history of AIR 6000, what Lockheed promised, what we signed for, and what has actually been delivered. Our aircraft are meant to be Block 4 aircraft. That is the peer capable, carry all our weapons, fighting capability that we were promised and signed for.

Except Block 4 was harder than people thought. So you have it delayed, and some of the upgrades to Block 3F delivered under tech refresh 3.

The problem now is what Block 4 ultimately looks like (will it still include APG-85 if that can't physically fit? what about all the other stuff?). Add questions about what was promised under Block 4 (and paid for in 2018-2023) and what is being billed now as separate. And through all this, we haven't got an aircraft that we were promised - and built a bunch of our strategy on.

I'm ambivalent about the F-35 - but I'd like Lockheed Martin to deliver their promises and I'd like our people to stop being taken in by glossy brochures (I know, I know.....). There should be questions asked about TR-3/Block 4 and if the RAAF is getting what we were told.

What you describe is the one positive result from Canada’s C-F military procurement process. I have no idea what configuration our first batch of 16 will be but the next 14 should not be accepted without full block 4….and the ECU which I believe is needed for full block 4 configuration.

 

[ADMk2]

All our aircraft have APG-81; it was part of the Block 3F build that most of our aircraft were delivered as.

The problem lies in the chequered history of AIR 6000, what Lockheed promised, what we signed for, and what has actually been delivered. Our aircraft are meant to be Block 4 aircraft. That is the peer capable, carry all our weapons, fighting capability that we were promised and signed for.

Except Block 4 was harder than people thought. So you have it delayed, and some of the upgrades to Block 3F delivered under tech refresh 3.

The problem now is what Block 4 ultimately looks like (will it still include APG-85 if that can't physically fit? what about all the other stuff?). Add questions about what was promised under Block 4 (and paid for in 2018-2023) and what is being billed now as separate. And through all this, we haven't got an aircraft that we were promised - and built a bunch of our strategy on.

I'm ambivalent about the F-35 - but I'd like Lockheed Martin to deliver their promises and I'd like our people to stop being taken in by glossy brochures (I know, I know.....). There should be questions asked about TR-3/Block 4 and if the RAAF is getting what we were told.

That’s fair, but it is hardly RAAF unique. All users are expecting Block IV and waiting increasingly long timeframes to get, at least some of it…

Not much is being said either about what we are going to do with the non-TR3 airframes. There is a large amount of difference I understand between the two and the modification process will not be trivial.

Hopeful that and the Block IV upgrades are rolled out simultaneously, but Lockheed hasn’t been stellar on delivery of it’s promises, only in the making of them.

It’s no wonder Boeing won F-47…

 

[John Fedup]

It’s no wonder Boeing won F-47…

The KC-46 doesn't exactly cover Boeing with glory along with several other C-Fs....and NG didn't come to the USAF NGAD competition. I guess the booze hound at the DoW is stupid enough to give a possible USN F/A XX contract to Boeing as well (especially if Trump sees some financial benefit).

 

[Takao]

Not much is being said either about what we are going to do with the non-TR3 airframes. There is a large amount of difference I understand between the two and the modification process will not be trivial.

AFAIK, not possible at all. The various Blocks would have been called F-35A, F-35C, F-35E, F-35H in previous worlds.

But, quite frankly, there is your Hawk replacement. Combine them with the superb simulators that AIR 6000 bought; reinvest the Hawk replacement money in more important capabilities. I get it's not perfect - but this is the ADF of minimal viable capability....

However - I'd rather hand-to-hand a rabid tiger than stand between a RAAFie and a new plane

 

[swerve]

AFAIK, not possible at all. The various Blocks would have been called F-35A, F-35C, F-35E, F-35H in previous worlds.

In previous worlds, the F-18E/F/G would be the F-24A/B/C, the F-16E/F might be the F-25A/B, & the F-35A/B/C the F-26, F-27 & F-28.

I find it irritating that having developed & implemented a carefully thought out comprehensive designation system, it was casually discarded without any discussion or announcement.

 

[Aardvark144]

AIM-260A notification attached -

Federal Register :: Public Inspection: Arms Sales

 

[ADMk2]

AIM-260A notification attached -

Federal Register :: Public Inspection: Arms Sales

Good find! I guess that answers why we can afford to donate some AIM-120’s to the UAE…

 

[SammyC]

AIM-260A notification attached -

Federal Register :: Public Inspection: Arms Sales

It's nice to see this order progressing, I wonder when we would received the first units. Google advises me that while production commences this year, Australia is not slated deliveries until 2033. Seems a bit late and a long way away.

 

[old faithful]

Up to 450 units....does that mean @ 200?

 

[downunderblue]

B-21 Raider ...

I just noticed a tweet (below) re recent US HASC testimony re B-21 production. I assume increased production also opens up economies of scale as well as production availability.

Would anyone here have any issue with the RAAF acquiring such a capability?

This was taken off the table (by us) very quickly with little transparency.

Not only does it mitigate Aukus project and delivery timeframe risk, it also reinstates (on steroids) a capability we lost with the retirement of the F-111's.

I assume a lot of work would need to be done in Washington both with the Administration and the Armed Services Committees, but I would have thought its doable or at minimum a worth attempting.

Again would anyone here have any issue with the Govt trying? It's almost as if someone said it was impossible so in classic public service thinking it's like the option never existed.

"USSTRATCOM tells HASC Strategic Forces Subcommittee that there are conversations about possibly opening a second production line for the B-21 Raider"

 

[Stampede]

B-21 Raider ...

I just noticed a tweet (below) re recent US HASC testimony re B-21 production. I assume increased production also opens up economies of scale as well as production availability.

Would anyone here have any issue with the RAAF acquiring such a capability?

This was taken off the table (by us) very quickly with little transparency.

Not only does it mitigate Aukus project and delivery timeframe risk, it also reinstates (on steroids) a capability we lost with the retirement of the F-111's.

I assume a lot of work would need to be done in Washington both with the Administration and the Armed Services Committees, but I would have thought its doable or at minimum a worth attempting.

Again would anyone here have any issue with the Govt trying? It's almost as if someone said it was impossible so in classic public service thinking it's like the option never existed.

"USSTRATCOM tells HASC Strategic Forces Subcommittee that there are conversations about possibly opening a second production line for the B-21 Raider"

The ADF has such a big shopping list of need that I’d suggest it would be way down the list of priorities.

Also like AUKUS it would also have a political.
dimension.

Not sure what that package deal looks like !!!!!!!!

Cheers S

 

[SammyC]

B-21 Raider ...

I just noticed a tweet (below) re recent US HASC testimony re B-21 production. I assume increased production also opens up economies of scale as well as production availability.

Would anyone here have any issue with the RAAF acquiring such a capability?

This was taken off the table (by us) very quickly with little transparency.

Not only does it mitigate Aukus project and delivery timeframe risk, it also reinstates (on steroids) a capability we lost with the retirement of the F-111's.

I assume a lot of work would need to be done in Washington both with the Administration and the Armed Services Committees, but I would have thought its doable or at minimum a worth attempting.

Again would anyone here have any issue with the Govt trying? It's almost as if someone said it was impossible so in classic public service thinking it's like the option never existed.

"USSTRATCOM tells HASC Strategic Forces Subcommittee that there are conversations about possibly opening a second production line for the B-21 Raider"

Would love to see B21s in our fleet. I think we would need to give up the NDIS to fund it.

I also have a feeling we are on Trump's shit list for a while, so unlikely to get his blessing.

 

[downunderblue]

The ADF has such a big shopping list of need that I’d suggest it would be way down the list of priorities.

If the strategic objectives is to reinforce a credible deterrent to prevent conflict, is there any better tool than a SSN and/or a LO strategic bomber?

Every $ spent has benefit of course but those aimed to prevent conflict should be a priority if you believe a deterrent policy actually deters a shooting war.

Yes again the numbers we can field are much smaller in impact that what Indopacom can field, but the more the merrier, especially as it shows we are doing our bit/ pulling out weight.

 

[downunderblue]

Would love to see B21s in our fleet. I think we would need to give up the NDIS to fund it.

I also have a feeling we are on Trump's shit list for a while, so unlikely to get his blessing.

He is transactional thankfully, and wants to like us. A press conference with a B-21 mock up and a big ribbon to cut would likely be enough to keep him amused.

The Embassy historically has been generally v good at playing the man. Maybe we need some more Golf between DJT, new Dennis (not my pick) with Greg Norman down in Palm Beach to sweeten it? I'm actually serious btw. It works.

 

[Todjaeger]

If the strategic objectives is to reinforce a credible deterrent to prevent conflict, is there any better tool than a SSN and/or a LO strategic bomber?

Every $ spent has benefit of course but those aimed to prevent conflict should be a priority if you believe a deterrent policy actually deters a shooting war.

Yes again the numbers we can field are much smaller in impact that what Indopacom can field, but the more the merrier, especially as it shows we are doing our bit/ pulling out weight.

TBH I do not really see a place for the B-21 Raider in the RAAF inventory. Given the costs involved and capabilities provided, IMO it is too expensive and narrowly specialized a capability, given all the other needs of the ADF as a whole.

People need to remember that the cost per aircraft is ~USD700 mil. which works out to about AUD$1 bil. per aircraft, and AFAIK this cost is the flyaway cost, not including all the other ancillary capabilities which would also need to be purchased. Things like training packages for air and ground crews, upgrades or modifications to RAAF bases and airfields, support and spares packages, etc. I seem to recall estimates which factor such costs, never mind how Australia costs military capabilities, would significantly increase the overall price. A squadron of a dozen B-21 Raiders in RAAF colours might cost AUD$12 bil. but adding in the costs for all the needed ancillary items could potentially double or triple the overall cost IIRC.

All this when the ADF as a whole also needs to acquire and begin fielding more and more capability air defence systems across a broad spectrum of potential threats, as well as get the SSN's into service, etc. At least with something like an SSN, they provide a range of capabilities albeit expensive and specialized. Strike, ISR, delivery or retrieval of SF/intel assets, ASW, anti-shipping, etc. are just some of what SSN's can do.

The B-21 Raider would be pretty far down on my list of things for Australia to spend money on, and only after several other defence or defence industry needs have been met. It would potentially be better for Australia to establish more defence ordnance production (not just assembly) domestically, ahead of something like buying B-21 Raiders. Not sure what it would cost for Australia to establish a domestically sourced supply chain able to support Australian production of at least some PGM's and/or air defence missiles, but that could provide more strategic value than adding a few/a dozen strike aircraft that might make Australia even more of a target and could potentially be taken out in a rapid surprise strike.

 

[StingrayOZ]

B21 to hit what? Land targets? Where? Mainland China? Indonesia?

Because if we are talking about anti-shipping, we will be waiting a long time. The F-35 is operated by the USMC and the USN and many other navies, and first flew in 2006 and still doesn't have a proper antishipping weapons like the LRASM, JSM, Spear3 in FOC. The B2 doesn't really have anti-shipping, just JDAM with quicksink. B2 first flight was in 1989 and only got quicksink capability last year. How do we target for those stealth platforms at such high range. The B21 program is interesting, but even when it starts flying IOC it would still be wise to wait to see what sort of real capability it can offer the ADF.

Our P8's can launch antishipping weapons at significant range. Australia can now base B-52s. We have tomahawk and we are getting SSN. F-35 and F-18 have long range weapon options. Our long range strike is arguably in better shape than when we had F-111s.

 

[ADMk2]

B-21 Raider ...

I just noticed a tweet (below) re recent US HASC testimony re B-21 production. I assume increased production also opens up economies of scale as well as production availability.

Would anyone here have any issue with the RAAF acquiring such a capability?

This was taken off the table (by us) very quickly with little transparency.

Not only does it mitigate Aukus project and delivery timeframe risk, it also reinstates (on steroids) a capability we lost with the retirement of the F-111's.

I assume a lot of work would need to be done in Washington both with the Administration and the Armed Services Committees, but I would have thought its doable or at minimum a worth attempting.

Again would anyone here have any issue with the Govt trying? It's almost as if someone said it was impossible so in classic public service thinking it's like the option never existed.

"USSTRATCOM tells HASC Strategic Forces Subcommittee that there are conversations about possibly opening a second production line for the B-21 Raider"

How does a B-21 mitigate a loss of submarine capability?

 

[Takao]

B-21 Raider ...

I just noticed a tweet (below) re recent US HASC testimony re B-21 production. I assume increased production also opens up economies of scale as well as production availability.

Would anyone here have any issue with the RAAF acquiring such a capability?

Absolutely.

Straight up, the easiest answer is cost. Using the most optimistic figures (and I would caution you to look at the F-35 and its initial costings compared to what we have now v what is still to be delivered) we calculated it at $80 b in 2022 figures. That's the same cost as SEA 1000, the Attack class submarines. And that put a significant crimp on the budget; there is no way you could fit two projects of that size into the budget.

Then SEA 1000 went away and DEF 1 kicked in....

Now, what would you get? Initially you'd get a bomber that can lift nukes and an assortment of bombs. Great. No anti-ship capability, no stand-off capability. So we can strike some land targets. Whoopdie do - Tomahawk can do that. And the main role for our Air Force in any doctrine in the past 30 years is anti-shipping. So $80 b buys you - nothing useful.

BTW - the nukes are a problem. The nuke treaties have since lapsed; but if any of them come back, and any match START or similar, now our aircraft have to meet all those requirements. And you can't add aerodynamic differences like the B-52G v H, so inspections are going to be a pain

Oh - and any IADS network we are penetrating cannot tell the difference between a USAF and a RAAF aircraft..... what does that mean when they can't tell if there is a nuke and have their own nuke response. We could inadvertently attract a nuclear response.

Finally; when are we getting them? Remember, the USAF is the priority for US industry (and the B-21 program). So we have to wait for all their 200-odd to be built. And, if they don't build 200, then we may never get them.

This was taken off the table (by us) very quickly with little transparency.

Sigh..... no it wasn't. It was taken off because it doesn't make strategic sense, financial sense, diplomatic sense or tactical sense. Just because these decisions are done in public doesn't mean they weren't considered. And there is no need for transparency in some of these things. The problem with transparency here is (a) explaining the other platforms that already cover B-21 roles, and (b) it brings all the less-educated out and murky the waters.

What we could do is assume that, like every option, it was considered and for a variety of reasons (that are inherently logical within the prescribed system) discarded by genuine experts.

Not only does it mitigate Aukus project and delivery timeframe risk

How? Other than stealth and cost, almost every advantage SSNs have is a B-21 disadvantage and vice-versa. Other than those two areas, there is no way a B-21 can match a SSN (just walk me through the long range persistence and ISR aspects a SSK or SSN can give me and how a B-21 would do that).

it also reinstates (on steroids) a capability we lost with the retirement of the F-111's.

Which was what? Exactly?

The ability to put 4x 2000 lb bombs in a house 1500 km away? Let me introduce you to Tomahawk. Carry an anti-shipping strike? Nope. What else could an F-111 do? And if there are comments about deterrence or scaring Jakarta, I'm going to need tangible evidence. I've never found a single piece of evidence that the F-111 impacted any neighbour's political thinking - I've been looking and asking for a decade now

 

[Takao]

How does a B-21 mitigate a loss of submarine capability?

It would chew up the money at a similar rate......