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

[Aardvark144]

Deleted

 

[Aardvark144]

As it stands, the KC-30A can refuel Hornets (actually doing two at once, which added to the better flow rate, more than doubles the throughput of a KC-130), so we'd be better off funding a seventh KC-30A than an additional 6x KC-130J.

Funding a seventh KC30? We already have a fleet of seven. The Albanese Express performs standard ops when not VIP tasked.[/QUOTE]

 

[Morgo]

it'll probably go to $6b-ish

Excellent points Takao, but this one in particular jumped out.

If you were to ask me whether we are better off with a squadron of STOL that isn't actually super useful, or an extra Hunter, I'd tell you the Hunter 10/10 times.

We're a maritime nation. An island continent. The RAN needs to be the senior service, and the RAAF needs to focus on maritime patrol and strike, which it is actually quite well capitalised to do.

I certainly think it is a complete furphy to suggest that the RAAF is the poor cousin of the other services. The Army has gotten by far the shortest end of the stick, but that also is quite appropriate. We don't have any land borders with anyone. That's not to say we don't need a well funded top tier Army - we absolutely do - but it should also clearly get less funding than firstly the RAN, and secondly the RAAF.

 

[Takao]

Funding a seventh KC30? We already have a fleet of seven. The Albanese Express performs standard ops when not VIP tasked.

Sorry, some poor phrasing there.

The seventh (and eighth and ninth) KC-30s were challenging. The former due to the VIP additions, the latter due to when the $$ were needed versus when money was available. When we were looking at the KC-130J/MH-47G capability, the funding for #7 would have cut across to the KC-130s. It was in mid-conversion, but we it was feasible to walk away with little financial impact.

When it was decided to not go down that path, the money went back to #7. Part of the decision was that a seventh KC-30 gave so much more than 6x KC-130s could; likewise without the MH-47G there was no need.

We're a maritime nation. An island continent. The RAN needs to be the senior service, and the RAAF needs to focus on maritime patrol and strike, which it is actually quite well capitalised to do.

I certainly think it is a complete furphy to suggest that the RAAF is the poor cousin of the other services. The Army has gotten by far the shortest end of the stick, but that also is quite appropriate. We don't have any land borders with anyone. That's not to say we don't need a well funded top tier Army - we absolutely do - but it should also clearly get less funding than firstly the RAN, and secondly the RAAF.

Absolutely. The mobilisation maths demand that.

It takes years to build a ship. In peacetime, we should focus on that as much as possible.

It takes months to build a Sqn. This is where we transition to from ship building when the threat picks up.

It takes weeks to build a Regt. This is the final stage before conflict.

This has been borne out over the 1900s. Look at the Royal Navy; a focus during the interwar period, but as war grew closer the RAF became the priority, then the Army. The build ship-building plans for the 1938-1942 period were slashed; the majority of the ships were designed/built during the 20s and 30s. The RAF struggles through the 30s; but then expands, meaning that at the critical point, they have just enough Hurricanes and Spitfires to defend the island. Yes, there are still Defiants and Battles and Gladiators, but the transition had started. These bought the time for industry to kick in and spread more; that spread included replacing and growing the Army

The key is (a) to have a detailed mobilisation plan, and (b) to have enough to build on. So you cannot cut the Army to zero - you need just enough tanks and IFVs and SPH to keep the skills there - but you can deprioritise it. You just have to, and this is the key, do it deliberately. There appears to be a stumble towards accidently cutting Army currently, that is the frustrating bit. There is also the need to do the below open war missions, for another INTERFET you need a capable Army.

But in the end, broadly speaking, for us we should absolutely be prioritising the Fleet. It's a particularly easy decision when you realise that a proper national shipbuilding plan sees significant industrial and economic advantages that can help across the nation.

 

[Stampede]

Turns out there is a 10000 character limit. Huh....



The advantage of a CH-47 is that it can avoid the huts. The C-27 - well, it's stuck with a handful of runways. And a STOL aircraft is cheap. Don't disagree there. However. That STOL aircraft has to lift more than a CH-47 and get into runways much smaller than a C-130J. It also needs good range, especially at MTOW. That's a much more expensive combination of needs (note that the C-27J achieves one of 3). I'm sure you'll find an aircraft that does that for cheap. But, you've forgotten the rest.

A STOL capability needs more than an aircraft. The crews need to come from somewhere (remember you are simultaneously increasing C-130J crews), in an era of tight recruiting. Note those aircrew specs are the same as SSN crew, DDG/FFG crew, IAMD crew and long-range strike crew. There is significant pressure on technical types. Now add maintainers (also the same). You need new facilities (Amberley and Richmond are full). You need to add the military kit to the STOL aircraft (comms and EWSP at a minimum - both are much more $$ than you think). Sustainment and supplies? Remember, that can hurt with big world-wide fleets like C-130. Small world-wide fleets (like C-27) get even more scarce/expensive.

Noting all of that, I'd expect that you'd need about $4-5b for a STOL capability. If it's a niche aircraft (like the C-27) it'll head towards and past $5b. If it's European, it'll probably go to $6b-ish. All to get a Sqn of something that we do not need, in an era of minimum viable capability.

Remember also, more than one DSTG and AFHQ study has shown the optimal fleet for airlift in the ADF is C-17/C-130/CH-47.



A F-111 could conduct a precision strike of ~4x 2000 lb at ~2000 km in optimal conditions. It could also take 4x AGM-84 in a very potent anti-shipping role. To do so required two crew to operate in range of enemy weapons and ~18 kL of aviation fuel. Not too shabby.

A HiMARs with PrSM increment 4 can conduct a precision strike of 2x ~500lb bomb (although significantly varied types of warheads and loads) at over 2000 km. It can also do anti-shipping with an increment 2 seeker. To do so requires no crew at risk and about 250 L of diesel.

Remember that most of our aviation fuel comes from China; and we have significant diesel reserves.

Where I said arguable the HiMARs replaces the F-111 capability, I meant arguably. A troop of HiMARs with PrSM 4 can deliver the same amount of effect at the same or greater range than 2x F-111 but can shrink the tempo from doing that one a day to once every half hour. Yes, PrSM 4 doesn't exist yet. Yes, targeting may be an issue. There are a bunch of quibbles. But I draw your attention to arguably.



Sigh. No, there wasn't It was for additional capability, with 'capability' never defined. Stingray and Steve have pretty good summaries, and the FSP and NDS teams have delved into the history significantly in order to scope this exact issue. There has never been a serious attempt by AFHQ to get the fourth Sqn of F-35 (beyond the original 'up to 100' phrase) because they just cannot crew it. And it costs too much money, especially compared to the F-18 platform. I'm sure there is a FLTLT or SQNLDR fighter pilot out there that will advocate - but the SLG didn't. And that's from 2019, before an SSN poked anywhere.

Don’t we like the F111.

The P8 Poseidon is not a bomber!
It’s a modified commercial aircraft with no stealth and a speed commensurate with its civil background.

That said, as an ASW aircraft it allegedly has a combat radius of over 2000km and can carry the
AGM -158c LRASM which apparently has a range based off its sibling AGM-158BJASSM-ER of some 900km.

Thats what’s in the public domain.
What the P8s range is with four external LRASM I don’t know other than to speculate it is probably considerable.

So does a P8 have a 3000k strike range?

Does that make it a bomber over land or sea?

Serious question , because as an observation across land, sea and air the arrows in the form of missiles and drones are doing the distance stuff much further away from the archer.

In the P8 context, if the launch platform is way out of reach from an adversary’s reach (land, sea and air) is it a hunter or the hunted?

Cheers S

PS Acknowledge no aircraft operates alone in this day and age but rather as just one part of a larger kill chain.

 

[StevoJH]

Bomber or not, the P-8 is a much more flexible airframe then the B-21, Especially if you are only planning on using stand off munitions anyway.

Of course there is also the option of using enablers such as rapid dragon from your Transport Fleet if you need a large one off strike.

Remembering that Australia is more likely to be fighting over pacific islands then over Chinese territory, and for that B-21 is complete overkill.

I've posted this before, if you are going to be operating over the South China Sea or over China itself, you are going to need F-35 with the Jamming support of EA-18G's to have any chance. And given the size of the RAAF fleet, its likely to become a degraded capability quite quickly. These aircraft would obviously need to be forward based.