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

Lolcake said:

The


The one thing that disappointed me.most was the lack of funding for dedicated SF air assets.

Click to expand...

I do wonder how much the defence budget is distorted by spend on dedicated SF assets though.

And that's without the distortion of talent distribution I imagine it causes.

For a military the size of Australia's I feel we need to avoid small numbers of Gucci kit if possible.

Regards,

Massive

SamB said:

One of the staff members, MrConservitve prefered the PC-24 rough field landings over the KingAir. Would open up a number of previously inaccessible airstrips, privately owned ones. Would be essential for same day deliveries/uber in support of Army.

Pilatus PC24

Payload: Max payload: 1,406 kg

Cruise speed: 810 km/h (510 mph, 440 kn)

Range: 3,700 km (2,300 mi, 2,000 nmi) , 6 passengers (1,200 lb payload)

Pilatus PC-24 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Spartan

Payload: source says 5000 kgs but I've seen higher.

Speed: 670km

Range: 1700km at maximum take off weight

https://www.airforce.gov.au/aircraft/c-27j-spartan

I have it under good authority that RAAF strategic airlift is satisfied with a mix of whitetail, C-130J and CH-47.

Not sure if ARMY will be into HADR air missions or tactical lift. Arguably they'd drive there or hop on a ferry.

Pilatus PC24 as medical evacuation and pre positioning drone teams for example, surveillance or drone repairs domestically and across water.

But yeah. Different reasons.

Click to expand...

I was going to suggest we look at the RFDS Pilatis fleet, if not 24s, then 12s.

Look at the missions the Spartans actually fly and where they fly them, something smaller would be much more suitable and efficient.

We could really set the cat among the pigeons is transferring the capability to army aviation

spoz said:

A question which probably shows both age and inability to keep up - how is support for PTS provided these days? In my day it was Porters and Caribous, with the occasional C130. Well, I did say it was age related!

Click to expand...

A service provider operates two CASA 212 aircraft.

Massive said:

I do wonder how much the defence budget is distorted by spend on dedicated SF assets though.

And that's without the distortion of talent distribution I imagine it causes.

For a military the size of Australia's I feel we need to avoid small numbers of Gucci kit if possible.

Regards,

Massive

Click to expand...

Really? Small numbers of gucci kit is ALL we buy…

Fourteenth and final P-8A for the RAAF arrived in Australia Yesterday after a 5 day trip from the USA.
A47-014.
A ten year gap between the RAAF receiving it's first and last P-8As.
Image Courtesy of Airman94.

MARKMILES77 said:

Fourteenth and final P-8A for the RAAF arrived in Australia Yesterday after a 5 day trip from the USA.
A47-014.
A ten year gap between the RAAF receiving it's first and last P-8As.
Image Courtesy of Airman94.

https://x.com/airman941/status/2059204705147097268

View attachment 54884

Click to expand...

Ten years, yes, but…

They were approved/ordered in multiple batches.

Eight + four options, later those four options firmed, then much later the possibility of another three, two of those turned into firm orders.

RAAF operating MQ-28 Ghostbats from Point Mugu in California.
First time flying outside Australia.

I hope the adf order this aircraft in sizeable numbers.

Australian Border Force is getting a significant boost to it's airborne maritime surveillance capability with 3 Bombardier G6500s
being contracted from Bombardier Defence. These will be part of an 11 aircraft fleet to be operated by Metrea on behalf of the ABF in the maritime surveillance role. The other eight aircraft will be turboprops though, the exact aircraft to be used have not been identified.
Metrea is taking over the role from Leidos Australia who operate ten Dash 8 Turboprops currently, for the ABF.

Gulfstream 6500.


There is actually a significant airborne maritime surveillance capability that exists in Australia outside of the RAAF.
As well as the ABF, AMSA also operates four Bombardier Challenger 604s (another long range jet), mainly for Search and Rescue missions.

John Newman said:

Ten years, yes, but…

They were approved/ordered in multiple batches.

Eight + four options, later those four options firmed, then much later the possibility of another three, two of those turned into firm orders.

Click to expand...

The delay for the last two was recognition that P-8s were essential aircraft, and we wanted 15, but had to finagle into an IIP that also introduced SEA 1000. There was significant angst at the time, its good to see them delivered.

Photo from Defence's Image Web Page that confirms RAAF Growlers are flying with the AN/ALQ-249(V1) Next Generation Jammer (Mid Band) Pods.

Defence Imagery: 20260312raaf8675615_0204.jpg

Boeing has been conducting Radar Cross Sectional Testing of Ghost Bat and has confirmed it's stealth characteristics.
No indication has been given of it's level of stealth.

AFAIK what I could read into it, people were happy with its radar cross section. Its not an absolute high end stealth/low observable platform. It just needs to be, stealthy enough to be useful.

Even without expensive ram treatments its probably better than 4.5 gen era fighters. Not having a human solves a lot of problems regarding front radar cross section. It could be sitting somewhere closer to 1st gen stealthy/low observable munitions. All opinion possibilities.

Which means it will likely be very effective against airborne fighter radar, and many ground and naval based radars, and particularly effective against munition radars. Given its big enough to carry longer range munitions (aim130/260 glide bombs, spear3 perhaps - not just a hellfire), that would make it extremely effective as a weapon platform.

People are very interested in ghostbat. The fact that the US and Germany and Japan are actively courting it should speak volumes. The fact it is quite far in its development, and its capabilities today makes it even more interesting.

ADMk2 said:

Really? Small numbers of gucci kit is ALL we buy…

Click to expand...

I do not disagree with you on this.

Regards,

Massive

On the topic of small numbers of gucci kit, this article on drone defences is very interesting:

Fences Not F-35s: Drone Attacks and the Illogic of Gulf Procurement

Massive said:

On the topic of small numbers of gucci kit, this article on drone defences is very interesting:

Fences Not F-35s: Drone Attacks and the Illogic of Gulf Procurement

Click to expand...

Excellent article!

Massive said:

On the topic of small numbers of gucci kit, this article on drone defences is very interesting:

Fences Not F-35s: Drone Attacks and the Illogic of Gulf Procurement

Click to expand...

Or, and I am just spitballing here, they COULD mimic Australia’s approach, and literally do NONE of those things and pray it works out okay in wartime?

ADMk2 said:

Or, and I am just spitballing here, they COULD mimic Australia’s approach, and literally do NONE of those things and pray it works out okay in wartime?

Click to expand...

Yep, the ME royals could have banked a larger amount of their wealth in Switzerland instead of spending billions on exotic kit...might have made only a minor difference. Of course hindsight is 20/20. In any event, the billions Western nations planning to spend on defence may have to reviewed, especially wrt drone defence for key assets and just as importantly drone protection for ground forces.

Massive said:

On the topic of small numbers of gucci kit, this article on drone defences is very interesting:

Fences Not F-35s: Drone Attacks and the Illogic of Gulf Procurement

Click to expand...

Using missile defence from drone defence has been proven a losing equation. To be the sky ranger type of turrent on a boxer or red back would be faster and more sensible solution. Along with EW than the ADF stocking up on thousands of costly missiles or anti drone drones that could grow out of date on the armoury shelves.

Bob53 said:

Using missile defence from drone defence has been proven a losing equation. To be the sky ranger type of turrent on a boxer or red back would be faster and more sensible solution. Along with EW than the ADF stocking up on thousands of costly missiles or anti drone drones that could grow out of date on the armoury shelves.

Click to expand...

Pat Conroy has stated the government will not buy large, upfront stockpiles of drones that will just "sit on shelves" and risk becoming obsolete within two years. I tend to agree with that sentiment. Drones aren't cheap if you are constantly stockpiling and then throwing them away. What is really needed is to create an industrial base that can quickly ramp up production in an emergency. This is a difficult balancing act as industry obviously needs sufficient orders to keep their doors open but at the same time not bleeding the treasury dry.

It is a complex issue. In wartime you need a surge capability, you need trained workers, you need supply lines and you need tooling that is ready to go. The government also needs to keep pushing and funding R&D.

What defence really wants a steady trickle of new airframes with each batch more advanced than the last and a production line that can be surged if needed. Ideally foreign orders will subsidise these programs and keep the unit price down.