Ideal realistic make up for australian air defence

[Aussie optimist]

Hi everyone

I've been reading many post's of people suggesting, that australian air superiority in our region is in danger of being very behind the eight ball. I'm just wondering if I can have some thoughts on how we can realistically restore our capibilities and maintain them into the future, bearing in mind that F22's are off the table.
I'm interested in hearing all your opinions and thoughts.

Cheers

 

[ddub321]

I think F-35 Lightning II's, wedgetail AWACS, KC-30 tankers & super hornets should do the job...

 

[TaranisAttack]

Most people seem to be of the opinion that the Wedgetails will make up for any short coming in numbers of fighters. I think a mix of F18E and F35 gives a good mix of different, and effective capabilities, which will make it both more complex to plan an attack against Australia and provide enough capabilities to up the price the attacker will have to pay. However there is no way Australia can compete in numbers with India and China with its current budget, so unless there is a massive budget increase this is probably the best you can hope for.

 

[the road runner]

@Aussie optimist,may i ask you who do you think in our region is getting more assets that the RAAF.

The RAAF has just received 11 out of a total of 24 Super Hornets,replacing F111's.Government has just paid 2 billion plus for 14 JSF,with a target of 100 JSF stated by Government.
2 Wedgetail AWACS have been accepted into RAAF service with 4 more on the way.All tho the AWACS are on the governments "Project of concern list" i would assume a project this technology advanced would have some teething problems.

The RAAF has stated that it is looking at the P-8 Poseidon as a replacement for the Orions with approx 7 units on the wish list.Also add to that a UAV in the form of Global hawk or Mariner,and the RAAF has some pretty nice and Modern bits of KIT.

Look at our Transport planes,we have 4 modern C-17.Raaf has 12 C-130 J and will replace the caribou with hopefully 10 C27J.Add to that 5 KC-30 tanker and we have ths start of a potent force.

I think the RAAF with its Modern Force,Training regime and friend in high places(USA) makes the notion of an ATTACK of Australia seem suicidal to outside Powers:flame

If someone thinks that RAAF is behind the 8 ball with all these new platforms/weapons coming online,then so be it.But i think our force structure will be the bees knees in 10 years.

 

[the road runner]

Post deleted

 

[Aussie optimist]

thanks for the positive feed back guy's.
What are everyones thoughts on indian and chinese aircraft carries and the capibilities of the SU 30 and SU 35 in regards to their performance against the Super hornets and expected supremacy against the F35's with limited stealth the only draw card.

 

[Bonza]

thanks for the positive feed back guy's.
What are everyones thoughts on indian and chinese aircraft carries and the capibilities of the SU 30 and SU 35 in regards to their performance against the Super hornets and expected supremacy against the F35's with limited stealth the only draw card.

We don't allow "x vs. y" discussions at DT because they aren't really representative of real world circumstances, so I'd discourage taking up a "Sukhoi versus Super Hornet" line of discussion.

In addition I think you should do some more reading if you think "limited stealth" is the only benefit offered by an aircraft like the F-35. By saying this (and I don't mean this in a condescending way) you're revealing the limitations of your own understanding quite a bit. As I said, I don't mean that as a personal attack, but I would recommend that you read up on the subjects of air combat and the role of information gathering/sharing in modern warfare.

Try not to get caught up in the idea of how a Sukhoi would compare to a Super Hornet, instead look at the warfighting system of which each aircraft is a part, and think about how the aircraft enable various effects or achieve certain tasks within that system. Think of the aircraft as just one facet of the "bigger picture", then consider what the aircraft's capability contributes to a warfighting system rather than how the aircraft compares to another individual aircraft. A good example of a factor that isn't always immediately apparent from aircraft-to-aircraft comparisons would be systems that govern sharing and controlling information - AESA radars, advanced datalinking capabilities, surveillance systems, AEW & C, electronic warfare capabilities. These factors aren't always apparent from comparing one aircraft to another as they're not necessarily platform-specific but they can have massive, game-changing effects on a force's capacity to utilise its air components. These are just examples but I hope they serve to illustrate the point that an aircraft cannot be judged solely on what its capabilities achieve in isolation.

 

[Aussie optimist]

We don't allow "x vs. y" discussions at DT because they aren't really representative of real world circumstances, so I'd discourage taking up a "Sukhoi versus Super Hornet" line of discussion.

In addition I think you should do some more reading if you think "limited stealth" is the only benefit offered by an aircraft like the F-35. By saying this (and I don't mean this in a condescending way) you're revealing the limitations of your own understanding quite a bit. As I said, I don't mean that as a personal attack, but I would recommend that you read up on the subjects of air combat and the role of information gathering/sharing in modern warfare.

Try not to get caught up in the idea of how a Sukhoi would compare to a Super Hornet, instead look at the warfighting system of which each aircraft is a part, and think about how the aircraft enable various effects or achieve certain tasks within that system. Think of the aircraft as just one facet of the "bigger picture", then consider what the aircraft's capability contributes to a warfighting system rather than how the aircraft compares to another individual aircraft. A good example of a factor that isn't always immediately apparent from aircraft-to-aircraft comparisons would be systems that govern sharing and controlling information - AESA radars, advanced datalinking capabilities, surveillance systems, AEW & C, electronic warfare capabilities. These factors aren't always apparent from comparing one aircraft to another as they're not necessarily platform-specific but they can have massive, game-changing effects on a force's capacity to utilise its air components. These are just examples but I hope they serve to illustrate the point that an aircraft cannot be judged solely on what its capabilities achieve in isolation.

Fair call mate.
I don't pretend to be an expert and will do some more reading regarding modern air combat as I wish to understand more the complexities. In short cheers for the constructive criticism as one can always learn more.

 

[Bonza]

Fair call mate.
I don't pretend to be an expert and will do some more reading regarding modern air combat as I wish to understand more the complexities. In short cheers for the constructive criticism as one can always learn more.

I'm by no means an expert either - the more I learn about it, the more I realise that I'm a mere dabbler. The subject is also made a little more problematic to research online by virtue of the fact that there are so many competing opinions, and increasingly, competing interests. People seem to get very excited by air combat so it can be hard to find decent information or discussion. The following are some good primers for the bigger picture behind air combat (with apologies to OPSSG, who was the one to recommend these links ):

The Air Campaign: Planning for Combat

Battlefield of the Future

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/service_pubs/afdd1.pdf

http://www.airpowerstudies.co.uk/New-CAS-AP300.pdf

I hope you find the links interesting.

 

[Aussie Digger]

thanks for the positive feed back guy's.
What are everyones thoughts on indian and chinese aircraft carries and the capibilities of the SU 30 and SU 35 in regards to their performance against the Super hornets and expected supremacy against the F35's with limited stealth the only draw card.

India only has one carrier and it only has Sea Harriers at the current time.

China doesn't have a carrier at all.

Guess what I think of them...

 

[Todjaeger]

Most people seem to be of the opinion that the Wedgetails will make up for any short coming in numbers of fighters. I think a mix of F18E and F35 gives a good mix of different, and effective capabilities, which will make it both more complex to plan an attack against Australia and provide enough capabilities to up the price the attacker will have to pay. However there is no way Australia can compete in numbers with India and China with its current budget, so unless there is a massive budget increase this is probably the best you can hope for.

Something which people frequently seem to forget, at least amongst those not actually involved in analyzing the Oz defences, is the importance of some of the broad area surveillance systems. Take JORN and SECAR for instance, both provide a ground-based detection system which covers a wide area. While neither system can provide 'target quality' data, with the use of the appropriate C4ISR systems, a contact from JORN and/or SECAR (more likely JORN since that has longer range) can then que other assets to either investigate and/or intercept.

In terms of providing air defence, it is not just about who has the "best" or most aircraft, but really who can make the best use of them. To make the best use of something like combat aircraft, whoever has the most/best information about the situation will typically have the advantage.

Now, with others having posted about the potential "threat" of India and/or China, that might be something Australia should be concerned about, once it actually exists. At present, neither nation could carry out any real practical airstrike against Australia. AFAIK the military aircraft which both countries that is capable of actually reaching Australia (and perhaps even returning) is confided to long-ranged transports, not bombers, strike or attack aircraft. Now, if both/either country began making hostile noises directed at Australia, and if they suddenly began building up a long-ranged strike capability or suddenly acquired air bases within easy reach of the Australian mainland, then perhaps things would be different.

At present though, either larger, multi-engined bombers would be required, or a dramatic expansion of the AAR fleets of the respective nations. That or an ASEAN nation like East Timor, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea or perhaps Malaysia would need to either be overrun or lease an airbase and appropriate facilities to either China or India. [

In short, there is a great deal more involved in defending Australian airspace than just nn numbers of yy fighters.

-Cheers

 

[TaranisAttack]

thanks for the positive feed back guy's.
What are everyones thoughts on indian and chinese aircraft carries and the capibilities of the SU 30 and SU 35 in regards to their performance against the Super hornets and expected supremacy against the F35's with limited stealth the only draw card.

They both have their advantages. F35 is not untouchable by any stretch of the imagination, though some people do have that opinion. If you consider that you largely get what you pay for, buying Russian gear you get a bit more of some things, and a bit less of others, same with F35 and Typhoon ect. F35 has more advantages than its stealth, but that is its key focus, and it does lag in some areas like speed and agility. Even F22 has disadvantages, like the lack of an IRST which is an extremely good way to counter a low RCS target, its range isn't amazing and its strike capabilities arents that good though it has potential to be a good strike platform.

Its all swings and roundabouts really :sniper

India only has one carrier and it only has Sea Harriers at the current time.
China doesn't have a carrier at all.
Guess what I think of them...

Thats true, but Australia doesn't have 100 F35 either.

Something which people frequently seem to forget, at least amongst those not actually involved in analyzing the Oz defences, is the importance of some of the broad area surveillance systems. Take JORN and SECAR for instance, both provide a ground-based detection system which covers a wide area. While neither system can provide 'target quality' data, with the use of the appropriate C4ISR systems, a contact from JORN and/or SECAR (more likely JORN since that has longer range) can then que other assets to either investigate and/or intercept.

In terms of providing air defence, it is not just about who has the "best" or most aircraft, but really who can make the best use of them. To make the best use of something like combat aircraft, whoever has the most/best information about the situation will typically have the advantage.

Now, with others having posted about the potential "threat" of India and/or China, that might be something Australia should be concerned about, once it actually exists. At present, neither nation could carry out any real practical airstrike against Australia. AFAIK the military aircraft which both countries that is capable of actually reaching Australia (and perhaps even returning) is confided to long-ranged transports, not bombers, strike or attack aircraft. Now, if both/either country began making hostile noises directed at Australia, and if they suddenly began building up a long-ranged strike capability or suddenly acquired air bases within easy reach of the Australian mainland, then perhaps things would be different.

At present though, either larger, multi-engined bombers would be required, or a dramatic expansion of the AAR fleets of the respective nations. That or an ASEAN nation like East Timor, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea or perhaps Malaysia would need to either be overrun or lease an airbase and appropriate facilities to either China or India. [

In short, there is a great deal more involved in defending Australian airspace than just nn numbers of yy fighters.

-Cheers

China already has a fleet of long range bombers, so I presume you mean if they replace the existing bombers with ones that aren't trashcans that also happen to fly?

As for JORN, its a very big static target. Its got great capabilities, but its got weaknesses too.

 

[Todjaeger]

They both have their advantages. F35 is not untouchable by any stretch of the imagination, though some people do have that opinion. If you consider that you largely get what you pay for, buying Russian gear you get a bit more of some things, and a bit less of others, same with F35 and Typhoon ect. F35 has more advantages than its stealth, but that is its key focus, and it does lag in some areas like speed and agility. Even F22 has disadvantages, like the lack of an IRST which is an extremely good way to counter a low RCS target, its range isn't amazing and its strike capabilities arents that good though it has potential to be a good strike platform.

True, the F-35 (or any other fighter for that matter) is not "untouchable", however when utilized properly, and operated towards the system strengths, a hostile nation would be hard pressed to overcome Australian air defences. This would be true whether or not Australia was operating the F-35, the SHornets or the HUG Bugs. Remember, it is not just the platform which becomes important, but the system as a whole.

China already has a fleet of long range bombers, so I presume you mean if they replace the existing bombers with ones that aren't trashcans that also happen to fly?

As for JORN, its a very big static target. Its got great capabilities, but its got weaknesses too.

Yes, the PRC does operate a fleet of H-6/Tu-16 medium bombers, with a range of ~7,200 km. However, the distance from Sanya (the southern most city in China AFAIK) to Darwin (AFAIK the closest city in Oz) is ~4,100 km. Which means that either a significant tanker fleet is required, or a closer airbase to launch and recover the bombers is required. Or even less likely, the bombers would be making a one-way trip. And that is just for a strike on Darwin, nevermind hitting a major city like Perth, or the south eastern urban belt running from Melbourne to Brisbane.

As for JORN, yes it is a static target, with elements scattered across different parts of Australia. However, unless a hostile force did an element of planning ahead and infiltrated a ground unit onto Australian soil prior to any launched air attack, JORN would serve its purpose. Which is to act as an early warning system, detecting potentially hostile incoming aircraft, ships, etc. Given the standoff range that JORN can potentially provide, the system could potentially be tracking a flight of H-6/Tu-16 bombers moving at max speed towards Australia for 3+ hours, prior to the flight actually even reaching Australian airspace. This would provide plenty of time for Australia to get fighter elements into position to intercept and/or destroy any incoming bombers, and that is with the current forces. Once more SHornets enter service, and/or the F-35, and the Wedgetail AEW&C, that would provide Australia with even greater options. And incidentally, in order for the flight I mentioned from Sanya to reach Darwin via the most direct flight path, it would have to cross Malaysian and Indonesian airspace, as well as skit the Philippines. In short, it would trigger a series of major international incidents, get detected and most likely just destroyed in the air prior to reaching any viable target.

-Cheers

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Just to add a few points to Tods excellent post:

First of all even if the Chinese conjure enough tanking support to get Tu-16's into the sea-air gap, what precisely have they achieved? They've put unsupported, subsonic, strategic aircraft into the teeth of a modern ADS without offensive or defensive counter air. Even with sophisticated EW support - which is going to have trouble with JORN, MESA, AN/APG-79 and AN/APG-81 - the attrition rate would be enormous.

Second of all JORN is protected by geography. Most of its vital elements are thousands of km's from the coast and thus this limits the threats facing the system. The only hard counters the Chinese would have to JORN would be a BM - and given the sear size of the network or they would either need mass or a WMD - or SF infiltration, not an easy task considering there are 1000km+ of desert to cover and no land border to infiltrate.

Third of all it’s not just the ADF's fighter assets or sensors which make it effective, it’s the manner in which they are integrated through C4 systems such as vigilaire. In order to effectively penetrate an IADS of that sophistication you can’t just throw a few bombers into the airspace and hope it’s effective. Realistically a major power would have to acquire basing infrastructure in Indonesia, PNG or the Solomon Islands in order to be able to deploy the supporting assets necessary to operate effectively in the sea-air gap (not to mention to achieve the persistence necessary). Tu-16’s without fighter support would be lambs to the slaughter.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

...or acquire carriers.

But seriously, China has enough on its plate with Taiwan than to consider an attack on Australia. Its an unrealistic scenario.

 

[STURM]

Just to add a few points to Tods excellent post:

First of all even if the Chinese conjure enough tanking support to get Tu-16's into the sea-air gap, what precisely have they achieved?

The whole of South East Asia is known to be within range of Chinese conventional ballistic and cruise missiles and it is possible that some may have the range to hit northern Australia. If thats indeed the case, it would be unlikely that Tu-16s would be used as they would most probably be kept in reserve for use against U.S. naval forces closer to home and as pointed out, using them against Australia would be suicidal and very difficult. Should conflict erupt with China, the RAAF base at Butterworth would pay huge dividends, as it did for Australia during Vietnam and the Cold War, depending of course on the stance adopted by the host country, Malaysia.

Off topic but in my opinion the biggest threat to Australia would not be Chinese aircraft or ballistic/cruise missiles but Chinese submarines, many based in Hainan island, operating in Australia's sea lanes.

Hi everyone

I've been reading many post's of people suggesting, that australian air superiority in our region is in danger of being very behind the eight ball.

Irrespective of whether the RAAF gets the Raptor or additional Hornets, it will still have a an edge over most South East Asian air arms by virtue of the fact that Australia allocates more cash for training, which means that RAAF pilots fly more often and receive more realistic and challenging training. Whether Australia enjoys such a qualitive edge over China is unknown as we have no idea how many hours the average PLAAF and PLAN fighter jock flies annually and what kind of training he gets.

 

[Jissy]

...or acquire carriers.

But seriously, China has enough on its plate with Taiwan than to consider an attack on Australia. Its an unrealistic scenario.

Interesting discussions here, my tuppence is, China would not be a threat to Oz, ever, unless much further down the track we are competing for the same oil grounds, which of course exist off Timor, Taiwan, and environs.

The idea of China sending a long range bomber here seems both unrealistic and unnecessary, as its missile systems would do a lot more damage. However, we need not worry about such an event, unless of course the current Korean difficulty escalates, and our old fighting partner the USA decides to take on China, which recently postured by live missile firing practise nearby, in response to the USA holding exercises with Sth K. But, even the USA would be loathe to try it on with China, I suspect.

Besides, we have lots of spy capability, thanks to being part of Echelon, and other systems, including access to US military sat, so we will indeed see, and hear of, something coming our way well before it gets here, not that it ever will....