ADF General discussion thread

[the road runner]

Id argue that both SSN and the JSF have been 2 of the best calls Australia has ever made..
The JSF has had issues but most modern aircraft designs have issues ..To me the JSF will be the F-16 of the 21st century..
F-16 had major issues when it was first bought into service and now is an asset or a number of Air forces around the world.
F-16 was built in large numbers and the JSF has had 760 plus units built to date
Lockheed Martin will work threw the issues of the JSF as they have with every other aircraft they have produced

As for the SSN call, its about time Australia went for a Nuke powered boat..
As most members here have stated...Australia has long transit times ..we will now be on station for longer ,we will not have issues with power or have to snort and we can shadow an enemy fleet and also be a screen for our own fleet..
The amount of headaches a nuke boat will give to Australia's enemies will be one of our greatest assets
A true deterrence ,and that's what is expected from the ADF ...to deter an enemy.

 

[MickB]

Very happy to flesh out answers:

And once again a political short-cut decision resulted in a capability gap that Defence needed to scrounge around to fill (yes, those the Super Hornets you mentioned).

My understanding is that the Super Hornets were purchased to fill the gap left by the earlier than expected retirement of the F111.
It was not the result of any perceived shortfall from the F35.

You put forward a lot of what amounts to be bold statements of fact, but when questioned you claim it to be just opinion.

 

[the road runner]

My understanding is that the Super Hornets were purchased to fill the gap left by the earlier than expected retirement of the F111.
It was not the result of any perceived shortfall from the F35

The Growlers are a new capability...LOOK at the capability the RAAF have...we have a Jamming/EW capability that not many nations have..We are the only Western country to be entrusted with the Growler besides the US navy.. We can play the 4.5 generation Jamming game where we use the electronic warfare game and jam our way onto a target Or we can play the 5th gen game where we use Low Observable.

We can even Mix and match with JSF and Growlers a capability that only the US navy has..
I am Curious to know if our other 12 Super Hornets that are plumbed for, but not wired to be growlers .will ever become Growlers
24 Growlers and 72-100 JSF as the RAAF future fleet maybe?

 

[Boagrius]

We can play the 4.5 generation Jamming game where we use the electronic warfare game and jam our way onto a target Or we can play the 5th gen game where we use Low Observable.

...or both - where the EW/EA of the Growler can work synergistically with the small RCS of the F35(s) further ahead.

Far from putting all our eggs in one basket, with 72 F-35A, 24 F/A-18F and ~12 EA-18G we will have a tactical fighter fleet with about as much redundancy and flexibility as AIR6000 could ever have hoped to achieve IMHO. That is before you consider the effect of enablers and force multipliers like JORN, E-7A, MC-55, P-8A, MQ-4C, ATS etc...

 

[swerve]

The Growlers are a new capability...LOOK at the capability the RAAF have...we have a Jamming/EW capability that not many nations have..We are the only Western country to be entrusted with the Growler besides the US navy.. ...

There are countries which could have bought them but have not chosen to, e.g. Germany. And discussions have been going on about that for some time. The hesitation is on the German side, not the USA's.

 

[Boagrius]

There are countries which could have bought them but have not chosen to, e.g. Germany. And discussions have been going on about that for some time. The hesitation is on the German side, not the USA's.

I suspect that, as handy as Growler is in the right situations (especially when it gets the NGJ pod) it still ultimately suffers from the same problem all 4.5gen aircraft do in an A2/AD context - relatively modest signature reduction and the limitations that go with it. A VLO electronic attack jet would at least have the option of turning the music off and disappearing when threatened, but I imagine the Growler's presence could be hard to hide. Enter F35 (and/or NGAD-EA??)...

 

[Massive]

Don't get me wrong, the general idea of AUKUS as closer alliance on defense technologies is fabulous. But boy do I wished Morrison had announced the US were sharing the B-21 bomber with us to achieve IOC by the mid-late 2020's instead ditching the Attack class for nuclear subs that are decades away if they do actually eventuate.

I haven't seen a decent explanation anywhere as to what a B-21 capability would be used for by the ADF.

The one I have seen that made some sense was maritime strike.

More broadly my sense is that there would be more cost effective and flexible ways to achieve the same thing.

I'd like to understand a bit more of the "why" from those proposing the B-21 and why a B-21 is the right solution as opposed to say SSNs, additional tankers & F-35/FA-18.

Regards,

Massive

 

[Redlands18]

I haven't seen a decent explanation anywhere as to what a B-21 capability would be used for by the ADF.

The one I have seen that made some sense was maritime strike.

More broadly my sense is that there would be more cost effective and flexible ways to achieve the same thing.

I'd like to understand a bit more of the "why" from those proposing the B-21 and why a B-21 is the right solution as opposed to say SSNs, additional tankers & F-35/FA-18.

Regards,

Massive

And the other one is, where is the funding coming from? You are looking at 10s of Billions of Dollars.

 

[the road runner]

There are countries which could have bought them but have not chosen to, e.g. Germany. And discussions have been going on about that for some time. The hesitation is on the German side, not the USA's.

Agreed i probably could have worded my response along the lines of...."The RAAF and the US navy are so far the only 2 services to operate the Growler capability"


The one thing the Growlers do in the ADF context ..... would be to train crews such as AWD/AWACS/Fighters/AD ect on how to counter a EW capability when used against them...What tactics too employ to defeat or minimize the EW capability

As for B-21 in the ADF thats kinda fantasy fleet, i think the ADF would want other bits of kit before using money to spend on a bomber !

 

[Bob53]

I haven't seen a decent explanation anywhere as to what a B-21 capability would be used for by the ADF.

The one I have seen that made some sense was maritime strike.

More broadly my sense is that there would be more cost effective and flexible ways to achieve the same thing.

I'd like to understand a bit more of the "why" from those proposing the B-21 and why a B-21 is the right solution as opposed to say SSNs, additional tankers & F-35/FA-18.

Regards,

Massive

I’d probably ask the same question another way. If we got into a war, would we want to have B21s or not? Could anyone think of a use for them?

 

[Todjaeger]

I’d probably ask the same question another way. If we got into a war, would we want to have B21s or not? Could anyone think of a use for them?

That is not really a question to ask, as the only time the answer to the above question would be a, "no," would be if/when a particular piece of kit either had no use whatever, or was actually more dangerous to the users and/or allies then the opponents. Sure, Australia could likely find a number of potential uses for the B-21 Raider (particularly if various mods were made). However, one really also has to keep in mind that a number of the potential B-21 Raider uses could likely be accomplished more effectively using alternate kit.

A somewhat more appropriate question to ask would be, "what role or mission can the B-21 Raider perform, that other assets cannot?" There is really only one mission that stands out in my mind, and that would be rapid, long-ranged strategic strike, since a B-21 Raider should be able to transit intercontinental distances in a matter of hours vs. the several days it would likely take a surface warship or sub.

 

[Takao]

I’d probably ask the same question another way. If we got into a war, would we want to have B21s or not? Could anyone think of a use for them?

Even asking that question needs more nuance.

What's the war? B-21's are useless for the last 20 years, even P-3s would have been better. In a high end war they would have a use sure, what Side wouldn't want B-21s?

Except....

We still have to pay for them. And crew them. Look at the issues the British Army has in filling out it's Divisions in 1944/45. In accepting a B-21, what am I giving up? I can tell you it's almost certainly going to be from the same limited pool as aircrew / cyber / engineering types comes from, so what? Less F-35? Less EF-18G? Less cyber? All three of those are arguably much more useful than a B-21, certainly more flexible.

The resources that they use will similarly have to come from somewhere. If we are using B-21s there is a high chance the USAF is too. This is a pretty limited fleet with some unique requirements and spares - will we get access to them? Again, Lend-Lease was an example of balancing this, and if you look at the UK contributions to the USSR you can see they sacrificed legitimate capacity for dubious return. Will the US do this? In this type of war, will US industry prioritise B-21 spares, or will there be a greater focus on airlift? Or F-35? Or Child of Tomahwak? The number of long-range missile that will nee production are going to cut into that restricted industry. Again, look at the RN trying to balance capital ship construction with destroyers.

So, can I find a use for them? Absolutely. But I can't think of a single thing I would sacrifice to get them. Every single thing in the ADF is more useful. Which was a major point in it not appearing in recent building programs....

 

[Boagrius]

Even asking that question needs more nuance.

What's the war? B-21's are useless for the last 20 years, even P-3s would have been better. In a high end war they would have a use sure, what Side wouldn't want B-21s?

Except....

We still have to pay for them. And crew them. Look at the issues the British Army has in filling out it's Divisions in 1944/45. In accepting a B-21, what am I giving up? I can tell you it's almost certainly going to be from the same limited pool as aircrew / cyber / engineering types comes from, so what? Less F-35? Less EF-18G? Less cyber? All three of those are arguably much more useful than a B-21, certainly more flexible.

The resources that they use will similarly have to come from somewhere. If we are using B-21s there is a high chance the USAF is too. This is a pretty limited fleet with some unique requirements and spares - will we get access to them? Again, Lend-Lease was an example of balancing this, and if you look at the UK contributions to the USSR you can see they sacrificed legitimate capacity for dubious return. Will the US do this? In this type of war, will US industry prioritise B-21 spares, or will there be a greater focus on airlift? Or F-35? Or Child of Tomahwak? The number of long-range missile that will nee production are going to cut into that restricted industry. Again, look at the RN trying to balance capital ship construction with destroyers.

So, can I find a use for them? Absolutely. But I can't think of a single thing I would sacrifice to get them. Every single thing in the ADF is more useful. Which was a major point in it not appearing in recent building programs....

An RAAF B21 currently strikes to me as a solution in search of a problem. Surely the more useful approach is to map out the projected threats, identify the capabilities and associated effects that need to be developed, and construct the most effective and efficient force structure that can provide them? If the B21 features in that, great, if not, also great. Either way you've crafted the toolkit you need to solve the problems that lie ahead.

 

[vonnoobie]

Just running the numbers the planned per unit purchase price in 2010 was $550m USD each, by 2021 with inflation that amounts to over $700m USD each, Assuming a similar level of inflation by the time they are meant to be ready (circa 2030?) that will be pushing $900m USD a unit which will be circa $1.25 billion AUD for each aircraft alone with out any spares, support, training, infrastrtucture or even bloody munitions. I imagine a sustainable squadron would need a good 12 aircarft so looking at $15 billion circa 2030 and probably close to that same amount for all the extra requirements that would allow us to actively use them.

As many have already stated either def pro's or just people with common sense it is a stupid idea and the very best thing we could do is donate the supporters of it to the enemy

 

[Rock the kasbah]

Got it
No to the B21
What about a plain old bomber
Circa ww2 type missions, fast kets as cover and something to drop a high tonnage of dumb bombs on some poor souls head ? Do those types of missions still exist in modern warfare ? Is that something that the ADF could benefit in having?

 

[Boagrius]

Got it
No to the B21
What about a plain old bomber
Circa ww2 type missions, fast kets as cover and something to drop a high tonnage of dumb bombs on some poor souls head ? Do those types of missions still exist in modern warfare ? Is that something that the ADF could benefit in having?

You are still describing the B21. In order to have a hope of surviving an enemy IADS and then get close enough to drop gravity bombs on a given target, you typically need bleeding edge levels of signature reduction, among other things (top notch sensors & data sharing to build and maintain SA, ESM/EW suites, self defence weapons etc). Realistically even VLO aircraft will still regularly be using weapons that provide some level of standoff to minimise their exposure to enemy fire (think SDB I/II, AARGM-ER/SiAW, all the way up to JSM, AGM-158 types and hypersonics).

 

[Depot Dog]

Acquiring B21 I had put in the fantasy category next to nuclear submarine. After AUKUS and the proposed acquisition of SSN. Given the current strategic environment I believe the B21 is possible not probably.

Arthur Sinodinous did say nuclear submarine are about projecting power north.
Financial Review - Business, Finance and Investment News | afr.com › foreign-affairs
AUKUS about 'projecting power' north, says Sinodinos - AFR
I believe this is probably thoughts of the current government. A lay person may think that B21 is a perfect companion with SSN to strick north. Political decisions are not restricted by logical defence thoughts.

I agree with every post above mine. The funding, function and fit into defence needs to addressed first. Unfortunately politicians that are behind in the polls may use it as distraction.

Regards
DD

 

[ngatimozart]

Got it
No to the B21
What about a plain old bomber
Circa ww2 type missions, fast kets as cover and something to drop a high tonnage of dumb bombs on some poor souls head ? Do those types of missions still exist in modern warfare ? Is that something that the ADF could benefit in having?

Are you proposing that Australia actively commit to area bombing of civilian urban areas? With modern targeting technologies the use of conventional weapons for such purposes would be bordering upon commitment of war crimes / crimes against humanity area. I would tend to think that is something that any rational Australian government would be wanting to steer well clear of.

To suggest such actions is below the decorum of the Forum. Whilst we discuss a topic that is inherently evil, it does not give us reason to suggest actions that are potentially crimes against humanity. Whilst area / carpet bombing was a strategy used during WW2 with good reason, because of the limitations of the available technology, it does not mean that the same argument is valid in the 21st Century, because it certainly isn't. WW2 was a total war because of the inhumane evil that was being fought against by the allied powers and whilst the ends don't justify the means, the Allies used all the capabilities available to them to destroy the Axis means of production and waging war.

Don't suggest anything like this again or you will run afoul of the Moderators. We're already dealing with a complaint about it.

 

[Rock the kasbah]

Are you proposing that Australia actively commit to area bombing of civilian urban areas? With modern targeting technologies the use of conventional weapons for such purposes would be bordering upon commitment of war crimes / crimes against humanity area. I would tend to think that is something that any rational Australian government would be wanting to steer well clear of.

To suggest such actions is below the decorum of the Forum. Whilst we discuss a topic that is inherently evil, it does not give us reason to suggest actions that are potentially crimes against humanity. Whilst area / carpet bombing was a strategy used during WW2 with good reason, because of the limitations of the available technology, it does not mean that the same argument is valid in the 21st Century, because it certainly isn't. WW2 was a total war because of the inhumane evil that was being fought against by the allied powers and whilst the ends don't justify the means, the Allies used all the capabilities available to them to destroy the Axis means of production and waging war.

Don't suggest anything like this again or you will run afoul of the Moderators. We're already dealing with a complaint about it.

Righto will not
Just trying to learn, remember I'm not military
Really trying to keep up with current events
And thank you for the green it answered my question
Some of us are not as switched on as you blokes or girls
And please no I was not suggesting we carpet bomb innocent civilians
I was thinking a bit more tactical than strategic you know a missile costs
Alot so i thought maybe a mid range bomber like ww2 that works with the army would be able to cover alot of ground
We can't expect the F35 to do all the work in a prolonge campaign

 

[Boagrius]

Righto will not
Just trying to learn, remember I'm not military
Really trying to keep up with current events
And thank you for the green it answered my question
Some of us are not as switched on as you blokes or girls
And please no I was not suggesting we carpet bomb innocent civilians
I was thinking a bit more tactical than strategic you know a missile costs
Alot so i thought maybe a mid range bomber like ww2 that works with the army would be able to cover alot of ground
We can't expect the F35 to do all the work in a prolonge campaign

While the F35 would have to do a lot of heavy lifting, we also have the Rhino and Growler up our sleeves (granted, these jets would regularly have to lob more exquisite & expensive stand-off weapons from well outside the hostile threat bubble). Further ahead, you also have ATS and whatever replaces Rhino/Growler in the pipeline. Hell, with the recent Rapid Dragon tests you could even use C17/130 as supplementary ALCM trucks.