ADF General discussion thread

[Boagrius]

On long range & maritime strike:

I think we are currently hampered somewhat by the lack of an ALCM on the Rhino and Lightning. If we can get JSM (a dual-purpose, LO ASCM & LACM) up and running on the F35, for instance, the RAAF's reach becomes significant.

For example, the SAR docs for the F35 list its combat radius on an interdiction mission as 669nm (p18). Using that as a rough guide, this is the approximate coverage you might expect from an F35 flying entirely on internal fuel out of RAAF Darwin with a max range (all internally carried) JSM shot, vs the same F35 that gets 50% more combat radius out of a single AAR top-up:



Same comparison, this time from RAAF Curtin



My guess is that the range rings for an LRASM equipped F35 could be similar, since the (~200nm publicly listed) extra range of the LRASM over the JSM would be offset to some extent by the extra drag induced by its mandatory use of external pylons.

So, not exactly reaching into the SCS, but potentially covering much the same territory that the F111 once did, all with a VLO jet that still does not need to get nearly as close to its target to release its payload. Just some food for thought.

 

[Vivendi]

Regarding the B-21: Last year Airforcemag had a story on a shelter meant for B-21, and made some assessment of what the size of this shelter may imply for the size of the B-21: B-21 Bomber Shelter May Reveal Size of Secret Jet - Air Force Magazine

It turned out they got it wrong; what was very curious was that the US Air Force informed them about this. It turns out the shelter is big enough to fit a B-2. Of course it could still be that the B-21 is still much smaller than the B-2. On the other hand, it may also be as big as the B-2. Who knows at this stage? B-21 Temporary Shelters Could Also Shelter B-2s - Air Force Magazine

Some speculations on B-21 capabilities:

First, the B-21’s aerodynamic design properties and stealth characteristics mean that it will remain a subsonic aircraft with airspeed capabilities similar to that of a B-2. The design, featuring an extremely long wingspan, a very short body and no conventional tail, is not stable at supersonic speeds. Second, the service ceiling will be between 45,000 and 50,000 feet. At altitude it will also perform similarly to the B-2 and will find maximum fuel efficiencies at higher altitudes. Third, the range will be between 4,000 and 5,000 nautical miles. In an interview with The National Interest, former Air Combat Command Commander Gen. William Fraser III, a B-2 and B-52 pilot, stated what the B-21 would need to accomplish its mission in terms of range. Fraser said, “A combat radius of between 2,000 and 2,500 nautical miles is sufficient, which equals a 4,000–5,000 nautical mile range. All points on earth are within about 1,800 nautical miles from the closest body of water.” Of course, he was asuming the Air Force would be able to aerially refuel its future bomber over international waters. Thus, one can assume that the B-21 will have at least that much range capability. Fourth, the payload will at least be as high as 30,000 to 35,000 pounds as mentioned previously. It could actually be higher since the B-2 can carry twice that load

CNASReport-Bomber-Finalv2.pdf

At present is seems very clear the B-21 is not a fit for Australia, but as others have pointed out, the Australian Nuclear Sub story should perhaps teach us something... Imagine if the security environment over the next 10 years degrades quite dramatically, and this triggers Australia to significantly increase the defense budget, maybe by more than 100%. Perhaps then they decide to buy a small fleet of B-21, maybe sharing the costs and equipment with AUKUS partners? In Europe it has become more popular the last few years to pool and share various types of military equipment.

The US is having a problem in that their defense budget is already a significant percentage of GDP, and although they can probably increase it somewhat more, they might quickly run into issues economically. Many analysts have commented that they believe the current requirement of 100 B-21 will not be sufficient (for instance, the CNAS report linked to above suggest a minimum of 164 B-21). It might be difficult for the US buy much more than the currently stipulated 100, considering that they also need to buy more F-35 (and modernize those they already got), they need to start develop 6th gen fighters, and they also need to strengthen the Navy, the Marines, Space, Cyber, etc. etc. I believe the US will struggle to compete against China in the medium to long term without the Allies starting to pull even more than what they are currently doing.

 

[John Fedup]

Agree, between basic economics and US political polarization, it will be very difficult for the US to fund future defence requirements and Euro/UK/ Canada will offer little to help out compared to Australia and Japan. The only positive is China’s hidden economic problems and its looming demographic issue.

 

[ADMk2]

@StingrayOZ - I sense your frustration. I don't have a problem with your message - that the B-21 is not realistic for the ADF. But I wanted to challenge some of your assumptions (assertions?) on the basic capability of the airframe. Why - because if we are going to have a debate, it should be grounded in fact. The fact is the aircraft is going to replace the B-2. The mission implies global strike with plenty of payload. Having said that - there are plenty of other priorities for the ADF to sort out first, and other areas, where the ADF could better contribute to likely coalition operations through more efficient expenditure.

Yup, from everything I have read, B-21 will have similar if not greater range than the B-2 and very similar payload.

It’s a large, intercontinental bomber…

With the B-2 able to internally carry 16x JASSM-ER missiles, carrying LRASM in such numbers would be a humungous level of strike by RAAF standards, I seriously doubt B-21 will be carrying fewer. Additionally the lines between what missions the various AGM-158 missiles can perform are getting rather blurred, with USN AGM-158D JASSM-ER missiles, to be fitted with components from the LRASM missile, allowing them to perform ASM missions…

But none of that changes the fact that it is unaffordable and quite likely not even available for sale to us just as the F-22A wasn’t, given how highly classified it is, so it’s a pointless proposition to base any sort of ‘plan’ for Australia on this aircraft…

 

[ADMk2]

On long range & maritime strike:

I think we are currently hampered somewhat by the lack of an ALCM on the Rhino and Lightning. If we can get JSM (a dual-purpose, LO ASCM & LACM) up and running on the F35, for instance, the RAAF's reach becomes significant.

For example, the SAR docs for the F35 list its combat radius on an interdiction mission as 669nm (p18). Using that as a rough guide, this is the approximate coverage you might expect from an F35 flying entirely on internal fuel out of RAAF Darwin with a max range (all internally carried) JSM shot, vs the same F35 that gets 50% more combat radius out of a single AAR top-up:

View attachment 48877

Same comparison, this time from RAAF Curtin

View attachment 48878

My guess is that the range rings for an LRASM equipped F35 could be similar, since the (~200nm publicly listed) extra range of the LRASM over the JSM would be offset to some extent by the extra drag induced by its mandatory use of external pylons.

So, not exactly reaching into the SCS, but potentially covering much the same territory that the F111 once did, all with a VLO jet that still does not need to get nearly as close to its target to release its payload. Just some food for thought.

The fact sheets on Government’s cruise missile acquisition plans now confirm JASSM-ER as well as LRASM will be going onto Super Hornet as well. The earlier ‘Hornet’ information has been replaced…

When this occurs of course is anyone’s guess because as far as I have seen, RAAF haven’t made a single public comment about either weapon, since Government announced their acquisition…

Likewise Tomahawk / NSM /LRASM for RAN…

 

[Boagrius]

The fact sheets on Government’s cruise missile acquisition plans now confirm JASSM-ER as well as LRASM will be going onto Super Hornet as well. The earlier ‘Hornet’ information has been replaced…

When this occurs of course is anyone’s guess because as far as I have seen, RAAF haven’t made a single public comment about either weapon, since Government announced their acquisition…

Likewise Tomahawk / NSM /LRASM for RAN…

Yep, you'd certainly expect LRASM and/or JASSM-ER to appear on the Rhino before LRASM or JSM appear on the Lightning given that the integration work seems to be further along. While I can't imagine the Rhino would be able to cover as much territory with the LRASM due to its shorter legs and reliance on external pylons (for everything from EFT's to weapons and podded sensors), the AGM-158B-2 and AGM-158D variants seem to add considerable reach even over the LRASM. That said, this does not take into account the (potentially considerable) ISR challenges associated with providing such weapons with quality targeting data, particularly in the maritime strike domain.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Wow pretty lame stuff coming out of SMH..

Is Australia ready for war? The army’s battle for relevance

In the first of a four-part series exploring Australia’s preparedness for war, we examine the army’s role in modern combat – and why the nation still spends billions of dollars on tanks.

www.smh.com.au

Is Australia ready for war? The air force’s biggest problem with China is how to get there

With a combat range of just 1000 kilometres, can the multibillion-dollar Joint Strike Fighter be the right fit for the Royal Australian Air Force?

www.smh.com.au

Lots of ASPI input into this.

 

[the road runner]

There are fighter jets on the market with much longer range, such as the F-22 Raptors – about 3000 kilometres – but their lack of stealth would be a major trade-off in a modern war.

Love the above quote from the RAAF Article....and here i was thinking the F-22 was a VLO aircraft .....
I am of the belief ARMY should continue with the purchase of all Tanks/IFV and LRMS
These articles seem to put all blame on the ADF ....i think Government and some contractors have a lot to answer for ...
A lot !!!

 

[Massive]

China in 2030-2050 isn't Yugoslavia in 1999. Driving downtown in a stealthy bomber is not likely to be a wonderful experience in 2030+.

Watching this discussion I feel very uncomfortable with the implied suggestion that the ADF is looking to acquire the capability to bomb mainland China.

Regards,

Massive

 

[Massive]

Wow pretty lame stuff coming out of SMH..

Is Australia ready for war? The army’s battle for relevance

In the first of a four-part series exploring Australia’s preparedness for war, we examine the army’s role in modern combat – and why the nation still spends billions of dollars on tanks.

www.smh.com.au

Is Australia ready for war? The air force’s biggest problem with China is how to get there

With a combat range of just 1000 kilometres, can the multibillion-dollar Joint Strike Fighter be the right fit for the Royal Australian Air Force?

www.smh.com.au

Lots of ASPI input into this.

Again.

Does the RAAF want to get to China?

This just feels incredibly misguided.

Regards,

Massive

 

[StingrayOZ]

Watching this discussion I feel very uncomfortable with the implied suggestion that the ADF is looking to acquire the capability to bomb mainland China.

Which again is the problem with the B21, what is its purpose? What land site are we bombing with gravity bombs?

The implication is, striking mainland china with nuclear weapons. It would be in the same category as acquiring ICBMs or SSBN.

I can tell you now, the B21 will make more than China nervous. It would likely cause significant tension with Indonesia. Because frankly, that is the only country it will really be in range of and we would be able to make unescorted/unrefueled use of that platform. Unless we base them from Guam or Japan, which again raises the question of what is the point. How is that in Australia's interests?

Regular long range weapons won't be fired from this platform for many years. The US has B52, B1, etc. You can't just assume any American platform can fire any American weapon. Or that a strategic strike platform will even have sensors to attack things like ships and operate with certain munitions. USAF isn't interest in doing the navies job. LRASM isn't likely to ever be integrated on the B21, its the wrong platform.

Japan can't afford to pay for the integration of LRASM into the F-15. But apparently we can push the US to integrate LRASM for free into the B21, ahead of you know, something like the B61 that will be essential for the platform and likely be its primary weapon for the first block or two of production. The presumption is we can get B21's faster than we can build a ship, and somehow a plane can do the job of a destroyer.

A more realistic scenario would be striking at China's illegal island building, possibly in retaliation after they attack our Navy/Air force. But how realistic is doing that without US assistance, and why would we be tasked to do it instead of the US? Why, of all things, with a plane, and a manned bomber at that?

Wouldn't a more realistic situation be securing the straits of Malacca, Sunda etc? Can't do that with a bomber.

Love the above quote from the RAAF Article....and here i was thinking the F-22 was a VLO aircraft .....

There are a dozen issues with that statement. We can get F-22's. They are in production. They have the range we need. They fire the weapons we want. The F-22 radar profile.

Vehicle numbers are wrong, concepts are wrong, strategy is wrong, the context is wrong..

 

[Boagrius]

Put this together mostly for my own geekish purposes, but figured it might be of interest to others, and perhaps bring the conversation closer to terra firma. Just clicking the thumbnails should display the larger image clearly.

Used some of the publically available stats to do some back-of-napkin maths and figure out what kind of long-range/maritime strike capability we might be able to get purely out of the F35 fleet (operating from RAAF Darwin) going forward, especially as the Rhino marches toward obsolescence. This is what I came up with:

Block 3F F-35A



Block 3F F-35A + 1 x AAR (adding 50% fuel)



Block IV+ F-35A with FAER Engine (adding 30% radius)



Block IV+ F-35A with FAER Engine + 1 x AAR (adding 50% fuel)



A few thoughts:

- Seems reasonable to conclude that the F35 fleet is well-positioned to conduct long-range and maritime strikes into the Indo/Malay archipelago once equipped with JSM and/or LRASM and operated out of locations like RAAF Darwin and Curtin. It may well be able to generate A2/AD effects in these maritime approaches to our region.

- The elephant in the room is that any strikes that extend further north into the SCS involve violating/transiting through Indonesian airspace (we are no longer assuming that the adversary has already done this by operating inside Indonesian territory). Achieving the longest ranging strikes depicted above would require their approval, not least of which because you would have to conduct your AAR in Indonesian skies.

- Any other long-range strike weapon or weapons platform would face this same fundamental dilemma (B21, Tomahawk, LRHW etc). Even with no AAR requirement, the Indonesians would have no way of knowing what the intended target was until the weapon/aircraft in question proceeded north out of their airspace.

- This is hardly ideal IMO - makes you wonder whether being able to hit targets that far north is a desirable capability for the ADF and - if so - whether it might be better provided by RAN assets that aren't tied to continental Australia.

- This problem vanishes when you contemplate dealing with the notional hostile SAG/CSG off the east coast. Operating from Townsville/Amberley, access into the South Pacific is largely uninterrupted by comparison. This might also be relevant if the hypothetical PRC foothold in the South Pacific ever came to pass.

Sources

F35 interdiction combat radius (p18) - 669nm

F35 air to air/intercept combat radius - 760nm

FAER engine range/radius extension - 30%

JSM range - 300nm on Hi-Hi-Lo Profile

 

[the road runner]

I think if Australia and the RAAF needed to push up into the Indo/Malay archipelago for what ever reason.... Christmas and Coco Island may come into play

 

[Boagrius]

I think if Australia and the RAAF needed to push up into the Indo/Malay archipelago for what ever reason.... Christmas and Coco Island may come into play

True, although defending them could be tricky. They are quite isolated all the way out there on their lonesome, so any airpower deployed on them for any length of time would be fair game for both DF-26 (Hainan) and LACM strikes from H-6K - do we really want to set up a defensive IADS there as well? I suspect you're probably going to want to do that down the Darwin-Tindal axis anyway (eventually), but that far out? Maybe less so. That said they might make an interesting spot for an Op Fires/LRHW/Tomahawk MRC system that is relocatable and air-mobile (especially if an anti-ship variant of the first two materializes). Fly/sail in, shoot & relocate as needed, fly/sail out. You still have to shoot over Indonesia's head though

 

[ADMk2]

I quite like JSM capability, but there seems to be an assumption RAAF is going to acquire 2 separate types of ASM, 3 if you consider the maritime strike capabilities of the AARGM-ER (and the fact it also fits in the internal bays of the F-35A) given they have already selected LRASM for Super Hornet (and I assume P-8A).

That stems I know from JSM physically fitting within the internal bays of the F-35A and the assumed LO capability impact of lugging large external stores (not to mention drag imposts).

However it would also be completely unprecedented for RAAF to operate 2 separate types of anti-ship weapon, especially considering they will be operating AARGM-ER and JASSM-ER (which as we’ve seen with USN spec AGM-158D variants, has anti-ship capabilities as well) and operating this many disparate weapon systems, would place an enormous strain on RAAF’s training on such systems, as well as the logistical ability to support so many different types, as well as cost… Additionally, we are enthusiastically pursuing air-launched hypersonics for these roles on top of the existing programs…

If RAAF were pursuing the acquisition of one single weapon type for maritime strike, land attack and SEAD / DEAD, then I think JSM would be a very strong contender. But in an inventory that WILL already include LRASM, JASSM-ER and AARGM-ER?

On that basis, I just wonder, whether we’ll see JSM missing out entirely…

 

[Boagrius]

I quite like JSM capability, but there seems to be an assumption RAAF is going to acquire 2 separate types of ASM, 3 if you consider the maritime strike capabilities of the AARGM-ER (and the fact it also fits in the internal bays of the F-35A) given they have already selected LRASM for Super Hornet (and I assume P-8A).

That stems I know from JSM physically fitting within the internal bays of the F-35A and the assumed LO capability impact of lugging large external stores (not to mention drag imposts).

However it would also be completely unprecedented for RAAF to operate 2 separate types of anti-ship weapon, especially considering they will be operating AARGM-ER and JASSM-ER (which as we’ve seen with USN spec AGM-158D variants, has anti-ship capabilities as well) and operating this many disparate weapon systems, would place an enormous strain on RAAF’s training on such systems, as well as the logistical ability to support so many different types, as well as cost… Additionally, we are enthusiastically pursuing air-launched hypersonics for these roles on top of the existing programs…

On that basis, I just wonder, whether we’ll see JSM missing out entirely…

I imagine it will come down heavily to the advantages inherent to carrying the JSM internally. The effect on the F35's range and RCS are the obvious ones, but it is one thing to have an AGM158 variant that can fly 500nm+ and quite another to supply that same weapon with the targeting data it needs to reliably find and hit its quarry. I take it LRASM tries to overcome this issue by equipping the missile itself with a measure of autonomous hunting & swarming capability.

That said I can see a unique benefit to the JSM in that the fully stealthy F35 parent(s) will be well placed to autonomously cue and support the weapon(s) more or less until impact if need be. This is particularly relevant to maritime strike where the quarry is not just moving but also capable of changing direction over the course of the missile's (not inconsequentlial) flight time. I suppose you could argue for AARGM-ER in this role, but I'm not sure it would have the standoff, punch (~1/2 the warhead IIRC) or LO capabilities of the JSM (thinking mainly advantages of sea-skimming + IIR seeker here).

 

[ADMk2]

I imagine it will come down heavily to the advantages inherent to carrying the JSM internally. The effect on the F35's range and RCS are the obvious ones, but it is one thing to have an AGM158 variant that can fly 500nm+ and quite another to supply that same weapon with the targeting data it needs to reliably find and hit its quarry. I take it LRASM tries to overcome this issue by equipping the missile itself with a measure of autonomous hunting & swarming capability.

That said I can see a unique benefit to the JSM in that the fully stealthy F35 parent(s) will be well placed to autonomously cue and support the weapon(s) more or less until impact if need be. This is particularly relevant to maritime strike where the quarry is not just moving but also capable of changing direction over the course of the missile's (not inconsequentlial) flight time. I suppose you could argue for AARGM-ER in this role, but I'm not sure it would have the standoff, punch (~1/2 the warhead IIRC) or LO capabilities of the JSM (thinking mainly advantages of sea-skimming + IIR seeker here).

Indeed I see the plusses of the weapon, they are strong, but are they strong enough to justify investing in, given the other weapons we will already have? As to long ranged strikes, (beyond our allies) ADF’s capability is not insubstantial and is growing, among space, air, sea and sub-surface capabilities, along with cyber and intelligence capabilities, I suspect there are few middle powers that are as strong as us in ISR and targetting capabilities. Bearing in mind of course, we’ve already announced plans to acquire Tomahawk, JASSM-ER and LRASM, ADF must have some confidence in it’s capability to adequately target long ranged strikes…

The other thing from a RAAF POV to consider with JSM is whether the US will employ the weapon? So far USN has invested in NSM for surface platforms, but in the air-launched JSM they haven’t shown much interest apart from testing facilities and JSF certification activities. Not from any of the 3 services employing JSF, so far as I am aware…

I’m sure we’d try to add them to our sovereign precision guided weapons manufacturing plan should we select the weapon, but surety of supply is a strong factor in selecting such important weapons and without US support, we’d be reliant on whatever domestic capability we can produce and the European designers, who are struggling to keep up with peace-time demands for NSM…

We saw in the relatively limited Libyan conflict how well European guided weapons manufacturers can be relied upon, which might explain in part why RAAF has chosen only one European air-launched weapon over the last 40 odd years (AIM-132 ASRAAM)…

The more I think about it, the more unsure of it’s place in the RAAF inventory I am. I could obviously be easily wrong, but I see it’s capabilities matched or improved by weapons already selected by RAAF.

LRASM - longer range, more advanced guidance / EW, more advanced LO, similar kinematics, integration planned on JSF, already underway on Super Hornet and P-8A and already chosen by RAAF.

JASSM-ER, vastly long range, better land attack capability, more advanced LO, ability to include ASM capabilities, similar kinematics, integration already being conducted on JSF, Super Hornet and possibly P-8A and already chosen by RAAF.

AARGM-ER, similar range / slightly less perhaps, better SEAD / DEAD capabilities, vastly superior kinematics offering high supersonic flight profiles and supersonic terminal attack, not designed for LO, relying on flight profiles and performance for survivability, already integrated on Super Hornet / Growler, JSF integration underway and designed to fit internal bays of F-35 same as JSM. Not yet selected by RAAF, but in-service HARM-B and AARGM variants are already in RAAF inventory and AARGM-ER highly likely to be acquired to replace these capabilities.

JSM - good maritime strike, good land attack, ‘some’ SEAD / DEAD’ capabilities, good range but out-ranged by already selected future weapons for RAAF, fits internal bays of JSF and integration is underway, not integrated or planned for Super Hornet or P-8A to my knowledge. Not yet chosen by RAAF or any of ADF’s main allies...

Edit: Boeing holds images of JSM having completed fit-checks on Super Hornet in 2013, and discusses plans to undertake wind tunnel testing in 2014, but no further (apparent) integration activities have been conducted since (that I can find). It is also quite possible Norway will fund JSM integration onto the P-8A, so some of the above caveats may not last…

 

[Boagrius]

Yep, agree that if there is a red flag surrounding JSM, it is the lukewarm reaction it has received so far on the export market. If it turns out to be little more than a glorified SLAM-ER performance-wise then the calculus obviously changes.

Meanwhile, the AGM-158 family continues to see significant investment, (now with an operational history to back it up) and hypersonics like HACM and SciFire could be game changers in their own right. Hell, IIRC the F35's inner wing pylons might theoretically have the (5000lb) weight allowance to carry ARRW(!). Time shall tell...

 

[Vivendi]

I am not sure if there are any red flags around JSM. F-35 Block 4 has been delayed and is not ready yet. JSM requires block 4.

So far Japan and Norway has ordered JSM. Japan actually ordered before Norway! Norway ordered the JSM in October of last year. I believe that's when series production started as well.

The sibling of JSM, the NSM (Naval Strike Missile) has so far been ordered by Norway, Poland, the US (both Marines and USN), Malaysia, Germany, and Romania. Canada has stated it will be integrated into their new frigates being built. The NSM is delivered both ship-launched and launched from land (Poland, US Marines, and Romania(?)).

The JSM has a unique competitive advantage in that it fits into the F-35 weapons bay, maintaining the low RCS of the F-35. The NSM does not have a similar advantage over ship and truck-launched competitors, still it has sold quite well.

Finland recently decided that they will buy the F-35. No orders have been made yet, but the JSM was included in the weapons package in the offer from LM.

I believe the main reason why JSM has not sold so much yet, is simply because of timing. I would wait until the end of 2023 (perhaps even longer) before drawing any conclusions about the commercial success of the JSM.

 

[Boagrius]

I believe the main reason why JSM has not sold so much yet, is simply because of timing. I would wait until the end of 2023 (perhaps even longer) before drawing any conclusions about the commercial success of the JSM.

You may well be right - we will just have to wait and see. Perhaps @ADMk2's concerns about missile type consolidation and supply could be mitigated to some extent by the domestic missile building initiative...

Whatever the case, at least we are leaving the bad old days when Harpoon was the only AShM in town. Instead, we can evaluate a whole gamut of speed (sub, super, hypersonic) & range envelopes, sig reduction profiles as well as warhead weights. Having options is a very good thing for us going forward IMO.