RAAF Stopgap air plan is 'dumb'
- Thread starter gf0012-aust
- Start date
- Status
zoolander said:
Pause before posting.
RAAF not RAF
JSF not JDF
We're discussing the RAAF.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
zoolander said:
Of course the RAAF program is "dumb". It's akin to the USAF scrapping it's remaining B-52's whilst it waits for it's new "strategic" bomber due at around 2018. The USAF then would operate NOTHING in that role in the meantime. Or the UK scrapping it's GR-4 Tornado fleet until the FOAS aircraft arrives and claiming Storm Shadow will make up the difference.
The JASSM whilst it will give the F/A-18 a longer ranged strike capacity and the JDAM, will improve the accuracy of otherwise un-guided Mk 80 series bombs, neither of these projects do ANYTHING to replace the loss in firepower that 30 odd long range strike aircraft provide the RAAF.
The JASSM goes someway to ensuring we can still conduct long range strike missions, and our new A2A refuellers will help somewhat as well. Though only 5 such aircraft will not be a great capability enhancement over what we already have, except for maintenance and reliability issues.
The loss of the 30 odd F-111 fleet means that the limited F/A-18 fleet will have to shoulder ALL combat operations for the RAAF, instead of the present arrangement where the taskings are shared, based on the aircraft's relative capabilities.
The only way that RAAF could ensure it could conduct the level of concurrent operations, it could (if necessary) manage now, would be to acquire an interim aircraft, or enhance the size of the F/A-18 fleet, possibly by acquiring surplus USMC/USN aircraft (of which there are hundreds at AMARC)...
The Government and RAAF in all it's speeches and attempts to convince people of the merits of this plan has completely (and no doubt intentionly) overlooked this issue. It's simply impossible for 70 aircraft to deliver as much firepower as 100 can, using the same ordnance. (As they will).
Thanks AD for the info on the RAAF squadrons, it really does paint a clearer picture for us dummy civilians. The reason I ask is because as do most people participating in this forum, I stew over what the make-up of the future RAAF fighter force really should be. I have stated before that although the JSF will probably prove to be a brilliant multi-role fighter jet, I am not convinced that a sinlge platform for the RAAF based on the JSF is the way to go. I guess there are so many different solutions to the existing debate about what combination of capabilities and platforms that should be chosen, and I must admit that I seem to change my mind as often as I change my underwear (and that is more than once a week) about what we should do.
Some facts that will add to our capabilities into the future are:
- 6 x Wedgetail AWAC
- 5 x A2A tankers
- 5-6 Global Hawk or Predator long endurance UAV
- precision strike JDAM
- 400km range JASSM stand-off missile
So we are off to a good start.
The F-111 has proven to be a great deterrent against any adversary but we will be losing that capability in the near future (which I do agree with because it is past it's prime). Capabilities such as long range strike and maritime strike will be lost with the retirement of this platform. JSF will not cover this gap. Our F/A-18 will be out-performed by the latest Russian Sukhois in the region when it comes to air-to-air combat.
My proposal for our future RAAF fighter force is this:
- Four operational squadrons
- 1 x squadron of F-22, 16 operational at all times, 2 in maintenance
- 1 x squadron of F-35A, 16 operational at all times, 2 in maintenance
- 1 x squadron of F-35B, 16 operational at all times, 2 in maintenance
- 1 x squadron of future USAF UCAV, numbers dependant upon physical size, range, payload etc (probably 8-16).
This option should cover all possible scenarios. For air-to-air combat, a silver bullet force of F-22 to achieve air superiority. For SEAD and CAS, both JSF versions and the UCAV. For long range strike, LHD based F-35B armed with JASSM and JASSM-ER, the long range refuelled UCAV eventually chosen for USAF (the one just given the green light for development in the QDR), and AWD launched TACTOM. And for maritime interdiction, all of these platforms are able to perform this task.
So assuming 16 operational platforms for both types of JSF and F-22, plus 2 platforms of each in maintenance or storage, plus 8 platforms of each for training squadrons, this would require a purchase of 26 of each plus around 8-16 UCAV. I don't believe a training squadron is required for the UCAV as there are no pilots to train. The ground operators can use simulators.
Thoughts anyone?
Keep in mind, I am just a military enthusiast. Be kind
Some facts that will add to our capabilities into the future are:
- 6 x Wedgetail AWAC
- 5 x A2A tankers
- 5-6 Global Hawk or Predator long endurance UAV
- precision strike JDAM
- 400km range JASSM stand-off missile
So we are off to a good start.
The F-111 has proven to be a great deterrent against any adversary but we will be losing that capability in the near future (which I do agree with because it is past it's prime). Capabilities such as long range strike and maritime strike will be lost with the retirement of this platform. JSF will not cover this gap. Our F/A-18 will be out-performed by the latest Russian Sukhois in the region when it comes to air-to-air combat.
My proposal for our future RAAF fighter force is this:
- Four operational squadrons
- 1 x squadron of F-22, 16 operational at all times, 2 in maintenance
- 1 x squadron of F-35A, 16 operational at all times, 2 in maintenance
- 1 x squadron of F-35B, 16 operational at all times, 2 in maintenance
- 1 x squadron of future USAF UCAV, numbers dependant upon physical size, range, payload etc (probably 8-16).
This option should cover all possible scenarios. For air-to-air combat, a silver bullet force of F-22 to achieve air superiority. For SEAD and CAS, both JSF versions and the UCAV. For long range strike, LHD based F-35B armed with JASSM and JASSM-ER, the long range refuelled UCAV eventually chosen for USAF (the one just given the green light for development in the QDR), and AWD launched TACTOM. And for maritime interdiction, all of these platforms are able to perform this task.
So assuming 16 operational platforms for both types of JSF and F-22, plus 2 platforms of each in maintenance or storage, plus 8 platforms of each for training squadrons, this would require a purchase of 26 of each plus around 8-16 UCAV. I don't believe a training squadron is required for the UCAV as there are no pilots to train. The ground operators can use simulators.
Thoughts anyone?
Keep in mind, I am just a military enthusiast. Be kind
scoot and shoot post: I think having an all JSF fleet lacks foresight. We should be going with a mix of types. Our current mix of F-111's and F/A-18's still serve us well and I'd like to see the RAAF continue with two types in its fleet.
Does anyone here feel that a F-35B buy is seriously on the cards? As an aside for LHD operations, I reckon UAV's are the go.
Does anyone here feel that a F-35B buy is seriously on the cards? As an aside for LHD operations, I reckon UAV's are the go.
cherry said:
You're right Cherry, the JSF will most certainly be a brilliant multi-role fighter, much in the same way as the F/A-18 was when we first got it. I'm sure the ADF would also like a two-pronged fighter/strike force to replace the Pig and the Hornet, but $12-$16bn only buys you so much these days. There was talk a few years back about an interim buy of Super Hornets or F-15Es which had its proponents and detractors, and whether it was right at the time or not, that opportunity has probably now passed.
cherry said:
Not necessarily... While there are Su-27/30s (4 to be exact) in Indonesia and there will be Su-30s in Malaysia, I doubt these are considered anything like regional threats by anyone. The Indons have openly admitted their Sukhois are currently unarmed and their pilots get about 20-30 hours a year on them. The Malays will prtobably only be able to afford a dozen or so Sukhois, and with their diverse fleet of small numbers of MiG-29s, F/A-18Ds, Hawks, Macchis etc, they'll have a hard time keeping the things online.
Late build Singaporean F-16C/D Block 50s are pretty good, but they are also deployed locally in limited numbers and would quickly fall by the wayside due to lack of support. The Singaporean F-15SGs will be awesome beasts, but so far they've only ordered 12 (+8), and again, are unlikely to be a major threat.
If you're talking about the Chinese; the only scenario where I can see us getting it on with China is in a coalition operation in which we would fulfil a (politically and operationally important) niche role.
And, don't be so quick to dismiss the F/A-18 in its post-HUG form...apart from a comparitive lack of range and top end speed, its systems and weapons will be the equal or better than anything else this side of the USAF/USN until the JSF kicks in. In terms of numbers, training, weapons, networking and ISR support aircraft (Wedgetail, AP-3C, UAVs), tanker support and interoperability, the RAAF's F/A-18s will still rule the region until the JSF comes on line.
cherry said:
Yes, many. Firstly, the F-22 aint gonna happen, no matter what the USAF says about selling it to 'friendly' nations. With the production line capped at 183 airframes and planned spiral upgrades (SDB, SAR/GMTI etc) effectively on hold or canned, the aircraft has a very limited 'multi-role' capability in the form of JDAMs, AIM-120Cs and AIM-9M/X only. Unless things change in the very near future and the USAF orders enough to get the NRFAC down under A$200m per aircraft (probably needs another 150+ orders to get there), then it would cost just too much for such an awesomely limited (does that make sense?...anyway) capability of just one (or even, two) squadron(s). We just cannot justify spending so much on airframes and support costs for such a small fleet of such specialist aircraft. There's a great article coming up in April's Australian Aviation magazine about the F-22...catch it if you can.
The F-35A/B scenario makes a bit more sense, although I think the ADF could do a lot worse than look towards the F-35C. There are many reasons for this including; its bigger wing holds more fuel and more external stores; it has a more rugged airframe and undercarriage; it is better suited to operations from austere locations (i.e. Scherger, Tindal, Curtin etc); i.e. all the reasons why we selected the Hornet 25 years ago (except for the twin engines of course); and not to forget the fact that the RAAF already has a great working relationship with the US Navy through the Hornet program. An FMS sale of F-35Cs through the USN makes alot of sense.
A decision on whether we end up with two types of JSFs is probably a bit down the track, as there is currently no defined capability requirement for a shipboard fighter/strike capability from the LHDs, nor can I see one emerging in the near future. The LHDs are 25,000t amphibious assault ships, not 45,000t straight deck carriers like their USMC LHD equivalents, and will need every inch of their deck and hangar space to support the envisaged helo ops.
Tranches 1 and 2 of Air 6000 seeks only to replace the F/A-18 and F-111 with about 70 aircraft, with a decision due next year or early 2008 sometime (don't believe what the SMH reported this morning...this year's decision is whether to participate in the SDD phase of the program, not to order the aircraft)
. Tranche 3 will either involve an additional 20-30 JSFs or perhaps an order for a UCAV of some kind if the technology is deemed mature enough, in the 2012 timeframe for service entry from 2017.Magoo
Last edited:
cherry said:Thanks AD for the info on the RAAF squadrons, it really does paint a clearer picture for us dummy civilians. The reason I ask is because as do most people participating in this forum, I stew over what the make-up of the future RAAF fighter force really should be. I have stated before that although the JSF will probably prove to be a brilliant multi-role fighter jet, I am not convinced that a sinlge platform for the RAAF based on the JSF is the way to go. I guess there are so many different solutions to the existing debate about what combination of capabilities and platforms that should be chosen, and I must admit that I seem to change my mind as often as I change my underwear (and that is more than once a week) about what we should do.
Some facts that will add to our capabilities into the future are:
- 6 x Wedgetail AWAC
- 5 x A2A tankers
- 5-6 Global Hawk or Predator long endurance UAV
- precision strike JDAM
- 400km range JASSM stand-off missile
So we are off to a good start.
The F-111 has proven to be a great deterrent against any adversary but we will be losing that capability in the near future (which I do agree with because it is past it's prime). Capabilities such as long range strike and maritime strike will be lost with the retirement of this platform. JSF will not cover this gap. Our F/A-18 will be out-performed by the latest Russian Sukhois in the region when it comes to air-to-air combat.
My proposal for our future RAAF fighter force is this:
- Four operational squadrons
- 1 x squadron of F-22, 16 operational at all times, 2 in maintenance
- 1 x squadron of F-35A, 16 operational at all times, 2 in maintenance
- 1 x squadron of F-35B, 16 operational at all times, 2 in maintenance
- 1 x squadron of future USAF UCAV, numbers dependant upon physical size, range, payload etc (probably 8-16).
This option should cover all possible scenarios. For air-to-air combat, a silver bullet force of F-22 to achieve air superiority. For SEAD and CAS, both JSF versions and the UCAV. For long range strike, LHD based F-35B armed with JASSM and JASSM-ER, the long range refuelled UCAV eventually chosen for USAF (the one just given the green light for development in the QDR), and AWD launched TACTOM. And for maritime interdiction, all of these platforms are able to perform this task.
So assuming 16 operational platforms for both types of JSF and F-22, plus 2 platforms of each in maintenance or storage, plus 8 platforms of each for training squadrons, this would require a purchase of 26 of each plus around 8-16 UCAV. I don't believe a training squadron is required for the UCAV as there are no pilots to train. The ground operators can use simulators.
Thoughts anyone?
Keep in mind, I am just a military enthusiast. Be kind
For the cost of the F-22s you could purchase at least 2 squadrons of F-35s, do you need the extra performance that much?
For you squadron strength the split would be 12 available for flight, 4 in maintenance and 2 in storage for attrition or long-term update.
An OCU of 8 aircraft would split up into 5 available for flight 2 in maintenance and 1 in storage for attrition or long-term update.
For the F-22, to have an 8 aircraft OCU to support an 18 aircraft operational squadron seems a little excessive. It would be more practical to have an operational squadron with an attached training flight. This would reduce the number of aircraft required to 24. Note that there is no two-seat version of the F-22. At present the US trains experienced F-15 in the simulator (20 flights) before they get a change to fly the F-15. The RAAF would have pilots experienced in flying the F/A-18, but would also need to buy a simulator.
The situation is similar for the F-35A & B, there are no plans at present to build a two-seat trainer. So most of the training will be done using a simulator. This should not be too much of a problem with the F-35A using experienced F/A-18 pilots, but the F-35B STOVL could be more difficult. This aircraft is much easier to fly than the Harrier, but it is a very different from flying CTOL aircraft.
Again for the F-35 it might be better to have a operational squadrons and attached training flight rather than a separate OCU.
To enable new pilots to fly the F-22 & F-35 as thier first operational aircraft will require that the pilots receive very good training in an advanced two-seat trainer. So I would suggest a squadron of the latest Hawks.
Also if you can make do without the F-22, I would suggest using the money for two extra F-35A squadrons and one extra F-35B squadron.
Magoo said:
Agreed the F-22 is too expensive.
I like the idea of using the F-35C, it would be better suited to rougher conditions, than the F-35A. Of course it would be more costly and I’m, not sure about the relative capabilities of the two versions. The larger F-35C wing would also make it easier to carry UCAVs.
Although there is not currently a requirement for operation from LHDs, the F-35B could operate from a ship this size. The UK operated Harriers from converted container ships during the Falklands Conflict.
STOVL is not only useful for carrier operations. Also India has used Harriers to operate from small outposts on remote islands to provide a picket line. The UK and the USMs have deployed Harriers from their carriers to forward basses to fly close air support missions.
I think that a mixture of F-35B & F-35C would be a good combination.
Also I think that the F-111 is becoming unsupportable and that the F/A-18 is the only realistic alternative.
Would be nice to think another squadron of F-18s could be drawn from the F-18a USN stocks and upgraded for 10-12 years service. Provides more airframes. Just a thought. I am sure a deal where the only cost to the RAAF would be the upgrade could be worked out.
Whiskyjack said:
Good idea.
The USN have offered S-3B Vikings to South American countries for free when they are withdraw from service as they are replaced bu F/A-18 Super Hornets.
The RAAF has had a good relationship with the USN, so it is worth a try.
Something is required to plug the hole, becuase it is no longer practical to keep the F-111s in service.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Magoo said:
The choice of the LHD, is probably going to be some sort of indicator as to whether the RAAF ever has any plans of acquiring F-35B. If the Navantia variant is chosen, there's a chance. If the French ship is chosen, I'd reckon they could be completely ruled out. There are plenty of spots available on the Navantia ships. The model shown at the Maritime Conference showed plenty of Harriers on the flight deck...
Magoo said:
Generally true.
The aircraft were attrition spares, to replace lost aircraft. However less aircraft were lost than had been expected and it was getting very crowded on the carriers.
Atlantic Causeway, (sister ship to the Atlantic Conveyor that had transport some Harriers from the UK and was sunk after they had been deployed to the carriers), was used to park spare serviceable aircraft.
A few aircraft that had U/S systems that made them unfit for combat were flown back to the container ship to make room on the carrier for replacement aircraft. A couple of these were repaired and returned to the carriers
We had several people from our company who served as field engineers on the container ships and the carriers to support the Harriers.
Magoo is correct that we did not operate combat missions from the container ships, but we did take off and land on them.
My point was that VSTOL aircraft maybe operated from a very small ship.
[I also remember, that Sub Lt 'Soapy' Ian Watson got lost (the INAS went U/S) and he landed his Harrier on the Spanish trawler Alraigo. (Landed might be overstating it a little as the aircraft ended up hanging at about 30 degrees half was over the side of the ship, but the aircraft was recovered.)].
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
RAAF Combat forces make up
I think the Tranche 3 order is actually a holdout for a 5th Gen Strike Aircraft eg FB-22, (still possible) or I believe Lockhead? X-44 MANTA, Pluse the B1-R, all pie in the sky I know, but.....also has a design in the pipeline, UCAV's are all well and good, but I do believe the ADF needs a Long Range strike capability, the US has relaised they have a capabiltity gap between even the JSF or Super Hornet and the B1-B, I mean anyone can realise hang on there should be something with a combat radius of between 1000 miles and 6500, there will be something developed for it and UCAV does not make sense for that role, the UCAV will be a fantastic SEADS weapon, and RAAF may purchase some additionally. I think the force could be 50 F35 A's, 24 or so B's, and 12 to 18 Long Range Strike Aircraft of the 5th Gen variety, espcsially because we are looking at the 2015-16 period for choice and alot of the ADF's big ticket items will purchased. SO there should be funds avalible and identifiable need for such aircraft.
I think the Tranche 3 order is actually a holdout for a 5th Gen Strike Aircraft eg FB-22, (still possible) or I believe Lockhead? X-44 MANTA, Pluse the B1-R, all pie in the sky I know, but.....also has a design in the pipeline, UCAV's are all well and good, but I do believe the ADF needs a Long Range strike capability, the US has relaised they have a capabiltity gap between even the JSF or Super Hornet and the B1-B, I mean anyone can realise hang on there should be something with a combat radius of between 1000 miles and 6500, there will be something developed for it and UCAV does not make sense for that role, the UCAV will be a fantastic SEADS weapon, and RAAF may purchase some additionally. I think the force could be 50 F35 A's, 24 or so B's, and 12 to 18 Long Range Strike Aircraft of the 5th Gen variety, espcsially because we are looking at the 2015-16 period for choice and alot of the ADF's big ticket items will purchased. SO there should be funds avalible and identifiable need for such aircraft.
nz enthusiast
New Member
If Australia is so determined to have a strike deterant just go buy the 16 B-1Bs under storage at the USAF/N/MC 'boneyard' at AMARC.
nz enthusiast said:
These aircraft are all back in service or in the process of being regenerated. Besides, if you thought it was expensive operating the F-111 :eek ... let's just say the B-1B is about five times the size of the Pig, and the operating costs are probably directly proportional.
I doubt the RAAF would be interested in a specialist role type aircraft such as the 'regional bomber', e.g. FB-22, B-1R, FB-23 etc (which, by the way, has effectively been canned in favour of a large UCAV option) for the same reasons it can't afford the 'specialist' F-22A. Multi-role is the key word here.
Magoo
nz enthusiast
New Member
But if you seen the list of weapons carried by the F-111, it doesn't look that great to me, in fact I think Australia should be embarrassed by the poor weaponry the F-111 carries for a plane with such potential. What does it matter if the F-111s replacement doesn't have the same range as the F-111, tankers are being used more than ever anyway. The only plane that I currently exists which offers BETTER capability than the F-111, in the mach 2+, modern, long range strike platform is the F-15E/F. I might and there is no point in Australia getting F-15E/Fs because it’s passed on a 30 year old air frame (although still good). Also is a F-111 flew at the countries in the region (except for NZ and the pacific islands). The F-111 would be completely minced with no stand off missiles to destroy SAMs and near no capability to protect itself. That’s why the JSF is good; it has stealth as you all know.
If Australia is so set about getting power protection get STOVL carriers or bombers as I said earlier like the B-1.
If Australia is so set about getting power protection get STOVL carriers or bombers as I said earlier like the B-1.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
nz enthusiast said:
It's weaponry is not so bad; Mk 80 series bombs, BLU-111 series hardened penetrator bombs, GBU-10/12/24 LGB's, AIM-9M WVRAAM, AGM-84 Harpoon ASM's and AGM-142 Popeye standoff missiles. If it was going to be retained, ASRAAM would be integrated (it was already programmed) as would JDAM and JASSM, giving it FAR greater survivability against modern IADS.
The F-111 is NOT intended as a CAS aircraft, therefore it doesn't use Maverick, A2G rockets etc. The only real capability it's lacking therefore is a SEAD capability. F-111's were trialled with HARM in the early - mid 90's (a photo of RAAF F-111's equipped with HARM exists in the gallery here) so integration of that capability shouldn't have proven too difficult if needed. There is no real difference in the weapons capability of the RAAF F-111's to the USAF F-111's (OR F-15E's, except in the A2A role). It IS a bomber afterall NOT a multi-role fighter.
RAAF F-111's would not have attacked high value, heavily defended targets without escorting F/A-18', in the early days of any war. The benefits of the aircraft, are it's payload and range capabilities compared to any other tactical fighter, without external factors such as tanking etc.
RAAF F/A-18's even with tanking will not be able to carry the payload to the ranges, that F-111 can manage now. Nor will JSF for that matter...
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/not-so-stealthy-the-15b-fighters/2006/03/13/1142098404532.html
Did we choose the f-35 over the typhoon and rafale because of its stealth capability? It seems that if it really is losing such a vast amount of its stealth capability, plus the single engine issue, less payload, less range plus the fact that the price seems to be going up and there is talk of countries pulling out, it may not have been such a great decision to purchase it, or at least purchase it to become the RAAF's sole air combat jet
Did we choose the f-35 over the typhoon and rafale because of its stealth capability? It seems that if it really is losing such a vast amount of its stealth capability, plus the single engine issue, less payload, less range plus the fact that the price seems to be going up and there is talk of countries pulling out, it may not have been such a great decision to purchase it, or at least purchase it to become the RAAF's sole air combat jet
- Status