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

[Redlands18]

With the retirement of the f111, is Australia actually considering anything to replace that capability? Get our hands on a few b1b's to rebuild and maintain the capacity while waiting for access to an export version of the b21?

Mark the other thing the ADF is looking at for the LR Strike role is SLCMs off both Surface ships and the future Subs. The US would never export the B-21 even if we could afford them at the estimated half a Billion Dollars per ac.

 

[Mark_Evans]

Mark the other thing the ADF is looking at for the LR Strike role is SLCMs off both Surface ships and the future Subs. The US would never export the B-21 even if we could afford them at the estimated half a Billion Dollars per ac.

For long range strike I can't see Australia getting any irbm, just think that having an aircraft option is going to provide flexibility over hoping a surface ship or submarine is anywhere in range for that slcm.
Something like a b1b - i understand the US have about 26 in storage and have plans to keep them going into the 2040's.
seeing if we could pick up approx 12 could be an option, especially if they are upgraded.

 

[Boagrius]

For long range strike I can't see Australia getting any irbm, just think that having an aircraft option is going to provide flexibility over hoping a surface ship or submarine is anywhere in range for that slcm.
Something like a b1b - i understand the US have about 26 in storage and have plans to keep them going into the 2040's.
seeing if we could pick up approx 12 could be an option, especially if they are upgraded.

I take it the role is already more or less catered for by the Hornet + JASSM + KC30 combo. Do we even need more reach than that? Getting into the strategic bomber business strikes me as quite a departure from our existing CONOPS, and potentially quite a costly one at that.

 

[gf0012-aust]

For long range strike I can't see Australia getting any irbm, just think that having an aircraft option is going to provide flexibility over hoping a surface ship or submarine is anywhere in range for that slcm.
Something like a b1b - i understand the US have about 26 in storage and have plans to keep them going into the 2040's.
seeing if we could pick up approx 12 could be an option, especially if they are upgraded.

B1B's and B2nn are just not a coherent fit into a future force.

weapons in depth on existing platforms is what the Govt and Service chiefs would look at.

there's no appetite for long range manned penetrators

aircraft have far less impact on forcing an enemy to reposition their forces to respond than a submarine

subs are the single greatest dislocation assets in any maritime country that are able to disrupt and deter an enemies forces

there is a reason why subs are the single fastest growing force development or force acquisition requirement for all the countries in the PACRIM

 

[hauritz]

the shornets were the interim F-111 replacement

unless the govt elects to keep them, they will then be replaced by the 4th F-35 squadron.

I suspect that based on the evolving unhappiness in the region, that they may end up staying on when number 4 comes up for govt decision anyway

I was actually pondering the future of the SuperHornet. How sellable would they be?

Maybe we should just hang onto them.

They could be kept for spare parts. A few may remain active as support for the Growler fleet. Then of course some are wired as Growlers so there might be a temptation to convert a few of them.

It might even be worth gifting them to NZ.

 

[Redlands18]

I was actually pondering the future of the SuperHornet. How sellable would they be?

Maybe we should just hang onto them.

They could be kept for spare parts. A few may remain active as support for the Growler fleet. Then of course some are wired as Growlers so there might be a temptation to convert a few of them.

It might even be worth gifting them to NZ.

Their replacements haven't even been decided on yet, let alone ordered. While the F-35A would be a strong favourite, the DWP leaves the decision open to other choices. The amount of money req to get the new Subs, Frigates and Land 400 Vechiles may just see the Super decision keep slipping down the track, just have to wait and see.

 

[John Newman]

With the retirement of the f111, is Australia actually considering anything to replace that capability? Get our hands on a few b1b's to rebuild and maintain the capacity while waiting for access to an export version of the b21?

Just to add to some of the other comments (and yes I can't ever see a 'B something' in RAAF service anytime soon either).

As someone else mentioned, the RAAF's current long range strike capability is Classic Hornet + KC-30A + JASSM (+ Harpoon for maritime strike).

But if you roll the clock forward around to the mid 2020's, the RAAF's long range strike capability could 'potentially' look something like this, F-35A + KC-30A + JASSM + JASSM-ER + LRASM + JSM.

And it's the potential introduction of weapons such as JASSM-ER, LRASM and JSM that will give the RAAF an even longer ranging strike (and maritime strike) capability over the current combination.

If you look back at the F-111C's introduction to RAAF service, we didn't have 'boom' equipped tankers to support them, in the beginning they could only drop 'dumb' bombs and had to fly over the target, and at the end or their service lives we still didn't have operational boom equipped tankers, but yes they did have longer ranging weapons such as Harpoon and AGM-142's, a 100ish k's or so extra range above a 'dumb' bomb.

I haven't done the maths, but I'd imagine that an F-111C (no tanker), with the approx. 100k range AGM-142, might end up with approx. the same combat radius as an F35A + KC-30A + the approx. 1000k range JASSM-ER for example.


Regardless of above, ultimately the ADF's 'long range strike / strategic deterrent' capability won't be in the hands of the RAAF, it will be in the hands of future RAN submarines equipped with a TLAM 1600k range capability.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Just to add to some of the other comments (and yes I can't ever see a 'B something' in RAAF service anytime soon either).

As someone else mentioned, the RAAF's current long range strike capability is Classic Hornet + KC-30A + JASSM (+ Harpoon for maritime strike).

But if you roll the clock forward around to the mid 2020's, the RAAF's long range strike capability could 'potentially' look something like this, F-35A + KC-30A + JASSM + JASSM-ER + LRASM + JSM.

And it's the potential introduction of weapons such as JASSM-ER, LRASM and JSM that will give the RAAF an even longer ranging strike (and maritime strike) capability over the current combination.

You can fit two JSM in the A bay, giving maximum flexibility regarding clean configs, or drop tanks or low drag bomb plus A2A.

LRASM will be external, while usefully longer range, being external will limit its usefulness on the F-35. But is likely to be useful on the F-18 SH which it should be integrated with.

I imagine the super hornets if upgraded as Advanced Hornets (particularly the fuel tanks and the IRST) would be reasonable planes to keep. Particularly for carrying, LRASM and EW.

I don't imagine selling them would be terribly worthwhile, and the US would likely have some say about that.

4 x F-35's squadrons and 1 X F-18 Advanced SH (and advanced growler) would be a pretty capable and complimentary force.

Are there any plans to integrate the popeye missiles we bought from Israel. Do we have anything that can fire those anymore?

 

[gf0012-aust]

I don't imagine selling them would be terribly worthwhile, and the US would likely have some say about that.

yep, under FMS provisions they are owned and managed by the State Dept as soon as we decide to decommission them and seek to remove them from Oz

We have no say on onselling

 

[swerve]

Going by what actually happens, I thought that Australia would normally have a very strong say. The usual deal appears to be that the customer can choose to keep them, or request permission to sell them, & if permission is granted can sell them (subject to conditions which vary from case to case) & keep the money.

For example, there are quite a few F-16s around which have been sold on by the original customers. The USA can & sometimes does veto a sale (ask the kiwis), & it can make it subject to conditions such as removal of certain items of equipment (I understand this was done with F-16s sold to Chile), but I'm sure it doesn't 'own' them in the usual sense. They don't have to be handed back, with no compensation.

 

[ADMk2]

Are there any plans to integrate the popeye missiles we bought from Israel. Do we have anything that can fire those anymore?

We don't have these in stock any more. We disposed over 100 of the ones we had left by way of controlled explosion...

An excellent return on the expenditure of over $600m - one year of operational service before we blew the whole lot up.

 

[StingrayOZ]

We don't have these in stock any more. We disposed over 100 of the ones we had left by way of controlled explosion...

An excellent return on the expenditure of over $600m - one year of operational service before we blew the whole lot up.

Ah, interesting. We are an odd country. Didn't really think it was about the capability then. That would explain why nobody really talks about them and me digging wasn't going anywhere.US didn't have theirs for very long either, but probably longer than a year.

Could have been an interesting combo for Singapore and the F-15's.

Malaysia would probably love some 2nd hand Super Hornets, but again, I don't see us getting rid of them.Or the US handing off growlers to anyone else. I could see those going to USN or bone yard only.

 

[swerve]

We don't have these in stock any more. We disposed over 100 of the ones we had left by way of controlled explosion...

An excellent return on the expenditure of over $600m - one year of operational service before we blew the whole lot up.

Bloody hell! Why was that?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Going by what actually happens, I thought that Australia would normally have a very strong say. The usual deal appears to be that the customer can choose to keep them, or request permission to sell them, & if permission is granted can sell them (subject to conditions which vary from case to case) & keep the money.

For example, there are quite a few F-16s around which have been sold on by the original customers. The USA can & sometimes does veto a sale (ask the kiwis), & it can make it subject to conditions such as removal of certain items of equipment (I understand this was done with F-16s sold to Chile), but I'm sure it doesn't 'own' them in the usual sense. They don't have to be handed back, with no compensation.

State tend not to be too literal with trusted partners - but in the final stroke of the pen, they have overarching say on whether one nations FMS articles can go to another country. a sliding scale of interest and intervention is weighted against the initial host owner

 

[DropBear]

Bloody hell! Why was that?

Wasn't it because the integration was long and drawn out to the point that when they were finally ready for the Pig, retirement of the jet was on the cards? I don't believe the weapon was suitable for release from Classic Hornets, hence the need to discard the stocks. It appeared to be a rather large and heavy/cumbersome weapon (IIRC we got the PEP3 AGM-142 version).

 

[hauritz]

yep, under FMS provisions they are owned and managed by the State Dept as soon as we decide to decommission them and seek to remove them from Oz

We have no say on onselling

So does that mean when we decommission them that's it ... we have to return them to the US ... and we don't get any money back out of the deal.

There suddenly seems very little incentive to decommission these aircraft and buy additional F-35s.

The arguments about the logistical benefits of a single aircraft type probably went out the window when we committed to the Growler. It is very hard to think of any real benefit to be gained from getting rid of an aircraft that will still have a decade or more life left in it.

By the time the mid 20s roll around there will also be pressure to hang on for 6th generation technology.

 

[hauritz]

double post

 

[Boagrius]

So does that mean when we decommission them that's it ... we have to return them to the US ... and we don't get any money back out of the deal.

There suddenly seems very little incentive to decommission these aircraft and buy additional F-35s.

The arguments about the logistical benefits of a single aircraft type probably went out the window when we committed to the Growler. It is very hard to think of any real benefit to be gained from getting rid of an aircraft that will still have a decade or more life left in it.

By the time the mid 20s roll around there will also be pressure to hang on for 6th generation technology.

I suppose a lot will hinge on just how unhappy the region is looking in a decade's time? If things keep trending the way they have been then - as you say - holding out for something like F/A(XX) alongside the USN Superbug fleet might make sense. You could potentially plug into whatever comes after Growler that way too.

 

[gf0012-aust]

So does that mean when we decommission them that's it ... we have to return them to the US ... and we don't get any money back out of the deal.

There suddenly seems very little incentive to decommission these aircraft and buy additional F-35s.

The arguments about the logistical benefits of a single aircraft type probably went out the window when we committed to the Growler. It is very hard to think of any real benefit to be gained from getting rid of an aircraft that will still have a decade or more life left in it.

By the time the mid 20s roll around there will also be pressure to hang on for 6th generation technology.

once we decide that we would like to remove them from Australian soil it becomes
an FMS retransfer issue - and all the niggly bits of the FMS contracts kick in.

we cannot sell them on or parted out without having State Dept engagement

 

[Trackmaster]

once we decide that we would like to remove them from Australian soil it becomes
an FMS retransfer issue - and all the niggly bits of the FMS contracts kick in.

we cannot sell them on or parted out without having State Dept engagement

Which as I understand it is the reason for the tightly controlled shredding of the F-111 engines and the burying of many of the airframes...the ones that didn't go to museums.