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

[Takao]

When I was a kid in the Air Training Corps (RAAF Cadets), the RAAF had Lincoln bombers and Vampire jets, both British origin. These were replaced with the Canberra Bomber and Avon Sabre (British and US) which in turn were replaced by Mirage (French) and Flll (US) The Mirage replaced by the F18, (US) which are now being replaced by the F35 (US), while the F18F has replaced the Flll. In m opinion, we should be looking around for a more suitable aircraft than the Super Hornet to take on the role previously ndone by the Flll, the Canberra and the Lincoln bomber. The Super Hornet and the Lightening ll both have similar roles, in as much as both have very limited payloads etc. The Americans are looking at a bomber or light bomber, the Germans are looking to upgrade their Eurofighters to carry bigger loads as a replacement for their Tornado ( which would have been the perfect replacement for the Flll) and the Brits are working on an aircraft to replace their tornados.
We should be examining these three options, with a view to joining in on the development of the chosen aircraft, and replacing the F18F with them.

I think you have missed the increasing capability. A Lincon has a payload of 6 400 kg, a Canberra 3 600 kg; a Super Hornet 8 000 kg. Range is less for the latter; but air-to-air refuellig takes care of that. The F-111 is superior in terms of payload or range, but the cost of ownership was just too high. Add on to that the ability to carry ranged munitions like the AGM-154, AGM-158, AGM-88 and AGM-84 and you have a platform that can effectively penetrate enemy air defences, without the risk a Lincon, Canberra or (to a lesser extent) F-111 crew has.

1:1 replacement is stupid and fails to take into account costs or the upgraded capabilities of modern platforms. I think that the RAAF has a better strategic capability than any point (except perhaps the 1980s - but that is a different debate). We don't need another aircraft purchase for the RAAF.

 

[t68]

Agree about the need for a bomber, but there's nothing in production to replicate the F111 range and ordnance delivery. The main problem I see is that F111 was procured for a threat directly to our north which the F111 could cover. Our threats are now more at longer range which in turn means we need an aircraft that can deliver ordinance at very long ranges without the need for AAR and have the ability to carry ordinance that can standoff extending the potential range further B21 is the only program that is in the pipe, yes its expensive but we are not talking an order of 70-80 aircraft we would be looking at 12-18 at the most which would equal to a 15-20 billion program considering when we bought the super hornets it was a 6 billion program

 

[Todjaeger]

Agree about the need for a bomber, but there's nothing in production to replicate the F111 range and ordnance delivery. The main problem I see is that F111 was procured for a threat directly to our north which the F111 could cover. Our threats are now more at longer range which in turn means we need an aircraft that can deliver ordinance at very long ranges without the need for AAR and have the ability to carry ordinance that can standoff extending the potential range further B21 is the only program that is in the pipe, yes its expensive but we are not talking an order of 70-80 aircraft we would be looking at 12-18 at the most which would equal to a 15-20 billion program considering when we bought the super hornets it was a 6 billion program

Umm, no. Not even close.

The AUD$6 bil. price that was mentioned for the 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets was the cost to acquire the aircraft themselves (IIRC that worked out to ~AUD$1.6 bil.) an initial stock of weapons which had already been integrated with and cleared for use from the Super Hornets like AIM-9X since the standard WVR AAM in RAAF use was the ASRAAM which was not cleared, and the associated training, maintenance and operating costs for a decade.

The projected unit cost for the B-21 in 2016 was USD$564 mil. which works out to a unit cost of AUD$778 mil. Again, that is unit cost, which does not include any training or support packages which are absolutely essential to operate an aircraft, or any upgrades and expansions to facilities which could be required to operate a larger aircraft. At current pricing, a dozen B-21's would cost over AUD$9 bil. for the aircraft alone, and that is also assuming that the US would be willing to sell it which IMO is not something to count on.

If one were to include a cost estimate for a training and support package (which is often near equal to the unit cost) then the cost for a dozen aircraft would climb to around AUD$18 bil. and quite possibly more. If one were to then apply the whole of programme life pricing that Australia typically does for defence projects, which includes cost estimates for the service life of the asset as well as potential MLU programmes, which might see pricing which approaches the estimates for the SEA 1000 programme.

 

[Redlands18]

Agree about the need for a bomber, but there's nothing in production to replicate the F111 range and ordnance delivery. The main problem I see is that F111 was procured for a threat directly to our north which the F111 could cover. Our threats are now more at longer range which in turn means we need an aircraft that can deliver ordinance at very long ranges without the need for AAR and have the ability to carry ordinance that can standoff extending the potential range further B21 is the only program that is in the pipe, yes its expensive but we are not talking an order of 70-80 aircraft we would be looking at 12-18 at the most which would equal to a 15-20 billion program considering when we bought the super hornets it was a 6 billion program

The new Subs may also get a Strategic Land Strike capability using LACMs.

 

[hauritz]

Australia does need a long range strike capability but we can't really afford anything like the B-21.

Ultimately all we can do is rely on air to air refueling or maybe hanging ordinance off aircraft such as the Poisidon. Perhaps at some point we will be able to acquire UAVs.

I don't think submarines or surface ships will provide a solution because they simply couldn't carry enough weapons. They would be OK for one-off strikes but they wouldn't be able to carry out sustained attacks.

Of course a proper aircraft carrier would be able to perform the task ... but that is for another forum.

 

[t68]

Australia does need a long range strike capability but we can't really afford anything like the B-21.

Ultimately all we can do is rely on air to air refueling or maybe hanging ordinance off aircraft such as the Poisidon. Perhaps at some point we will be able to acquire UAVs.

I don't think submarines or surface ships will provide a solution because they simply couldn't carry enough weapons. They would be OK for one-off strikes but they wouldn't be able to carry out sustained attacks.

Of course a proper aircraft carrier would be able to perform the task ... but that is for another forum.

That’s the $64000 question, if it’s deemed we needed the cspbilty for long range strike when you combine the cost of extra AAR aircraft plus the actual aircraft for the strike mission is it cheaper to have an aircraft that performs in the role from the outset?

Also the LRSB can only do a specific job but when you add the extra capabilities of the AAR or a strike/ anti submarine carrier for the expenditure its most likely adds up to CBG would end up with 6B for two QE plus aircraft will most likely end up costing the same as the LRSB program for the ADF

 

[King Wally]

Keep in mind it's not like you have to launch strikes from an Australian air base. Once you locate a friendly forward air base and throw in AAR the RAAF has a hell of a lot of reach as it is.

If the mission was beyond that scope then we may be best to support the US through other means... via the RAN or AAR or Wedgetail etc. If the US isn't involved in such an ambitious strike operation then should we be anyway?

 

[vonnoobie]

All in all the only thing remotely representing those requirements would come in at a price tag some where between SEA5000 and SEA1000. Only way to get them would be to sacrifice a third of our naval combatants or to increase the defence budget. First wont happen at all while the second may occur down the road but not for a long time.

In any case if that much money was made available on top of what else is already getting set aside I'm sure the ADF would have a hell of a lot of other systems or expansions that would be of better use then a bomber that may be used time to time. $35 - $50 billion, There is your third AOR, 2nd Choules type ship, a 4th Combat brigade, expansion of existing brigades etc etc.

 

[Boagrius]

It strikes me that modern standoff weapons have changed the game in a fundamental way since longer legged bombers like Canberra and/or F111 were considered a necessary part of our inventory. Unlike them, F35 et al don't need to get anywhere near their targets to hit them.

I would have thought simply investing in weaponry like JASSM, JASSM-ER, LRASM and JSM (and the ISR network to enable them) ought to give us ample reach with our currently planned fleet of front line combat aircraft. Beyond that we might be able to plug into a PCA type 6th gen option in a couple of decades' time...

 

[ASSAIL]

It was my understanding that the strike capability for the ADF had been vested in our submarines.
One has to pose the question, why do we need an overwhelming strike capability? A surgical one off strike sure, but any overwhelming operation would be in concert with allies and is not justified both on cost and reason.

 

[vonnoobie]

^ Agreed ASSAIL, The intent of the ADF is to be capable enough to operate independently in small operations, with limited support in medium operations and for higher operations to fit in with part of a multi national force.

Considering the nations in our immediate area of operations there is no logical reason for such an aircraft with the development of long range precision munitions that only continue to get better, Even more so when we are actively investing in hypersonic missiles that could be launched from Australia and theoretically hit any target in a much shorter time frame with no personnel risk and would be a hell of a lot cheaper then a squadron of fantasy B-21's.

Maybe had they made the bomber variant of the F-22 that would have been a viable option but they didnt and it wasnt for export anyway, Beyond that nothing else has ever been proposed to fill that role at a cost base that would make it possible for Australia.

 

[hairyman]

How many different aircraft do you think we had during the second world war? I remember from Britain we had Hurricanes, Spitfires, Mosquitoes, Beaufighters and Beauforts, Lancasters,and a few others. Then from the US we had Mustangs, and many others. Three types of warplanes would probably not cause any problems, especially if they were not all based at the same place.

 

[hairyman]

I would go for a third type only if it could do things the other two cant.

 

[ngatimozart]

How many different aircraft do you think we had during the second world war? I remember from Britain we had Hurricanes, Spitfires, Mosquitoes, Beaufighters and Beauforts, Lancasters,and a few others. Then from the US we had Mustangs, and many others. Three types of warplanes would probably not cause any problems, especially if they were not all based at the same place.

Back then, like us Kiwis, you didn't have any choice. You basically took what you could get. You had from the US as well as the P-51D, P-40 Kittyhawks, A-20 Havoc (Boston) B-25 Mitchell, B-24 Liberators, C-47 Dakota and others, so it was a wide and varied range of aircraft. Don't forget both the RAAF and RNZAF were basically operating what were 2 air forces: the one in the ETO and the one in the PTO.

 

[vonnoobie]

How many different aircraft do you think we had during the second world war? I remember from Britain we had Hurricanes, Spitfires, Mosquitoes, Beaufighters and Beauforts, Lancasters,and a few others. Then from the US we had Mustangs, and many others. Three types of warplanes would probably not cause any problems, especially if they were not all based at the same place.

You cant compare RAAF from WW2 to the RAAF of today.

In WW2 we had at the peak 182,000 personnel and over 5,500 aircraft compared to today with 14,000 or so personnel and a fleet hovering between 250 - 300 (Current orders will have a fleet of 289 once all acquired) aircraft as we update and retire with planned acquisitions. Its apples and oranges.

Not to mention that all those different aircraft had hundreds of each type compared to today where no one type at present breaks 70 total (F-18 A/B)

 

[ASSAIL]

I went to the RAAF Pitch Black open day in Darwin. I didn’t get there until 1100 and by then half of Darwin’s population seemed to be there, tens of thousands I’m sure.
It was a fantastic show and I’m linking a video which, judging by the long shadows and low crowds, must have been taken quite early on.
The variety of warplanes was exceptional, please enjoy.

 

[John Newman]

There is no doubt that the F-111C was one of the best acquisitions the Oz Government of the time made, despite all the issues, problems and delays (sound familiar? F-35A?). It was, and still is, one of my favourite combat aircraft of all time (built many Airfix F-111A models in the mid '60s too, now that dates me!!), and it was sad to see it leave service.

But I do think we tend to look at the F-111C today through the mist of time with rose coloured glasses too.

Yes of course there is no doubt that the F-111C had very long range, but let’s also not forget that during the entire service life with the RAAF, we did not possess any ‘boom’ equipped tankers than could extend the range further than the aircraft was capable of itself.

And not to forget that for the majority of its service life it was equipped with ‘unpowered’ land strike weapons, either dumb bombs or laser and TV guided weapons that weren’t ‘long range’ in themselves.

It wasn’t until right near end of the F-111C service life that they were equipped with a ‘powered’ land strike weapon, the AGM-142 Have Nap (Popeye), which according to Wiki had a 78km range (longer than an unpowered weapon, but the aircraft still had to get pretty close to the target).

Yes of course in the maritime environment, they were equipped with Harpoon (great combination).

Here we are today, the F-111C is gone, but we have the Classic Hornet fleet equipped with JASSM (according to Wiki, a 370km range), plus Harpoon and of course a growing fleet of tankers to support them. We also have Super Hornets with JSOW-C1 (unpowered but approx 130km range at high altitude release), plus again Harpoon too.

As for tomorrow (and tomorrow is not that far away), we will have F-35A, and possibly Super Hornets until around 2030 too, supported by that growing tanker fleet than can refuel both types.

Whilst there hasn’t been a decision as yet on what types of ‘powered’ weapons the future fleet will be equipped with, the options include: JASSM (370km), JASSM-ER (925+km), LRASM (estimated between 370km and 560km) and JSM (estimated between 185km and 555km, depending on launch profile).

Put simply, the F-111C had great range in itself, but that was needed due to the lack of range in the weapons available and of course lack of tanker support. Today and tomorrow, the combat aircraft of the RAAF certainly won’t have the range of the F-111C, but they will have tanker support and of course the potential of much longer range powered strike weapons to compensate, or potentially exceed the strike range capabilities of the F-111C fleet.


And regardless of all of the above, I think moving forward the long range strike/deterrence capability of the ADF will be in the hands of the RAN with the future submarines equipped with a T-LAM type capability.

 

[Takao]

How many different aircraft do you think we had during the second world war? I remember from Britain we had Hurricanes, Spitfires, Mosquitoes, Beaufighters and Beauforts, Lancasters,and a few others. Then from the US we had Mustangs, and many others. Three types of warplanes would probably not cause any problems, especially if they were not all based at the same place.

In addition to what @ngatimozart and @vonnoobie have said, which is accuate and I agree with 100%, you have ignored the reality that is the modern ADF. At this point, it cannot afford what it has. Buying a third type of aircraft (that's _at least_ a nine-figure program) increases that unsupportability. If you want a third type, noting you haven't made a solid argument for one, what capability are you deleting to pay for it?

 

[ngatimozart]

@Takao I agree to a point, but I am not a believer of having all your eggs in the one basket and I think that in Australia's case, maybe a two platform fast jet combat strike force is warranted. As each generation of combat aircraft comes along, it is more dependent upon computers and IT to operate and fly which can be an Achilles heal. They are also dependent upon modern coms systems; space, airborne and terrestrial based for navigation, mission info, and mission completion. All of these electronic systems can be interfered with one way or another, so imagine quelle horreur, if the F-35 computing systems were somehow compromised. Acquiring a third type of aircraft may actually become a necessity at some point, but not for reasons that most of us can think of at the moment, so we should always keep a Plan B, C & D in mind just in case. Unfortunately pollies and Treasury departments don't see it that way. Hopefully it won't happen, however.

 

[t68]

There is no doubt that the F-111C was one of the best acquisitions the Oz Government of the time made, despite all the issues, problems and delays (sound familiar? F-35A?). It was, and still is, one of my favourite combat aircraft of all time (built many Airfix F-111A models in the mid '60s too, now that dates me!!), and it was sad to see it leave service.

But I do think we tend to look at the F-111C today through the mist of time with rose coloured glasses too.

Yes of course there is no doubt that the F-111C had very long range, but let’s also not forget that during the entire service life with the RAAF, we did not possess any ‘boom’ equipped tankers than could extend the range further than the aircraft was capable of itself.

And not to forget that for the majority of its service life it was equipped with ‘unpowered’ land strike weapons, either dumb bombs or laser and TV guided weapons that weren’t ‘long range’ in themselves.

It wasn’t until right near end of the F-111C service life that they were equipped with a ‘powered’ land strike weapon, the AGM-142 Have Nap (Popeye), which according to Wiki had a 78km range (longer than an unpowered weapon, but the aircraft still had to get pretty close to the target).

Yes of course in the maritime environment, they were equipped with Harpoon (great combination).

Here we are today, the F-111C is gone, but we have the Classic Hornet fleet equipped with JASSM (according to Wiki, a 370km range), plus Harpoon and of course a growing fleet of tankers to support them. We also have Super Hornets with JSOW-C1 (unpowered but approx 130km range at high altitude release), plus again Harpoon too.

As for tomorrow (and tomorrow is not that far away), we will have F-35A, and possibly Super Hornets until around 2030 too, supported by that growing tanker fleet than can refuel both types.

Whilst there hasn’t been a decision as yet on what types of ‘powered’ weapons the future fleet will be equipped with, the options include: JASSM (370km), JASSM-ER (925+km), LRASM (estimated between 370km and 560km) and JSM (estimated between 185km and 555km, depending on launch profile).

Put simply, the F-111C had great range in itself, but that was needed due to the lack of range in the weapons available and of course lack of tanker support. Today and tomorrow, the combat aircraft of the RAAF certainly won’t have the range of the F-111C, but they will have tanker support and of course the potential of much longer range powered strike weapons to compensate, or potentially exceed the strike range capabilities of the F-111C fleet.


And regardless of all of the above, I think moving forward the long range strike/deterrence capability of the ADF will be in the hands of the RAN with the future submarines equipped with a T-LAM type capability.

Agree on the short term that Super Hornets and KC -30A make a good interim capability along with long range standoff weapons makes sence.

But our strategic situation has changed some what over the last 10-15 years and the F111. The Cold War was more of a northern hemisphere outlook, our main concern from was the Russian Pacfic fleet at Vladivostok and our near northern neighbours.it hasn’t been declared as yet but we are in the midsts of Cold War 2,0, I think relying on sea based platforms alone is fraught with risk and also relying on host nation support might mean bring them closer to the SCS that the tactical situation may be a different kettle of fish. The strategic situation is no longer 1000 or so klm away but 3000 LRBwhich could also stand off using those same weapons available to F35/ Super Hornet