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

[John Newman]

Still does not sound right, which is not (quite) the same as saying that the RAAF would not do it. To me, that would be like using a Holden Commodore (VK) SL sedan as a source of spare parts for a Holden Commodore (VS) Acclaim sedan...

I suppose some of the subcomponents might be the same between the two different models (produced a decade apart). IIRC the APG-73 radar fitted to the RAAF Hornets during the HUG programme is the standard radar fitted to the F/A-18C/D Hornets (and early Block I F/A-18E/F Super Hornets). Not sure how many other pieces remain in common and would still be usable.

Well the press release was direct from the Def Min, you'd have to assume it was accurate?

As for your analogy of a VK Commodore (first gen) and a VS Commodore (second gen), yes that is like comparing a Classic to a Super Hornet, they are totally different.

A better and more fitting analogy (in my opinion), would be to compare the four models of the second gen Commodore, VN, VP, VR and VS, produced from 1988-1997 (or the four models of the previous first gen or the four models of the third gen).

Whilst each gen is a clean sheet design, within each gen the same basic floorplan and structure of the vehicles are the same (mostly cosmetic upgrades and some mechanical of course too).

When it comes to the four models of the Classic Hornet, A, B C and D, my understanding was that structurally the same, but of course with the various system upgrades.

 

[Todjaeger]

Well the press release was direct from the Def Min, you'd have to assume it was accurate?

As for your analogy of a VK Commodore (first gen) and a VS Commodore (second gen), yes that is like comparing a Classic to a Super Hornet, they are totally different.

A better and more fitting analogy (in my opinion), would be to compare the four models of the second gen Commodore, VN, VP, VR and VS, produced from 1988-1997 (or the four models of the previous first gen or the four models of the third gen).

Whilst each gen is a clean sheet design, within each gen the same basic floorplan and structure of the vehicles are the same (mostly cosmetic upgrades and some mechanical of course too).

When it comes to the four models of the Classic Hornet, A, B C and D, my understanding was that structurally the same, but of course with the various system upgrades.

Yeah, I noticed the source of the release. Given both the source, and who was in that specific position at the time, I am left wondering just how significant the supplies of spares actually are.

As a side note, the models I selected were all produced during the years in which the RAAF and RMAF Hornets were built respectively. I do admit though that it seems car generations/model years tend to change more significantly over a short period of time than fighter aircraft models tend to.

 

[Redlands18]

The RAAF would've looked at the F-15 very closely when they were undertaking the Mirage replacement program which the Hornet won. I would strongly suggest that what didn't get the F-15 across the finish line then equally applies now. Cost - both initial acquisition cost and sustainment cost. It's not as though the ADF has an endless supply of money, although some people appear to think so and that comment is aimed at no one in particular

I remember reading somewhere many years ago that the long list for the Mirage replacement was the F/A-18, F-16, F-15, Tornado ADV and Mirage 2000. Then it was cut down to the F/A-18 v F-16. Also the F-15 would have been either the A or C model and they were not really a Multi Role Aircraft so that may have counted against it as well.

 

[old faithful]

I remember reading somewhere many years ago that the long list for the Mirage replacement was the F/A-18, F-16, F-15, Tornado ADV and Mirage 2000. Then it was cut down to the F/A-18 v F-16. Also the F-15 would have been either the A or C model and they were not really a Multi Role Aircraft so that may have counted against it as well.

I have read that we were also offered Tomcats, at a great deal, sanctioned Iranian F14,s, but there was a fear of starting an arms race in the region.
F15,s were on the table. At one stage it was between the Mirage 2000/and the Hornet.

 

[John Newman]

Good to wake up to the news this morning that pricing for F-35 LRIP-11 had finally been announced, another substantial decrease from the previous production lot. (The 'haters' must have choked on their Cornflakes this morning reading the news! Ha ha!).

I had a look back at the Defence Departments submission (Feb 2016) to the Senate Inquiry into the RAAF F-35A acquisition this morning to check on what Defence had said back then as to the projected 'average' unit cost the RAAF was expecting to pay, the figure was US$90m each.

It would certainly appear that the eventual average cost of all 72 F-35A will come in under that figure too, it's interesting to look back at the costs to date (all in US$):

* LRIP 6 - 2 airframes - $118m approx. (aircraft and engine were costed separately, airframe $103m, engine approx. $15m)
* LRIP 10 - 8 airframes - $94.6m (inc engine).
* LRIP 11 - 8 airframes - $89.2m (inc engine).

The big one for the RAAF is the combined block buy for LRIPs 12-14, approx. 450 aircraft in total (45 F-35As for the RAAF), this is where the expectation is to have the unit cost fall to somewhere between US$80m-US$85m. Then the last 9 aircraft in the following production lot.

Anyway, looks like everything is on schedule for the RAAF with the delivery timetable and coming in on, or under, the projected budget too.

Cheers,

 

[John Fedup]

I remember reading somewhere many years ago that the long list for the Mirage replacement was the F/A-18, F-16, F-15, Tornado ADV and Mirage 2000. Then it was cut down to the F/A-18 v F-16. Also the F-15 would have been either the A or C model and they were not really a Multi Role Aircraft so that may have counted against it as well.

When Canada was replacing its fighter fleet in the early '80s the choices were F-14, F-15, and F18. The F-16 was rejected because a single engine jet for the vast Arctic region was deemed unsafe. Probably an unfair criticism and the the same argument is used by some here against the F-35 despite the fact modern jet engines are extremely reliable. In any event Canada chose the Hornet because it was the least expensive. For air to air intercepts in the high Arctic, the F-15 was the best choice and the F-14 wasn't far behind in this capability. The Tomcat was the coolest choice.

 

[Stampede]

Good to wake up to the news this morning that pricing for F-35 LRIP-11 had finally been announced, another substantial decrease from the previous production lot. (The 'haters' must have choked on their Cornflakes this morning reading the news! Ha ha!).

I had a look back at the Defence Departments submission (Feb 2016) to the Senate Inquiry into the RAAF F-35A acquisition this morning to check on what Defence had said back then as to the projected 'average' unit cost the RAAF was expecting to pay, the figure was US$90m each.

It would certainly appear that the eventual average cost of all 72 F-35A will come in under that figure too, it's interesting to look back at the costs to date (all in US$):

* LRIP 6 - 2 airframes - $118m approx. (aircraft and engine were costed separately, airframe $103m, engine approx. $15m)
* LRIP 10 - 8 airframes - $94.6m (inc engine).
* LRIP 11 - 8 airframes - $89.2m (inc engine).

The big one for the RAAF is the combined block buy for LRIPs 12-14, approx. 450 aircraft in total (45 F-35As for the RAAF), this is where the expectation is to have the unit cost fall to somewhere between US$80m-US$85m. Then the last 9 aircraft in the following production lot.

Anyway, looks like everything is on schedule for the RAAF with the delivery timetable and coming in on, or under, the projected budget too.

Cheers,

Good news on price.
And the B model will cost ???????

Ah yes the old elephant in the room

 

[Stampede]

Good news on price.
And the B model will cost ???????

Ah yes the old elephant in the room

Note to self read the F35 thread first.

 

[John Newman]

More good news for the RAAFs acquisition of the F-35A, the tenth airframe has been delivered:

Australia takes delivery of 10th Joint Strike Fighter | Department of Defence Ministers

And:

RAAF receives 10th F-35A – ADBR

It was only a bit over a month ago that the ninth had been delivered. Ten down, 62 to go! (And hopefully by the mid 2020s we get confirmation of the 4th Squadron too).

Looking forward to the first two to arrive in Oz in December.

 

[hairyman]

If as suggested by the media the US does offer to Japan a hybrid F22- F35, anyway that Australia can get involved? Would make sense to have a couple of squadrons of a power plane like a F22.

 

[ngatimozart]

If as suggested by the media the US does offer to Japan a hybrid F22- F35, anyway that Australia can get involved? Would make sense to have a couple of squadrons of a power plane like a F22.

Why? Where are you going to get the funding from? What capabilities are you going to get rid of to fund this adventure?

 

[hauritz]

Good news on price.
And the B model will cost ???????

Ah yes the old elephant in the room

It isn't the cost of F-35B that is the issue. It will be more expensive but that would just be part of the problem.

Unless you are willing to spend another several billion dollars on upgrading the LHDs what you would end up with is a more expensive version of the F-35A with less range and a lower payload capability.

 

[ASSAIL]

It isn't the cost of F-35B that is the issue. It will be more expensive but that would just be part of the problem.

Unless you are willing to spend another several billion dollars on upgrading the LHDs what you would end up with is a more expensive version of the F-35A with less range and a lower payload capability.

Many posters make the mistake of comparing range between the F35A&B but that’s totally illogical.
The B model operates from a mobile base that can place it far closer to its tasking than a land dependant A. What’s more it’s base is mobile, it’s tasking is therefor extremely flexible and it’s base is more easily defended against long range weapons.

Given all this, the discussion about range totally ignores the tactical reality and is therefor simply noise of no consequence.

 

[Volkodav]

It isn't the cost of F-35B that is the issue. It will be more expensive but that would just be part of the problem.

Unless you are willing to spend another several billion dollars on upgrading the LHDs what you would end up with is a more expensive version of the F-35A with less range and a lower payload capability.

Several billion would get you a purpose designed and built carrier or two. I doubt modifying the LHDs would cost even a billion, the issue would be the loss of helicopter capacity, hence lift.

If there were several billion to play with then the answer is obvious, use the LHDs to develop the capability (with USN, USMC and RN support) then build a purpose designed ship to compliment the current fleet .

 

[Stampede]

It isn't the cost of F-35B that is the issue. It will be more expensive but that would just be part of the problem.

Unless you are willing to spend another several billion dollars on upgrading the LHDs what you would end up with is a more expensive version of the F-35A with less range and a lower payload capability.

Some see the F35B as a miss use of defence capital.
I take the view it's money well spent for a unique capability that suites our broad strategic needs.

I'm sure both of us have read and listened to the many reasons for and against the F35B.
For myself, I continue to be an advocate for this aircraft platform, for as critical and subjective as I try to be of this system of systems, its relevance and necessity as an ADF asset only increases, not diminishes with time.

Just my opinion and thanks for the engagement.

Regards S

 

[Stampede]

Many posters make the mistake of comparing range between the F35A&B but that’s totally illogical.
The B model operates from a mobile base that can place it far closer to its tasking than a land dependant A. What’s more it’s base is mobile, it’s tasking is therefor extremely flexible and it’s base is more easily defended against long range weapons.

Given all this, the discussion about range totally ignores the tactical reality and is therefore simply noise of no consequence.

Availability is capability
Be it on land or at sea, the aircraft will be on,or near the front line at all times.
A dangerous place to be for sure, but even more dangerous for those on the surface without the friendly air-cover above.

Regards S

 

[ngatimozart]

Availability is capability
Be it on land or at sea, the aircraft will be on,or near the front line at all times.
A dangerous place to be for sure, but even more dangerous for those on the surface without the friendly air-cover above.

Regards S

This hoary old subject gets dragged up again and repeatedly thrashed. In an ideal world where the ADF had an unlimited supply of funding, yes it would be an ideal capability, but we don't live in an ideal world and the ADF has a limited supply of funding, so it has to prioritise it's funding to capabilities that it believes best suits the requirements that the Cabinet have set it. Also remember that the ADF can only recommend capabilities, not approve, for such approval is only held by Cabinet, which is comprised of pollies who are busy spill plotting, have competing interests, different ideological bents, geopolitical and geostrategic outlooks with limited attention spans. On top of that every three years there is an election where voters have the option of firing the incumbents and starting with another lot of much the same.

 

[hairyman]

Now is a good time to be discussing additional expenditure for the ADF. There are far more knowledgeable people than I calling for a massive increase in defence spending. but even with the projected increase funding from 1.8% to 2% GDP, that is over $7b au extra per annum. Come on fellas, use your imagination, what should we spend it on?

 

[SpazSinbad]

Several posters have mentioned the F-35B so I'll mention it (the HOARY OLD hoar that she is a SUBJECT of Her Maj no less) within the context of a quote I've yet to find again. INit a RAAF wigOFbig says that Oz being big in size has the RAAF already operating in a mode not unlike ....? EXPEDITIONARY. How expeditious of me. This is NOT the quote however look at the stupid headline then search the article for F-35B mentions: http://aviationweek.com/combat-aircraft/report-raises-chance-more-australian-fa-18-super-hornets 21 Oct 2016 OOPS I see the article is sub only & I guess someone sent it to me so soon excerpts will be extracted but meanwhile (with interruptions) I'll look for exped quote.....

 

[SpazSinbad]

Ran out of time for edit of post above so here it is: From the Source: Chief of Air Force Air Marshal Leo Davies 31 Jan 2018 "...In a country the size of Australia, we are an expeditionary force..." From the Source: Chief of Air Force Air Marshal Leo Davies - Australian Defence Magazine BAH HUMBUG this is another SUB only artickle. More excerpts on way....
&
Recenty VERY the RAAFwaafa expeditely refueled ARMY tanks in the scrub somewhere ala: Carriers Aren’t The Only Big Targets: The Challenges of Mobile Basing 08 Jun 2018

"...RAAF Air Commodore Ken Robinson…
...He underscored that this clearly is an army and air force challenge. “We are good at supporting maneuver with our tactical transport aircraft and Australia’s Army aviation capability, including the Tiger Reconnaissance Helicopter, but what we need to do is move to the next level of support to maneuver the most lethal part of our air power capability across a range of airfield options.”

Core capabilities such as providing fuel for air systems when operationalized for a mobile airbasing force on Australian territory are clearly different from supporting a fixed airbase. For example, “expeditionary fuel capabilities is something that’s very much on the forefront of my mind. Lean and agile support packages to operate expeditionary airfields are also key, so that we can offer the best possible maneuver options to the aviators without tying down strategic airlift.”

Whether to pursue mobile basing or build greater depth in Australian territorial defense is one of the core choices facing Australia as it continues its force modernization. Either they can emphasize going deeper into the air-maritime domain in the Pacific or significantly augment their mobile defense capabilities leveraging the vast Australian territory. The role of active defenses working with airpower mobility would be a priority in this second case...." Carriers Aren’t The Only Big Targets: The Challenges of Mobile Basing

Not having any luck finding RAAF refueling ARMY tanks expeditionarywise but would a V-22 USMC do? Enhanced Air Cooperation - RAAF Video Portal