Well without air superiority all other elements of the ADF lose any freedom of action.
No - we lose some. Depending on circumstances.
a - peacetime (ie, now). Air superiority isn't an issue. The greatest workers will be the transports, than maritime patrol, trainers, fast jets
b - tension below war. Air superiority isn't an issue. The ADF isn't big enough to deter (sorry work) so the 72 or 102 or 150 JSF + 30 SH isn't stopping any unfriendly nation. The most important fleet are, depending on the likely threat, the transports or MPA.
c - war of choice a'la MEAO. Air superiority isn't an issue. The idea of using SH to bomb targets in the MEAO was dumb, but it was all we had. Putting F-35s there to do it is even dumber. Buying another Sqn to do it is even dumber than that. The busiest workers will be the transports and the E-7s.
d - war. Air superiority may be an issue. The lack of a carrier means the RAN has had to plan for that for decades, and while it won't chose to fight under a red sky, it can fight its way out. The Army has expected it, although I note we've not fought under a RAAF provided air cover since 1945. Our AD is woeful, but we've identified the shortfall and are rectifying it through LAND 19-7b and AIR6500. Our freedom of action may be curtailed or abbreviated - but we still have some.
We've never fought (d) alone. We'll almost always have the RAF and/or USAF who (up until last week) would shoulder most of the air superiority burden. If anything, we use our MPA and transports more. Ironically, for all the pointy grey fetish held by most senior RAAFies, it's the air transport that is the actual unique capability that Air Force brings that is unmatched. Note that for all the air power ideas about air power winning wars, it's only achieved strategic success alone once. And that was transports, not fighters or bombers.
Perhaps the army has forgotten what it is like to fight a war without air superiority. Ask the Iraqis how that turned out for them. Transport aircraft would similarly be sitting ducks without air cover.
Yep - we have. Hence why the SAMs are new capabilities, not replacements. And our TTPs are....lacking. Ironically its traditional and UAV air threats we are facing now; and the latter are (a) more scary and (b) unable to be effected by the RAAF. I think there's also a nasty other side of the coin - I'm not sure the RAAF can provide air superiority alone. We haven't used fighters since 1950 and we've never had our AWACS/fighter combo put under pressure.
I could also ask the Vietnamese how they went under an unfriendly sky. They did win....
In our region, manned air power is the most flexible kind of force projection as compared to other elements in the ADF. It can travel long distances, it is fast and it is repeatable in terms of delivering weapon effects on targets.
To do what? It takes longer to move a F-35 Sqn from east to west than a DDG or an Army unit, especially if planning for an extended duration. Air Force logistics is really, really weak and I'd suggest either your training or your operation breaks within days. Repeatable weapon effects come from artillery - our long-range rockets will be able to put a greater mass of HE on a target over 24 hr than a F-35 Sqn can. And in all weather. Air power is awesome, but it's not as flexible as you claim beyond our shores, not fast in large amounts and isn't persistent.
Hypersonic weapons will no doubt be expensive and they are single use. Not the most economic away of taking out targets (as compared to an F-35A that can carry 8 SDBs per sortie).
I'd be surprised if we use F-35 delivered SDBs over any threat with an average to good IADS. Stealth, especially F-35, isn't magic and stand-off is needed. They'll be fine for (c) above (although again, using F-35s in the MEAO is dumb), but against a Chinese island - nope. Stand-off range will get more and more important, and noting that Army will have missiles that are greater than a F-35s unrefuelled range, we get back to what is the effect we want.
think ADmk2 makes a valid point that a continental sized country with only four fast squadrons (a hawk 127 LIFT is not a combat aircraft in any sense of the word) is fairly inadequate, particularly with the threat horizon we face.
Sure. But neither is 3x DDGs and 9x FFGs. Or 3 Bdes. Or 1x Sqn of C-17 / C-130. If we want to 'do something' we should be looking at 2x CV's with ~15 - 20 escorts for on CVBG and another 15 - 20 escorts for other duties; 3x Mech Divisions with appropriate Corps troops and 6 - 8x F-35 Sqn with 2 - 3x E-7 Sqn and another 5 - 8x C-17 Sqn.
We can't do that. so we make the best from the $$ we have. Which is good core with a mobilisation plan. Off the cuff, we'd do better putting 30x JSF $$ into a industry / mobilisation plan that let us expand the RAAF rapidly when needed.
That would be more useful than another handful of aircraft.
various said:
Why doesn't the RAAF buy excess A330s for conversion
We looked at this and tried very hard to fit additional MRTT into the budget. P-8s and E-7s can't be converted; but obviously the KC-30s can. We ran into the issue of having aircraft available, but the bill simply couldn't fit into the years there was money available. Converting them isn't cheap... I'd be surprised if COVID has made that easier, the various production lines are pretty full and COVID would have made this worse as they catch up.
