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

S

Stampede

Well-Known Member
vonnoobie said:
There is an option. Technically Australia still has outstanding 28 F-35 options that we could exercise any time we wanted. Though in past that was assumed it would be either A. Skip those keep SH or B. Replace SH with the 4th F-35 sqdr.

F-35 will be arguably in production for quite some time yet with exluding any delivered to date FY 2022 from January 1 2022 at planned production rate of 156 a year under current orders yet to be fulfilled (excluding japan as I beleive they are building them there) there are 2,340 aircraft barring any increases or decreases that may occur which gives enough capacity for production to run through to December 2036 so little need to rush a decision just yet, Got a good decade before we need to start worrying.
Click to expand...
Yes the F 35 should be around for a long time.
Assuming it proves itself to be the dominant multi role platform it was designed to be, then the RAAF is well placed to add to it's F 35 fleet.
Yes that 28 option does come up in conversation.
Realistically the RAAF may play around with those numbers.

I'd be interested as to how the F35 evolves.
Designed from the start to be of three variants I wonder if it eventually evolves into a F35 D , E or F.
Certainly the teen series evolved over their long lives.

I could see some merit in developing a conventional version modified with the larger wing off the C and some extra length for internal fuel to give some increased range.
Anyway
Let's see what eventuates


Cheers S
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Stampede said:
Yes the F 35 should be around for a long time.
Assuming it proves itself to be the dominant multi role platform it was designed to be, then the RAAF is well placed to add to it's F 35 fleet.
Yes that 28 option does come up in conversation.
Realistically the RAAF may play around with those numbers.

I'd be interested as to how the F35 evolves.
Designed from the start to be of three variants I wonder if it eventually evolves into a F35 D , E or F.
Certainly the teen series evolved over their long lives.

I could see some merit in developing a conventional version modified with the larger wing off the C and some extra length for internal fuel to give some increased range.
Anyway
Let's see what eventuates


Cheers S
Click to expand...
Will be interesting to see how the future engine technology pans out. One feature is significantly improved fuel burn so range increases for the A and C will happen regardless. Still a D variant with this new engine might be worth studying.
 
R

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
aussienscale said:
I would have two very simple questions:

A. Where is the money coming from within the Defence Budget ?

B. What is being axed or cut back to make that money available ?

Cheers
Click to expand...
The type of project that a Government could put up front and go, hey look at what we are doing for Defence while at the same time cutting back on other projects. 50 less Land 400 Vehicles, quietly drop the LR Fires or LARC-5 replacement, or the LCH replacement. Relatively straightforward FMS purchase, makes the Government look good but creates headaches for the ADF.
 
B

Bob53

Well-Known Member
Always confused on the Reapers. It was a required capability. Then it wasn't and Cyber Security was a higher and more immediate priority. Then Labour says its is required? Does the ADF get a say in these cross domain capabilities? If they want it it should be got. The money was there and allocated at one point so its not being taken away unless it was really getting allocated to Cyber security and already spent. Who in the ADF makes these fnal calls?
 
O

OldNavy63

Active Member
Bob53 said:
Always confused on the Reapers. It was a required capability. Then it wasn't and Cyber Security was a higher and more immediate priority. Then Labour says its is required? Does the ADF get a say in these cross domain capabilities? If they want it it should be got. The money was there and allocated at one point so its not being taken away unless it was really getting allocated to Cyber security and already spent. Who in the ADF makes these fnal calls?
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone in the ADF makes these final calls. Only the Pollies.
 
John Newman

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Gryphinator said:
I've read this morning on twitter that Labor have said they will bring back the MQ-9B project if elected. Great news, but yes its an election "promise"
Click to expand...
It’s easy to make promises in Opposition, but it often changes once in Government.

Let’s roll the clock back to before the 2007 Federal Election.

The Howard Government announced the retirement by end of 2010 of the F-111C fleet, and replace them with F/A-18F.

The Rudd Opposition made a hell of a noise about the decision, stated there would be a ‘review’, but it was all political bullshit.

And guess what happened? The F-111 fleet was retired and Super Hornet purchased.

Here’s an interesting read from February 2009:

Minister told US ALP criticism of jet was 'political' PR

amp.smh.com.au amp.smh.com.au


Don’t believe what gets said at Election time, if you do, you’ll soon be disappointed.
 
Last edited:
T

the road runner

Active Member
The Cancellation of the MQ-9B could Possibly be a vote in confidence in the Ghost Bat...As we the public may not be privi to certain information
Or maybe , it's just a crap political call !
 
John Newman

John Newman

The Bunker Group
the road runner said:
The Cancellation of the MQ-9B could Possibly be a vote in confidence in the Ghost Bat...As we the public may not be privi to certain information
Or maybe , it's just a crap political call !
Click to expand...
Yes and no, maybe?

The fuselage shape of the current MQ-28A Ghost Bat, is not really suitable for the very long endurance missions the MQ-9B is designed for.

But....

I think the most important aspect of the Loyal Wingman project, is the ‘AI’ and other tech being developed, tested and perfected.

Today we have a prototype MQ-28A, I can certainly see the tech being portable and used in a future B or C or D, etc, version.
 
T

the road runner

Active Member
John Newman said:
Yes and no, maybe?

The fuselage shape of the current MQ-28A Ghost Bat, is not really suitable for the very long endurance missions the MQ-9B is designed for.

But....
Click to expand...
Agreed about long endurance for the MQ-9B...The RAAF already has great ISR assets such as JORN/E-7 AWACS/P-8 MPA, With MQ-4C Triton purchases into the future

Maybe we are looking for a drone that can strike targets once our ISR assets have located them?
Something that has Speed, strikes and returns to base. Is armed with ASM and land attack missile ..
More so than something that can loiter and is armed with Hellfire/JDAM/Paveway2 ?

I always found it strange that MQ-9B may have been selected for an island nation such as Australia..Sure its great if we fight Insurgents or attacking PNG... but state on state that has modern Air Defense systems ,i think it may have issues...If an ASM was integrated onto the MQ-9B that would be a bonus! MQ-9B would not fare to well against a naval task force and firing hellfires at an AWD? nah

I honestly think Australia needs a Drone that is armed with long range missiles ..that can fly up to, and outside of an enemy's air defense systems .Fire and return to base.

Maybe that's what the Ghost Bat will evolve into....maybe not
 
Last edited:
H

hauritz

Well-Known Member
It seems like just about every country has their own indigenous UCAV program. Computer technology is such that the time consuming process of creating and tweaking a design is almost an automated process. Plus no pilot to worry about. I mean just look at how fast the Ghost Bat progressed from concept to prototype.

While I understand the advantage of a proven drone such as the MQ-9 let us not forget that it is a 20 year old design that was shoehorned into the hunter killer role. Something like the Ghostbat on the other hand will be designed from the outset to be modular and rapidly configurable into different roles. The entire nose section can be swapped out depending on the mission. It is also being offered up as a contender for the US Skyborg program which hints at a far more lethal capability.

frontierindia.com

Australian Loyal Wingman MQ-28A Ghost Bat shoots down AIR 7003 MQ-9B SkyGuardian Armed UCAV?

General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA-ASI) has released a statement on the cancellation of Project Air 7003,
frontierindia.com frontierindia.com
 
S

Stampede

Well-Known Member
hauritz said:
It seems like just about every country has their own indigenous UCAV program. Computer technology is such that the time consuming process of creating and tweaking a design is almost an automated process. Plus no pilot to worry about. I mean just look at how fast the Ghost Bat progressed from concept to prototype.

While I understand the advantage of a proven drone such as the MQ-9 let us not forget that it is a 20 year old design that was shoehorned into the hunter killer role. Something like the Ghostbat on the other hand will be designed from the outset to be modular and rapidly configurable into different roles. The entire nose section can be swapped out depending on the mission. It is also being offered up as a contender for the US Skyborg program which hints at a far more lethal capability.

frontierindia.com

Australian Loyal Wingman MQ-28A Ghost Bat shoots down AIR 7003 MQ-9B SkyGuardian Armed UCAV?

General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA-ASI) has released a statement on the cancellation of Project Air 7003,
frontierindia.com frontierindia.com
Click to expand...
The MQ-9 is proven and available.
Any adversary would be mindful of it's attributes and welcome it's cancellation for the ADF.
It maybe only a stop gap to something faster and better but for the immediate future it would be money well spent.
Persistence and long range suites our geography.

Regards S
 
P

phreeky

Active Member
Stampede said:
The MQ-9 is proven and available.
Click to expand...
The same can be said for all kinds of weapons, but that in itself doesn't make them a good buy - that's just a risk reduction.

I'm curious how people see them being used. Are the likely to be effective over anything with modern air defences? They come across to me as a weapon that was suitable for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq with limited anti-air threats.

- By UAV standards, they're really really old
- There are reports of them having been effectively disabled using jamming to the point where USAF made or is making improvements (USAF to retrofit Reaper against jamming, fit further enhancements)
- Australia will be operating Ghost Bats in the near future. A dollar spent on Ghost Bat is not like a dollar spent on MQ-9 - more design and build in Aus just cycles that money around in the economy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top