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

John Newman

The Bunker Group
I wonder if the built gun on the F35 A has much relevance.
An optional add on Pod gun system as used on F35 B and C I can understand.
Maybe for the RAAF we may be better served with an F 35 A prioritising compatibility for Probe and Drogue operations at the expense of the in built gun system if we expand our Hercules Fleet with the KC-130 variant.

Something to consider


Cheers S
My understanding is that the gun on the A model is on the port side, and the AAR probe on the B/C models are on the starboard side.

In other words they are on opposite sides of the fuselage.

In any event, why produce an ‘orphan’ fleet? How much are the development costs?

Can’t see the value in going down that path.
 

Sideline

Member
Re the
I was reading this morning about USAF B-1B Bombers hunting Illegal fishing boats off South America, and it made me think how much goodwill Australia could generate by extending the MQ4C Triton sorties out over the South Pacific and reporting illegal fishing to the individual island governments.

It made me wonder how could you then do anything about it and who would you report it to
or would you need to actually chase them off your self?.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Re the I was reading this morning about USAF B-1B Bombers hunting Illegal fishing boats off South America, and it made me think how much goodwill Australia could generate by extending the MQ4C Triton sorties out over the South Pacific and reporting illegal fishing to the individual island governments.

It made me wonder how could you then do anything about it and who would you report it to
or would you need to actually chase them off your self?.
Precision guided stink and paint bombs? Indelibly mark the offending vessels and make their crews wish they were anywhere else, while simultaneously demonstrating the ability to use a real bomb.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Noticed this the other day in Australian Aviation

Another four F35A 's taking our current fleet to 54.
Certainly good progress




Noticed Australian Defender had a news grab about a slight cut in F35A numbers.
Not a subscriber and not sure if this is speculation or if it has any substance in the context of the 72 F35's we currently have on order.

Cheers S
 

ddxx

Active Member
72 F35's we currently have on order.
The only question mark I'm aware of is in regards to the options for a further 28, potentially bringing the F-35 fleet up to 100.
I'd imagine we'll have a clear answer early next year when the Defence Strategic Review is released.

I think it's likely the Super Hornets (and Growlers) will be sticking around for some time yet, so if there's any additional orders they'd be for fleet growth rather than replacement.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
The only question mark I'm aware of is in regards to the options for a further 28, potentially bringing the F-35 fleet up to 100.
I'd imagine we'll have a clear answer early next year when the Defence Strategic Review is released.

I think it's likely the Super Hornets (and Growlers) will be sticking around for some time yet, so if there's any additional orders they'd be for fleet growth rather than replacement.
That would be my guess, but we do live in strange times.
Maybe some clarity early next year.

Cheers S
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Noticed this the other day in Australian Aviation

Another four F35A 's taking our current fleet to 54.
Certainly good progress




Noticed Australian Defender had a news grab about a slight cut in F35A numbers.
Not a subscriber and not sure if this is speculation or if it has any substance in the context of the 72 F35's we currently have on order.

Cheers S
It’s John Hunter Farrell as usual counting his fingers and reaching 11…

NACC has never been a requirement for 100 aircraft. It‘s requirement has been consistently from day 1, “up to” 100 aircraft to provide 4 operational fighter squadrons, plus an OCU and some test and development aircraft, rotational airframes and the like.

There is no ‘cut’ in requirement, nor in orders nor in planned capability. If anything, the opposite is true via ‘additional air combat capability’ (assuming it survives the “Strategic Review”)…
 

ddxx

Active Member
There is no ‘cut’ in requirement, nor in orders nor in planned capability. If anything, the opposite is true via ‘additional air combat capability’ (assuming it survives the “Strategic Review”)…
I'd honestly be pretty gobsmacked if additional air combat capability was cut. I think the real possibility of change will be in what form it takes, and in turn the future Air Force combat fleet mix.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I'd honestly be pretty gobsmacked if additional air combat capability was cut. I think the real possibility of change will be in what form it takes, and in turn the future Air Force combat fleet mix.
Seemingly most would I suspect. There is an awful lot of “expenditure priority” chat going on around this review and historically defence investment has not been a priority for this side of Government, so we’ll see.

What are also not especially encouraging signs are the complete lack of capability investment decisions made since the new Government formed, bar the one single decision made to put a 9-12 month hiatus on everything, despite their oft-repeated statements about the “urgency” of equipping defence…
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Seemingly most would I suspect. There is an awful lot of “expenditure priority” chat going on around this review and historically defence investment has not been a priority for this side of Government, so we’ll see.

What are also not especially encouraging signs are the complete lack of capability investment decisions made since the new Government formed, bar the one single decision made to put a 9-12 month hiatus on everything, despite their oft-repeated statements about the “urgency” of equipping defence…
If you look back to 96, there was virtually nothing but cuts and efficiency reviews for the first two terms. The exceptions were the failed ANZAC WIP, and Super Sea Sprite. There where life extensions for the FFGs, Fremantles, M-113, double hulling of Success etc. as well as a lots of posturing over subs. The only real capability increase was the delivery of platforms and projects ordered by the previous government that weren't cancelled by the new one.

Currently all major projects seem to be continuing while priorities and timings are reviewed. I get the feeling it's not about major change, rather determining what is achievable, what is sustainable and what urgently needs to be changed.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
If you look back to 96, there was virtually nothing but cuts and efficiency reviews for the first two terms. The exceptions were the failed ANZAC WIP, and Super Sea Sprite. There where life extensions for the FFGs, Fremantles, M-113, double hulling of Success etc. as well as a lots of posturing over subs. The only real capability increase was the delivery of platforms and projects ordered by the previous government that weren't cancelled by the new one.

Currently all major projects seem to be continuing while priorities and timings are reviewed. I get the feeling it's not about major change, rather determining what is achievable, what is sustainable and what urgently needs to be changed.
Volk I feel your last sentence is spot on.
For this aviation thread.
What aircraft and when?


Cheers S
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Volk I feel your last sentence is spot on.
For this aviation thread.
What aircraft and when?


Cheers S
I have no idea, it really is a wait and see. I suppose I wouldn't be surprised to see GreyHawk reinstated, either an upgrade for the Rhinos, or there replacement with extra F-35A.

Helicopters could be interesting. The extra Romeo's will go ahead and likely a buy of Blackhawks for 6 Avn but I'm not so sure about for 5Avn. It could be argued with the sunk costs plus the airframes intended for 6Avn, plus the FAAs six, that the MRH could be viable through to planned withdrawal.

Tiger is probably a better proposition to keep but it depends how far along the Guardian buy is. Maybe if it's a numbers game Guardian could go to Townsville in a new regt and 1 AVN could remain in Darwin specifically in the amphib role supporting 1 BDE.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
If you look back to 96, there was virtually nothing but cuts and efficiency reviews for the first two terms. The exceptions were the failed ANZAC WIP, and Super Sea Sprite. There where life extensions for the FFGs, Fremantles, M-113, double hulling of Success etc. as well as a lots of posturing over subs. The only real capability increase was the delivery of platforms and projects ordered by the previous government that weren't cancelled by the new one.

Currently all major projects seem to be continuing while priorities and timings are reviewed. I get the feeling it's not about major change, rather determining what is achievable, what is sustainable and what urgently needs to be changed.
Howard wasn't continually warning us about imminent high-intensity conflict with a super-power, nor repeatedly banging on about how the inadequacies of our force structure need to be rapidly addressed, however.

That is the difference here...
 

seaspear

Active Member
I have some memories of over twenty years ago at a couple of places where the Wedgetail project the Collins class submarine and Bushmaster were all virtually being assessed at the same time , interesting times there but it gives you an idea how long these programs take to eventuate ,I'm not claiming to be conversant with any current programs I no longer have any clearances but enormous respect for those inthose roles
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Howard wasn't continually warning us about imminent high-intensity conflict with a super-power, nor repeatedly banging on about how the inadequacies of our force structure need to be rapidly addressed, however.

That is the difference here...
Just giving an apples for apples comparison.

Basically from the end of the Hawke years until the end of Howard's second term was a time of comparative peace and strategic stability. This was followed by the war on terror, still a period of comparative strategic stability.

Rudd was one of the first western leaders to be vocal about the challenges of a rising China. His own party backed out on his initiatives and we really aren't any better off today, lots of plans and rhetoric, but as yet not too much in the way of tangible results.

I hope the current reviews will give some clarity and direction.
 
Top