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

[StingrayOZ]

IMO the B-21 would be more interesting if there was a navalised or naval variation or it took on antishipping roles in a significant way. Carrying 30 LRASM, longer range Aim-9x (with antishipping capability), air launched SM-6 for long range air to air. Something that has a bit more speed for a high speed dash. But then that looks like it doesn't fit the B21 original mission at all. The F111 ended up being somewhat ideal, because it was going to be a naval aircraft, so there was a mission envisaged for it and major design and technological features were included, even though it never saw service in the USN, and the F-14 was a better fit for the USN. I think its a program certainly Australia should be looking at, for sure, and for the US to base them here, again, could be very useful. Maybe that is a discussion the USAF/USN and Australia could have and developments in that space. Having input in F/A-XX program might be useful.



From Christmas Island

737 (P8/E7) can be based, sort of, out of Christmas Island, or Manus Island. They can certainly, land, refuel and fly out again, allowing for a very long time on station, even without access to Butterworth. To gain access further north involves flying over Indonesia, which I am not sure the Americans will perhaps want, given Indonesia's sometime acquires Russian military tech, including radars. Where as the 737 is nothing particularly interesting on the radar, just another of the thousands of 737 flying in the region. Flying north, really unless we are bombing Phillpines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore there are really no good land targets for an Australian based B21 to hit, unless we are going after the outer islands of China. Which we certainly wouldn't be doing alone, and having some B21 under Australian command isn't going to make a difference. The P8 has 11 hardpoints. The P8 is already doing high tempo operations. Chaff is being put into its engines. Its out and about today.

P8's can definitely hit ships and submarines today, with weapons we have, today, the B21 isn't designed to do that at all (perhaps antishipping sometime in the distant future after nuclear weapons and conventional weapons and cruise missiles). In terms of closing the straits a 737 based platform makes much more sense. Also the USAF is putting ~6 B-52's in Australia, that is a heck of a lot of bomb truck for our region.

And really that is what we will be focused, on, not fighting in mainland China. We are too far away for that. Its control of sea lanes and the straits. Which are and will be super important. It may just be that China decides its so important they will through a good portion of its forces down there, to crush us, and our allies, and keep them open for Chinese shipping, and close them for SK/TW/JP/US. That isn't a 2040 or 2050 fear, that is a 2025-2030 fear.

Which is why IMO more P8's seem more likely than B21's. I am also thinking we might get more Superhornets rather than F-35's.

 

[Takao]

There is such a lot of hoop talked about RAAF B-21's going downtown in China somewhere. Alone, and unafraid. With nuc's obviously.
ISR has been mentioned which is true but it might be their simple ability to deploy at extreme radius long-range PGM and JDAM munition types which give them a national distance/flexibility/firepower advantage to integrate with SSN in a maritime theatre for CoA consideration, given a higher risk matrix with PLA. Pretty much the same reason RAAF got the 'ruinously' expensive B-24 fleet in 1944/45.
I think some peps are circling their single service wagons, and prejudices, and ignoring what a VLR type platform could bring to Joint ADF strategic (eye roll, not nuc's) capability going kinetic with the Middle Kingdom.

This is going to draw the internet crabs, but your description makes me think of the BLACK BUCK raids. Straight up, I think Think Defence does a pretty good analysis, but I am firmly in the extreme of waste of $$ and effort. I think it was an attempt to justify the continuation of a fleet made obsolete (I am not arguing the former nuclear role was not appropriate or essential) and demonstrates the opportunity cost fallacy. Furthermore, the idea of launching repeats of BLACK BUCK (yes, probably with lower tanker support/need) out of Tindal or Darwin just strikes me as a waste of effort to deliver the equivalent of 21x 1000 lb bombs.

Ah well, unlike most of my posts that are 100% factual and correct, bring on the BLACK BUCK flames! Muahahahahaha....

 

[Takao]

Hypersonic missiles like typhon are estimated to cost $50 million per missile! The price may come down in time but that is still very expensive for what is a one hit wonder. You have to look at the cost per effect. For most targets out there, that does not seem like a good return on investment.

I am going to quibble on one thing, your comment about cost per effect.

When applying a monetary assessment to targeting (and this is not a consideration in any targeting process - that is kinetic effect, availability, and LOAC/ROE) it's not the cost of the weapon versus the cost of the target ($80 k Javelin v $500 motorbike crewed by insurgents). It's the cost of the weapon versus the cost if the target can fulfil its own mission. So if that $500 motorbike has an IED on board that can breach the entry to a FOB, cause multiple BLUEFOR casualties and wreck a Hawkei (so that's what, $800k + in total?), then dropping $80k on a Javelin is an excellent ROI.

On a bigger scale, if dropping a $50 m missile onto a Army or Fleet HQ can stop $multi billion equipment attacking it could be worth it. Of course, it's not a $50 m missile; it's multiple. It's at this point I agree with your main point, for those who see these as silver bullets that will win the war, they are hella expensive. Silver may actually be cheaper.....

 

[Takao]

- I wonder if some mindsets remember fondly the notions of deterrent effects of a long range F111 strike in its heyday?

So @Wombat000 raises an interesting point.

Are there any open source references that indicate the F-111 had a deterrence effect at any time? I'm not aware of any, nor am I aware of any anecdotes that indicate it did (other than 1 Sqn and 6 Sqn claims....which I'm leery of).

 

[ngatimozart]

So @Wombat000 raises an interesting point.

Are there any open source references that indicate the F-111 had a deterrence effect at any time? I'm not aware of any, nor am I aware of any anecdotes that indicate it did (other than 1 Sqn and 6 Sqn claims....which I'm leery of).

The only thing I can think of was during the initial stages of INTERFET. I am given to understand the Indonesian military were given the impression that any interference by them with it, may result in F-111s and other noisy nasty things paying them an unsociable visit. I do know that the RNZN frigate convinced an Indonesian sub that it suddenly had urgent business elsewhere.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Are there any open source references that indicate the F-111 had a deterrence effect at any time?

I think there are. But are they even relevant anymore? Deterring say, Indonesia or Tasmania isn't the same as China.

3 or 4 medium bombers aren't going to be a deterrent it was against a military medium power of a developing nation in the 90s.

With the f111 we could turn off the lights and coms in jk, SEAD, and decapitate military and or political leadership and take out fast jets on the ground and key ships/subs at Port.

But even now, I doubt it would work against Indonesia with a b21. They are more capable, More democratic, power is more dissipated, I doubt China can deterr and threat Indonesia like we used to.

Not going to work that way with China. Like at. We just aren't going to do enough damage, and their structure is different. The military is absolutely going to do what ccp leadship instructs them to do.

Australias main ace, is our influence with the US and the region. Not a few wonder weapons.

That and the straits, and our exports. We cut the oil and ores and their import/export markets, you will get full attention.

If you want to grab the dragons tail, it's not with a small surgical strike on some far flung military outpost from 8000 km away.

 

[Redlands18]

This is going to draw the internet crabs, but your description makes me think of the BLACK BUCK raids. Straight up, I think Think Defence does a pretty good analysis, but I am firmly in the extreme of waste of $$ and effort. I think it was an attempt to justify the continuation of a fleet made obsolete (I am not arguing the former nuclear role was not appropriate or essential) and demonstrates the opportunity cost fallacy. Furthermore, the idea of launching repeats of BLACK BUCK (yes, probably with lower tanker support/need) out of Tindal or Darwin just strikes me as a waste of effort to deliver the equivalent of 21x 1000 lb bombs.

Ah well, unlike most of my posts that are 100% factual and correct, bring on the BLACK BUCK flames! Muahahahahaha....

Move ahead 15 years from 1982 and how would the BLACK BUCK missions have been done? SSN launched Tomahawks would be my guess.

 

[Gooey]

Alright, as this is a RAAF thread, I'll put in my 2 cents for Australian air power.

Ref SSN & TLAM; as a one-off, Joint/Combined event, as part of a day one 'kick on the door' op, perhaps. Depending on what your inventory of SSNs are also tasked with in competition and their TLAM magazine size v target number/effects required. Also, that you have time for the SSN to transit; it can shoot in safety; and, you have an opponent who is not equipped with modern IAMD v the relatively pedestrian TLAM.

Same, same for DDG & FFG TLAM shooters.

For some nautical people BLACK BUCK is a great opportunity to wave the maritime flag of 'efficient' carrier based air v VLR bombers. For others not so much. It really is a Joint Forces effort and the reality that flexable Air Power targeting contributes to both tactical and strategic effects. Yes, RN SHAR used less fuel to deliver more 1000 lbs in the 1982 Falklands Island conflict. But this ignores the following:
- Vulcan 1000 lbs from high level/velocity/angle had a better target match against runway type targets
- the psychological impact on Argentinian decision makers and garrison
- retasking the sole air defence Mirage III squadron to strategic defence of the Buenos Aires area vice providing top cover for the attack aircraft
- the total cost of carrier procurement and operations, in this BLACK BUCK scenario
- the Vulcan's weapon and mission flexibility (anti-runway, radar, and area denial) meant dynamic targeting over missions 1 to 7
- they were there and available (just) during an emergency and added additional combat power in addition to the SHAR

Operation Black Buck - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ref a modern VLR bomber capability for RAAF, I can assume that USAF platforms will be equipped with multiple types of anti-ship, land, and air weapons. Due to Air Powers advantages (speed, flexibility, fire power) these can be used repeatably over a campaign; unlike maritime.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Morgo]

Alright, as this is a RAAF thread, I'll put in my 2 cents for Australian air power.

Ref SSN & TLAM; as a one-off, Joint/Combined event, as part of a day one 'kick on the door' op, perhaps. Depending on what your inventory of SSNs are also tasked with in competition and their TLAM magazine size v target number/effects required. Also, that you have time for the SSN to transit; it can shoot in safety; and, you have an opponent who is not equipped with modern IAMD v the relatively pedestrian TLAM.

Same, same for DDG & FFG TLAM shooters.

For some nautical people BLACK BUCK is a great opportunity to wave the maritime flag of 'efficient' carrier based air v VLR bombers. For others not so much. It really is a Joint Forces effort and the reality that flexable Air Power targeting contributes to both tactical and strategic effects. Yes, RN SHAR used less fuel to deliver more 1000 lbs in the 1982 Falklands Island conflict. But this ignores the following:
- Vulcan 1000 lbs from high level/velocity/angle had a better target match against runway type targets
- the psychological impact on Argentinian decision makers and garrison
- retasking the sole air defence Mirage III squadron to strategic defence of the Buenos Aires area vice providing top cover for the attack aircraft
- the total cost of carrier procurement and operations, in this BLACK BUCK scenario
- the Vulcan's weapon and mission flexibility (anti-runway, radar, and area denial) meant dynamic targeting over missions 1 to 7
- they were there and available (just) during an emergency and added additional combat power in addition to the SHAR

Operation Black Buck - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ref a modern VLR bomber capability for RAAF, I can assume that USAF platforms will be equipped with multiple types of anti-ship, land, and air weapons. Due to Air Powers advantages (speed, flexibility, fire power) these can be used repeatably over a campaign; unlike maritime.

Just my thoughts.

A couple of quibbles:

1. Ships and subs can also reload. Obviously this is a more time consuming process than turning around a new sortie for a bomber (perhaps a week rather than 24 hours?) but characterising it as one and done capability isn't fair. But you need forward bases or tenders in proximity to the area of operations.

2. As I've said before, I think the targets we want to hit at very long range are most likely energy infrastructure (pipelines in particular) which by their very nature are virtually impossible to defend with IADS. They're simply too long. So any limitations Tomahawks may have in this regard are somewhat mitgated.

3. The medium range targets we may want to hit - being all of South East Asia, the approaches to the straits and the Pacific Islands - are all within the range of F35s/SH/P8 operating from Cocos / Christmas / Butterworth / Manus, as well as some of the planned medium range ballistic missiles.

Given this, if we have $30bn lying behind the lounge I would much rather see it spent on hardening the four bases mentioned above and upping our stockpiles of munitions rather than B21s which will have limited marginal utility for us. Which funnily enough seems to be what the rumours are indicating that the Government may be planning on doing.

 

[seaspear]

So @Wombat000 raises an interesting point.

Are there any open source references that indicate the F-111 had a deterrence effect at any time? I'm not aware of any, nor am I aware of any anecdotes that indicate it did (other than 1 Sqn and 6 Sqn claims....which I'm leery of).

The Indonesian air force did receive from Russia Sukhoi SU-27 which was confirmed did have the Phazotron noo1 Zhuk coherent pulse doppler radar in 2003 which was capable of a "look down" operation against fast low flying jets

 

[Volkodav]

So @Wombat000 raises an interesting point.

Are there any open source references that indicate the F-111 had a deterrence effect at any time? I'm not aware of any, nor am I aware of any anecdotes that indicate it did (other than 1 Sqn and 6 Sqn claims....which I'm leery of).

The only deterrence I read of was the one about the Pavetack sight picture sent to a bureaucrat in Canberra of his office window. The story goes that said individual was lobbying for the early retirement of the F-111 as it served no purpose. True or not, I really have no idea.

 

[OldTex]

The only deterrence I read of was the one about the Pavetack sight picture sent to a bureaucrat in Canberra of his office window. The story goes that said individual was lobbying for the early retirement of the F-111 as it served no purpose. True or not, I really have no idea.

There was also the use of the RF-111 to provide photos regarding a certain dam that was being developed by a southern state. I won't mention who was responsible for ordering Commonwealth assets to be used in support of legal action against a State Government. Nor the irony of a now must have green energy source being stopped by the people who would now want that energy source to proceed.

 

[MickB]

Just an observation re US cutting edge aircraft.

B-1 Lancer
F-22 Raptor
F-117 Nighthawk
SR-71 Blackbird
B-2 Spirit

I have heard talk over the decades that various close Allies, including Australia should acquire one or more of these platforms.
Special relationship and common cause and all that.

What has been the outcome.

US service only!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

B-21 for the RAAF would be a bold precedent made even more unusual if it enters service this side of the next decade.

Lets keep it in perspective.

Cheers S

I would point out that the F111 was a cutting edge, developmental aircraft when sold to Australia.
Some would say underdeveloped.

Could it be that none of the above were sold because none of them were requested by an actual government.

 

[Gooey]

A couple of quibbles:

Given this, if we have $30bn lying behind the lounge ....

G'day Morgo,

Let me attempt some sort of a (tardy) reply:

1. Ships and subs can also reload.

I am guessing that large RAN rockets can not be regenerated at sea, especially on boats, but every day is an education day so I could well be wrong. If they can't then I'd assume considerably longer than 1 week; especially, if the platform is tasked for other missions and they are required to restock off a national magazine somewhere distant. If I am wrong about our SSN/DDG/FFG numbers and ADF has sufficient platforms so that we could assign a dedicated TALM etc shooter (ala a 1942 Doolittle type raid) then this may be a Sea Domain plus for dedicated mission flexibility. However, from the little I know of PLAN numbers I'm guessing RAN will be max'ed out conducting the equivalent of DCA & OCA missions.

2. ... the targets we want to hit at very long range are most likely energy infrastructure

Someone previously asked 'what targets could VLR aircraft hit?'. Energy is one, although as described a JDAM equivalent may be more efficient. Add to these targets every single target that RAAF attacked in WWI/WWII/Korea/Vietnam etc. Especially, maritime strike v PLAN.

3. ... operating from Cocos / Christmas / Butterworth / Manus

Like 1940 pre Summer Blitz and 1941 pre Malaya Landings/Repulse & PW and 1942 pre Singapore/Indonesia/Timor/PNG/Rabaul etc, its a large assumption that Australia would be able to operate aircraft from the FOBs listed. Where as VLR could strike all of these medium range targets from a mainland RAAF base.

4. Cost & Time Line

This is taxpayers cash so I'd assume there is not much in the couch unused. As previously, cost is an issue but is not insurmountable, just like the Hunter, JSF, and SSN programs.

Similarly, RAAF VLR Bombers would be more like a next decade project primarily due to the current lack of a suitable platform candidate and the CONOPS, TTP, ILS etc required. B-21; maybe? But that would be after a careful CoA assessment and ADFHQ Force Design and RAAF push.

 

[Volkodav]

An interesting case study on long range land based strikes, verses close in tactical was Libya in 2011.

I read a paper on some years ago but can't lay my hands on it at the moment. Basically the NATO, UN and Arab air forces deployed were massive, including predominantly tactical airpower, some strategic air power and considerable rotary wing. NGS and tactical naval missiles were also used extensively.

From memory the strategic strike did their job, this including a handful of B-2s as well as RAF Tornados using staff off missiles, but most of the work, as always, was done by tactical fighters.

Again it was confirmed that much of the most timely and effective work was done by carrier based tactical air power. This was predominantly French and Italian, while the UK flew Apaches from HMS Ocean.

A lot of work was done by stand off missiles such as Storm Shadow and sea launched Tomahawk, but nowhere near as much as by PGMs from tactical fighters and attach helicopters.

Above all, this was a massive multinational force, deployed against a pariah state in the middle of a revolution, with limited ability to defend themselves.

To think that one or two dozen very long range bombers would be transformational for the ADF is delusional. Actually it would be transformational, it would be a wasteful opportunity cost that would be equivalent to the RAN acquiring a single Ford class carrier, or the Army converting the entire land force to a parachute infantry division. Massive, specialised combat power that weakens the rest of the force to the point of uselessness, the complete opposite of joint or combined operations.

 

[Volkodav]

I recommend reading
The Rise of the Bomber: RAF-Army Planning 1919 to Munich 1938.
We seem to be falling into similar delusional traps in regards to bomber mythology. The fact is, bombers are probably the least flexible, least effective and lowest value for money airpower you can have.

They are only really worth it when you already have lots of everything else. Look at the proposed US acquisition, 100-200 B-21 out of an the entire USAF, USN, USMC and Army Aviation air combat capability.

 

[Stampede]

I would point out that the F111 was a cutting edge, developmental aircraft when sold to Australia.
Some would say underdeveloped.

Could it be that none of the above were sold because none of them were requested by an actual government.

Probably correct to say it was cutting edge and yes it was sold to a foreign air force.

Should of specified stealth as the guarded secret for US only .
The old B-1 Lancer not really in that group.

As to foreign requests?

 

[Tbone]

I know some of you will think this is silly but why doesn’t the RAAF purchase or obtain the B1B long ranger bomber from the US? They have just completed a major upgrade and due to be decommissioned at the end of this decade.
The ADF could purchase these for next to nothing. Upgrade them even further ie even look at the B1R concept of possible and have a bomb truck that could fly anywhere in the indo pacific and launch long range missiles.
They would be cheaper and less to maintain the the b21.
They have a naval strike capability also.
We could have 12 to 24 of these very capable aircraft and possibly lead into the b21 down the track once we are aware of there true performance.
The US would know what potential we have based here in Australia and the RAAF would have a long range multi mission bomber that could strike anywhere.
It would be cheap and parts from redundant b1b’s available for sustainability purposes.
Again they have just been upgraded and I’m sure the raaf could further improve this platform also.
Yes I’m aware they cost a lot to keep flying but so does a b21 and f 35 so why aren’t we looking at b1b’s at a cost cut price and having a deterrent available sooner with a platform we know will suit.
And RAAF B-1b would be a game changer!!

 

[protoplasm]

I know some of you will think this is silly but why doesn’t the RAAF purchase or obtain the B1B long ranger bomber from the US? They have just completed a major upgrade and due to be decommissioned at the end of this decade.
The ADF could purchase these for next to nothing. Upgrade them even further ie even look at the B1R concept of possible and have a bomb truck that could fly anywhere in the indo pacific and launch long range missiles.
They would be cheaper and less to maintain the the b21.

There's a reason why the USAF is taking them out of service, the cost per flight hour is enormous.

This Is How Much it Actually Costs to Fly U.S. Military Aircraft (popularmechanics.com)

The last thing we need the RAAF to be doing is throwing away billions of dollars to stand up a new capability utilising airframes that are a minimum of 34 years old right now. The other issue is that these aren't available right now, they will only become available once B-21 becomes operational, so they'll be even older then.

This goes back to the fundamentals, we want the capacity to cause an enemy "something" to go bang because we put a large amount of explosive on top of it. What are the ways of achieving this based on the situation we find ourselves in now? A capability that might become available in ~5 years time based upon ~40 year old airframes that are hideously expensive to operate is probably not the first choice.

 

[Tbone]

Yeh I’m aware of the expense to operate them but we aren’t operating 60-70 airframes just 12-24 of them.
They will be available in 5years time as the b21 will be in production and the USAF will retire them.
with AUKUS I’m sure the Americans will gladly hand them over with parts and equipment needed for Australia to have a bridging capability in the short term.
30billion for b21 that won’t be available for over a decade isnt the answer right now but purchasing at a minimum 12-24 b1b that have been upgraded extensively and picking the best would be.
Hell we could even improve them as let’s face it we wouldn’t be purchasing them for much.
It’s not a long term answer but it is a capability we could maintain for the next 10-15-20years