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

[Volkodav]

The biggest single thanks that I have is that the RAAF (and Army) doesn’t have to try and reinvent the wheel, and have a “sovereign build capacity”.

Praise the lord. It’s kept the RAAF thread to 9k posts in the same time the two RAN threads (absent seperate LHD, SSN and AWD threads) have clicked over 37k.

there’s also a similarity ratio in Air “experts” to Naval “experts” as per the thread ratios.

If only Australian government's had either stuck to local builds or importing. I don't think any naval expert would have objected to continuing to build, or buy FFGs, or maybe instead acquiring Burke's through FMS.

That said Tiger and MRH were local assembly, then there's Hawkei, Echidna, what was that troublesome air base security system called? Did Vigilaire or whatever it was called ever work? An old mate still gets a case of tourets everytime C-27 is mentioned. AS4 was a mess, and the original BAE LAND 121 trucks failed testing after they were selected.

Plenty of shame to go around, but for some reason there seem to be a lot more "experts" expressing their opinions on naval matters. Maybe it's just no one gets as excited about Rafael missing out to F-35, or the disappearance of Air Power Australia left a vaccum that's been filled by speculation and opinion on naval matters.

 

[John Fedup]

Maybe it's just no one gets as excited about Rafael missing out to F-35

Nobody in Oz but many in Quebec who wanted Bombardier to do a local build and ditto for Saab. Fortunately the French gave up and Saab couldn't meet NORAD requirements (at least from a competitive POV).

 

[hauritz]

The biggest single thanks that I have is that the RAAF (and Army) doesn’t have to try and reinvent the wheel, and have a “sovereign build capacity”.

Praise the lord. It’s kept the RAAF thread to 9k posts in the same time the two RAN threads (absent seperate LHD, SSN and AWD threads) have clicked over 37k.

there’s also a similarity ratio in Air “experts” to Naval “experts” as per the thread ratios.

I don't know how long not having a "sovereign build capacity" will last. The MQ-28 and its successors might change a lot of that. Defence is now using the "Air Combat Capability" euphemism instead of combat aircraft or fighters. The next gen air combat capability might be mostly based around locally built UCAVs supported by a handful of manned aircraft.

 

[Volkodav]

I've been casting my mind back to other forums when the Hornet replacement was topical. Ships hardly got a mention, APA were everywhere, fanbois wanted the RAAF to be equipped with everything from the F-15, Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon, F-22, and even the SU-27.

And who can forget the rebuilt, super cruising F-111, armed with dozens of AMRAAMs. Australian Aviation were really at the top of their game then (sarcasm).

It's all cyclical, the ANZAC and Collins were established programs delivering shiny new platforms, new PBs were planned, and the FFGs were being upgraded. Army was getting ASLAV and Bushmaster, the RAAF fighter replacement really was the most exciting thing to speculate about.

 

[John Newman]

It is my understanding that the "Additional Air Combat Capability" project never stated which type of platform was to be purchased.
Many assumed it meant additional F35s, but it could mean many other things to the GOTD.

It could be MQ 28s for teaming with existing fighters, or something like the AT-6 if expecting China sponsered insurgences in the Indopacific.
Perhaps light fighters like the FA-50 to serve as an attack aircraft after air defences are breached. Being a 2 seater the FA-50 could also be adapted to controling MQ-28s.
(A joint buy to get NZ back into fast jets)

Or whatever the GOTD decides is the right idea.

Sorry, but you are wrong, completely wrong.

The project that is now known as “Additional Air Combat Capability” has gone through many many name changes.

Go back to the 2009 DWP and 2009 DCP, it clearly spelt out this project as the 4th Sqn of up to 28 F-35A.

Over the years the Defence Capability Plan (DCP) changed names too, and became the Defence Integrated Investment Plan (DIIP), by 2020 it was called the Force Structure Plan (FSP), same animal, different name.

Back in the early days of AIR 6000, Phase 2a/2b was the approved 72 aircraft, the ‘4th Sqn’ was known as Phase 2c.

Somewhere between then and now Phase 2c became Phase 7 (again, same animal, different name).


In latter years the ‘definition’ of the project became broader, stopped specifically naming the F-35A, but didn’t discard that option either.

One more point, it can’t be confused with MQ-28A, that is a completely separate project, with a completely separate budget allocation.

In the 2020 FSP, there was the “Additional Air Combat Capability” project with a budget allocation of up to $6.7B, and separately the “Teaming Air Vehicle” project (MQ-28A) with a budget allocation of up to $11B.

Two separate projects, two separate budget allocations.

Can it be any clearer than that?


I don’t have a problem with the Super Hornet fleet continuing on for the next decade or so, especially since they are our only aircraft capable of launching AShM (currently Harpoon), and eventually LRASM and JASSM-ER (F-35A won’t be able to use those weapons until Block 4).


But here’s the problem....

The ALP Government has quietly ditched the ‘Additional Air Combat Capability’ project, without actually announcing it, that was left to one of the RAAF Senior Sirs:

Australia Starts Looking Beyond The F-35 For Next-Gen Fighter Needs | Aviation Week Network

Next-generation fighters will be available when Australia searches for a replacement for a squadron of Boeing F/A-18E/Fs in the mid-2030s.

aviationweek.com

Here’s another question (that doesn’t appear to have an answer), what happens to the up to $6.7B that had been allocated to that project? Does it just disappear from the Defence Budget (specifically RAAF budget)?


This is an example of why I have a problem with the 2023 Albo DSR, Army projects cut, RAAF projects cut, we await the RAN review (which won’t be pretty), but we’ve just had a taste with the S-100 project being chopped.


Yes funds get reallocated, but we continue to be left in the dark where those Defence budget allocations are going.

Will they stay in Defence or end up outside of Defence? Maybe in a Green/Left looney project?

Who knows?

 

[Aardvark144]

Sorry, but you are wrong, completely wrong.

The project that is now known as “Additional Air Combat Capability” has gone through many many name changes.

Go back to the 2009 DWP and 2009 DCP, it clearly spelt out this project as the 4th Sqn of up to 28 F-35A.

Over the years the Defence Capability Plan (DCP) changed names too, and became the Defence Integrated Investment Plan (DIIP), by 2020 it was called the Force Structure Plan (FSP), same animal, different name.

Back in the early days of AIR 6000, Phase 2a/2b was the approved 72 aircraft, the ‘4th Sqn’ was known as Phase 2c.

Somewhere between then and now Phase 2c became Phase 7 (again, same animal, different name).


In latter years the ‘definition’ of the project became broader, stopped specifically naming the F-35A, but didn’t discard that option either.

One more point, it can’t be confused with MQ-28A, that is a completely separate project, with a completely separate budget allocation.

In the 2020 FSP, there was the “Additional Air Combat Capability” project with a budget allocation of up to $6.7B, and separately the “Teaming Air Vehicle” project (MQ-28A) with a budget allocation of up to $11B.

Two separate projects, two separate budget allocations.

Can it be any clearer than that?


I don’t have a problem with the Super Hornet fleet continuing on for the next decade or so, especially since they are our only aircraft capable of launching AShM (currently Harpoon), and eventually LRASM and JASSM-ER (F-35A won’t be able to use those weapons until Block 4).


But here’s the problem....

The ALP Government has quietly ditched the ‘Additional Air Combat Capability’ project, without actually announcing it, that was left to one of the RAAF Senior Sirs:

Australia Starts Looking Beyond The F-35 For Next-Gen Fighter Needs | Aviation Week Network

Next-generation fighters will be available when Australia searches for a replacement for a squadron of Boeing F/A-18E/Fs in the mid-2030s.

aviationweek.com

Here’s another question (that doesn’t appear to have an answer), what happens to the up to $6.7B that had been allocated to that project? Does it just disappear from the Defence Budget (specifically RAAF budget)?


This is an example of why I have a problem with the 2023 Albo DSR, Army projects cut, RAAF projects cut, we await the RAN review (which won’t be pretty), but we’ve just had a taste with the S-100 project being chopped.


Yes funds get reallocated, but we continue to be left in the dark where those Defence budget allocations are going.

Will they stay in Defence or end up outside of Defence? Maybe in a Green/Left looney project?

Who knows?

Ok. You appear to be unable to let go of the additional F35 now not eventuating and funding. Whilst the Super Hornets were originally mentioned as a bridging Air Combat Capability, they have proven to be much more capable than originally envisaged hence the questionable need for additional F35s. The 2009 DWP/DCP (paras 9.57 onwards) mentioned that the additional F35s would be acquired on the withdrawal of the F/A-18F Super Hornet which was expected to remain effective until approx 2020 (hell of an aircraft in 2023 still!).
The 2013 DWP (para 8.84) for what is was worth mentioned - A decision on replacing the Super Hornets with additional Joint Strike Fighters will be made closer to the withdrawal of the Super Hornets, which is not expected until around 2030.
The 2016 DWP made no specific mention of additional F35s apart from reference to a decision to replace the F/A-18F Super Hornets will be made sometime in the early 2020s (para 4.42).
As to where the funds went - given funding was a projected funding allocation beyond forward estimates, it could be argued that the dollars were never in the bank, just 'promised'.
Finally just to be picky - you make reference to - 'one of the RAAF Senior Sirs' - that would be AIRMSHL Chipman the current Chief of Air Force - not 'one of the RAAF senior sirs - kind of disrespectful to the office of CAF.

 

[south]

Ok. You appear to be unable to let go of the additional F35 now not eventuating and funding. Whilst the Super Hornets were originally mentioned as a bridging Air Combat Capability, they have proven to be much more capable than originally envisaged hence the questionable need for additional F35s.

What Air Power roles are they effective in? And how is their effectiveness when compared to a 5th Gen fighter?

 

[Volkodav]

My understanding is the Rhinos offer complementary capabilities the F-35 does not currently offer? I will stand corrected if I am wrong.

Acquiring additional F-35s to replace the Rhinos, before those capabilities are integrated could result in a capability gap.

That said, I understand the concern at promised capability being pushed back. The RAN was in the same boat in 95/96.

Replacement DDGs were deferred and upgrades to the current FFGs were sold as an interim solution. Look where we are now.

What's the best solution, maybe option the additional F-35 slots and ensure the Rhino can be retained for longer, if required?

We cant afford the RAAF to be in the same obsolescence mess the RAN and Army are in.

 

[vonnoobie]

My understanding is the Rhinos offer complementary capabilities the F-35 does not currently offer? I will stand corrected if I am wrong.

Acquiring additional F-35s to replace the Rhinos, before those capabilities are integrated could result in a capability gap.

That said, I understand the concern at promised capability being pushed back. The RAN was in the same boat in 95/96.

Replacement DDGs were deferred and upgrades to the current FFGs were sold as an interim solution. Look where we are now.

What's the best solution, maybe option the additional F-35 slots and ensure the Rhino can be retained for longer, if required?

We cant afford the RAAF to be in the same obsolescence mess the RAN and Army are in.

While we shouldnt let the RAAF fall apart like decades of either poor or lack of decisions in the RAN and Army has occurred I don't think the RAAF is comparable. When it comes down to time lines if a decision is made as how the decision on the SH was made, to just buy what can be purchased on the day that closest meets the requirements from selection to delivery is fairly quite low.

As I surmise it between various acquisition platforms

• Navy - Assets far more complex, a decent number of options and a large number of varied tasks to be taken - Longer time spent selecting and then sorting out the deal before first steal is even cut.
• Army - Too bloody many options so takes time to work to a decision, then still have to sort out the deal for them. Can be done faster then naval selections but still time consuming
• Air force - Far narrower field of options, with choices between hot production lines and development projects. Development will take much longer but if being pragmatic with the decision it generally should be straight forward.

Army and Navy programs depending on what they are can easily take a decade before you get to IOC or your first vessel in the water, Air force half that (Assuming production availability lines up, which we really have not had an issue with in this field).

I really don't see an issue with the replacement of the SH, worst case possible future options have a delay and the SH still will by that time have a good number of hours left in the fleet, And likely wouldn't be until around then that the F-35 line would be freed up enough to fill more orders for us anyway.

 

[Bob53]

Sorry, but you are wrong, completely wrong.

The project that is now known as “Additional Air Combat Capability” has gone through many many name changes.

Go back to the 2009 DWP and 2009 DCP, it clearly spelt out this project as the 4th Sqn of up to 28 F-35A.

Over the years the Defence Capability Plan (DCP) changed names too, and became the Defence Integrated Investment Plan (DIIP), by 2020 it was called the Force Structure Plan (FSP), same animal, different name.

Back in the early days of AIR 6000, Phase 2a/2b was the approved 72 aircraft, the ‘4th Sqn’ was known as Phase 2c.

Somewhere between then and now Phase 2c became Phase 7 (again, same animal, different name).


In latter years the ‘definition’ of the project became broader, stopped specifically naming the F-35A, but didn’t discard that option either.

One more point, it can’t be confused with MQ-28A, that is a completely separate project, with a completely separate budget allocation.

In the 2020 FSP, there was the “Additional Air Combat Capability” project with a budget allocation of up to $6.7B, and separately the “Teaming Air Vehicle” project (MQ-28A) with a budget allocation of up to $11B.

Two separate projects, two separate budget allocations.

Can it be any clearer than that?


I don’t have a problem with the Super Hornet fleet continuing on for the next decade or so, especially since they are our only aircraft capable of launching AShM (currently Harpoon), and eventually LRASM and JASSM-ER (F-35A won’t be able to use those weapons until Block 4).


But here’s the problem....

The ALP Government has quietly ditched the ‘Additional Air Combat Capability’ project, without actually announcing it, that was left to one of the RAAF Senior Sirs:

Australia Starts Looking Beyond The F-35 For Next-Gen Fighter Needs | Aviation Week Network

Next-generation fighters will be available when Australia searches for a replacement for a squadron of Boeing F/A-18E/Fs in the mid-2030s.

aviationweek.com

Here’s another question (that doesn’t appear to have an answer), what happens to the up to $6.7B that had been allocated to that project? Does it just disappear from the Defence Budget (specifically RAAF budget)?


This is an example of why I have a problem with the 2023 Albo DSR, Army projects cut, RAAF projects cut, we await the RAN review (which won’t be pretty), but we’ve just had a taste with the S-100 project being chopped.


Yes funds get reallocated, but we continue to be left in the dark where those Defence budget allocations are going.

Will they stay in Defence or end up outside of Defence? Maybe in a Green/Left looney project?

Who knows?

Shelved …might be just another project where the can is kicked along the road with every intention of picking it up. I can see the conundrum facing the RAAF. Choose a manned fighter or UAV in the next 5 years for delivery early 30s. It would be a bit of a punt on choosing the right UAV or wait to see what else is available as the available UAVs and Gen 5s aircraft start to mature. then what happens with delivery dates?

What to do what to do what to do.…..

 

[Redlands18]

What Air Power roles are they effective in? And how is their effectiveness when compared to a 5th Gen fighter?

Plenty, once you have air dominance, but even before that, they can be used in the standoff mode, at least out of SAM range and at long range for enemy fighters. As has been said countless times on DT, weapon systems do not operate in isolation, we are not going to send a sqn of F-35s alone against enemy forces let alone FA-18s. They will operate as part of a package, that may include F-35s, E-7s, EC-55s, EA-18Gs, KC-30s, MQ-28s. Strikes may be done in conjunction with Naval launched LACMs.
There are plenty of obsolete ADF systems, that are not fit to be used in any operations that badly need replacing. The FA-18Es are still an effective system with plenty of life left in them, replacing them at this time should be very low on the priority list.

 

[Aardvark144]

What Air Power roles are they effective in? And how is their effectiveness when compared to a 5th Gen fighter?

I defer to Redlands18. I have nothing further to add to his response. Well said.

 

[jack412]

From what I remember. The Super hornet was a political choice, related to the F-111. The RAAF at the time in parliament, said they didn't want them. As said above, there was the potential for a 4th training squadron of F-35. This decision was going to be made in 2025. Rumours were that an order early this year, was going to be placed. Now it is said, we are looking elsewhere. It isn't said how the F-35 will be divided between active and training. As to the Super Hornet now? They aren't going anywhere, till there is antiship on the F-35. Retirement keeps getting extended, they may even be retired with the Growler

 

[Volkodav]

From what I remember. The Super hornet was a political choice, related to the F-111. The RAAF at the time in parliament, said they didn't want them. As said above, there was the potential for a 4th training squadron of F-35. This decision was going to be made in 2025. Rumours were that an order early this year, was going to be placed. Now it is said, we are looking elsewhere. It isn't said how the F-35 will be divided between active and training. As to the Super Hornet now? They aren't going anywhere, till there is antiship on the F-35. Retirement keeps getting extended, they may even be retired with the Growler

The Rhino was acquired because of slips in F-35 schedule and other enabling capabilities not running as planned, combined with incermountable obsolescence issues in the F-111 fleet.

I knew some of it but later discovered F-111 was far more constrained and problematic than I had realised.

There's what is reported, there's what is known around defence, then there's the horse's mouth. When the engineer in charge of determining the grade of string and chewing gum is to be used tells you it was bad, you know it was bad.

Thankfully the days of sending people out in dangerously aged platforms are gone.

 

[SteveR]

From what I remember. The Super hornet was a political choice, related to the F-111.

I was at Avalon 2003 Air Show when the Shornet was doing a flying display. The Commentator broadcast that Shornet was being considered to bolster the RAAF if the F-35 was delayed. I heard no negative response to that after the air show.

 

[Anthony_B_78]

Snipped

Just to be clear on one point, if you refer to the budget, then that means in the budgeted year and/or the forward estimates (the three years following). Anything beyond that is not in the budget. It might range from being a thought bubble to a detailed plan, but it is not budgeted if there are not dollars attached in the budget documents for the period the budget covers. The additional air combat capability has not got to that point.

 

[Todjaeger]

From what I remember. The Super hornet was a political choice, related to the F-111. The RAAF at the time in parliament, said they didn't want them. As said above, there was the potential for a 4th training squadron of F-35. This decision was going to be made in 2025. Rumours were that an order early this year, was going to be placed. Now it is said, we are looking elsewhere. It isn't said how the F-35 will be divided between active and training. As to the Super Hornet now? They aren't going anywhere, till there is antiship on the F-35. Retirement keeps getting extended, they may even be retired with the Growler

The situation as I remember it was a bit different. IIRC at one point it had been planned for the F-111 to be retired from the RAAF in 2020, but it was decided in ~2007 to move the retirement date ahead to 2010. From memory this was due to a confluence of a issues surrounding ongoing and projected future F-111 service with the RAAF.

One group of issues had to due with the costs and difficulties involved in maintaining the aircraft so that they were ready and available for service, keeping in mind that some of the airframes had hit the 42 year mark by the time of retirement.

One of the other significant issues is that whilst the F-111 was capable of unescorted long-range strike at the start of it's career in the RAAF, by the time of retirement, this was no longer considered viable and F-111 strike packages required Hornet escorts, which drastically reduced the available mission ranges.

As 2007 approached the issues with the costs to maintain the F-111 in a fashion that was servicable, plus limitations on missions due to changes in potential threat enviros, plus the dangers of flying aircraft of that type which are that old, it was decided by gov't that it was no longer reasonably feasible to keep the F-111's going until 2020. This then caused the RAAF to look around at what was available to cover as much of the F-111 strike role as possible, whilst having delivery and IOC dates as soon as possible and the F/A-18F was deemed the closest to/most appropriate fit.

 

[Stampede]

At the end of the day the RAAF is a well balanced force.
Sure , always room for improvement but it's in good shape compared to the other two services and probably the envy many other nations of similar size to OZ.

Now what about those infantry fighting vehicles and OPVs

Cheers S

 

[jack412]

The situation as I remember it was a bit different. IIRC at one point it had been planned for the F-111 to be retired from the RAAF in 2020, but it was decided in ~2007 to move the retirement date ahead to 2010. From memory this was due to a confluence of a issues surrounding ongoing and projected future F-111 service with the RAAF.

One group of issues had to due with the costs and difficulties involved in maintaining the aircraft so that they were ready and available for service, keeping in mind that some of the airframes had hit the 42 year mark by the time of retirement.

One of the other significant issues is that whilst the F-111 was capable of unescorted long-range strike at the start of it's career in the RAAF, by the time of retirement, this was no longer considered viable and F-111 strike packages required Hornet escorts, which drastically reduced the available mission ranges.

As 2007 approached the issues with the costs to maintain the F-111 in a fashion that was servicable, plus limitations on missions due to changes in potential threat enviros, plus the dangers of flying aircraft of that type which are that old, it was decided by gov't that it was no longer reasonably feasible to keep the F-111's going until 2020. This then caused the RAAF to look around at what was available to cover as much of the F-111 strike role as possible, whilst having delivery and IOC dates as soon as possible and the F/A-18F was deemed the closest to/most appropriate fit.

If we wanted to, we could scroll back through this thread. I don't think it's that important, but anyone is welcome to. I agree with the early retirement on the F-111. I don't remember Hornet escort being a real issue to get the Super Hornet. It may have been a talking point? RAAF at the time said in parliament, they were quite happy to retire the F-111 and didn't need the Super Hornet. They believed the legacy Hornet was sufficient. Nor was a F-35 delay, a major issue at the time. We were expecting block 4 very soon. We also need to take into account which politician was on the Boeing board. It was a forced political choice.

History has shown us that the Super Hornet and Growler, turned out to be a good idea. USN gave up their Super Hornet spots on the production line. If fact as I recall, we bought them from the USN for some procurement reason. So as you said, we could get them in a timely manner. We were already a Hornet family, so that eased transition.

 

[hauritz]

At the end of the day the RAAF is a well balanced force.
Sure , always room for improvement but it's in good shape compared to the other two services and probably the envy many other nations of similar size to OZ.

Now what about those infantry fighting vehicles and OPVs

Cheers S

The RAAF is in very good shape but it needs to be since it will pretty much have to cover for the RAN for the next 10 to 15 years.

Given that I don't see any real short term options for boosting the RANs capability before the Hunters and SSNs start entering service in the 2030s I would prioritise spending on the airforce. I would be looking at an extra squadron of F-35s, extra tankers, acceleration of projects such as the Loyal Wingman, perhaps exercise that option for at least one additional Poseidon.