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

[ADMk2]

Unfortunately it seems that a number of the acquisition contracts are not being pursued with haste, with there being an apparent mismatch between rhetoric about what the security situation is and likely will be vs. steps being taken to actually attempt to meet said threats.

The new and significant acquisition that I most recall is for the RGM-109E Tomahawks with some 220 to be acquired. However it now looks as though the Hobart-class DDG's might be the only launch platform in ADF service until ~2034 or later. In that regards, it leaves me with the impression that a number of the changes proposed or in the process of being implemented for Defence is more to make it look like improvements are being made, rather than actually having steps taken to improve Defence.

Many have noted that. It’s an interesting situation when one of the current ‘attacks’ on previous handling of defence was”all” announcement and no substance.

Yet we are seeing the same thing now, with things like the Tomahawk announcement which was made from memory on no less than 4 occasions and which we still won’t see for several years and even then only from a single platform… Not to mention other capabilities which were deliberately slowed, such as HIMARS and the new Blackhawks…

 

[Volkodav]

If it seems that way that might be because it is that way

One of the most substantive sore points between Mr Marles and the department has been officials persisting with funding demands for new manned platforms such as tanks, defying the recommendations of the defence strategic review, which called for a more nimble, maritime-focused army.

Defence officials, meanwhile, feel hamstrung by the need to make deep funding cuts to pay for new priorities such as AUKUS nuclear-powered submarines because the government is not increasing the Defence budget substantially until 2027.

The Government's Expenditure Review Committee, has put the squeeze on everyone and everything to get the budget in order. Which to be fair to the Government they seem on track to do

Ironically the new large and medium landing craft would provide the ADF with the ability to deploy more heavy armour than they have ever had before.

They could easily lift fully equipped armoured combat teams to completely overmatch any opfor in our region

 

[OldTex]

If it seems that way that might be because it is that way

One of the most substantive sore points between Mr Marles and the department has been officials persisting with funding demands for new manned platforms such as tanks, defying the recommendations of the defence strategic review, which called for a more nimble, maritime-focused army.

Despite the name "Combined Arms Combat" isn't just about things that go bang!!!! It is also about how they move, how they are supplied and supported. There has to be something behind the sharp point and that is where Combat Support (CS) and Combat Service Support (CSS) add the weight to the sharp point Arms Corps (AC).
Having a nimble maritime focused army sounds like the 'emperor's new clothes'. It is the latest fad or trend. If the way of achieving that fad is by going lightweight then there are two consequences. The first is that situations for the use of the maritime focused army are reduced. The second is that experienced valuable soldiers are needlessly wasted. When you need a 14 pound sledgehammer a 1 pound hammer just doesn't cut it.

 

[Maranoa]

...Having a nimble maritime focused army sounds like the 'emperor's new clothes'. It is the latest fad or trend. If the way of achieving that fad is by going lightweight then there are two consequences. The first is that situations for the use of the maritime focused army are reduced. The second is that experienced valuable soldiers are needlessly wasted. When you need a 14 pound sledgehammer a 1 pound hammer just doesn't cut it.

Not to mention the reality that maritime based movements are particularly vulnerable in these day's of unblinking space based weather independent sensors. That combination, even when simply leveraging commercial satellite imagery like in Ukraine already has resulted in catastrophic losses for Russian surface combatants and amphibious hulls.

 

[MickB]

Ironically the new large and medium landing craft would provide the ADF with the ability to deploy more heavy armour than they have ever had before.

They could easily lift fully equipped armoured combat teams to completely overmatch any opfor in our region

The deterrent value of such overmatch should not be underestimated.

But if hostilitees do break out such an overmatch will allow for a quick decisive victory and result in reduced casualties on both sides.

 

[hauritz]

New Boeing MQ-28 Production Facility begins construction in Queensland

www.boeing.com.au

A new 9000 square-metre facility is being built to manufacture the MQ-28 Ghost Bat. Production is expected to commence in 3 years.

The ability to locally produce these aircraft is probably just as important as the aircraft itself. I believe 75% of the components will be locally sourced. The program seems to be progressing smoothly enough although we are yet to see details as to how many will be acquired and exactly what capabilities they will possess.

The speed at which this aircraft has moved from concept, development and now on the verge of production makes me wonder what is wrong with our ship building industry.

 

[AndyinOz]

Flight testing apparently of one of the acquired BBJ 737-8 (BBJ MAX 8) a rejected takeoff, then a successful takeoff in the first half of the video. I am not adverse to the slightly different paint job.

 

[ADMk2]

New Boeing MQ-28 Production Facility begins construction in Queensland

www.boeing.com.au

A new 9000 square-metre facility is being built to manufacture the MQ-28 Ghost Bat. Production is expected to commence in 3 years.

The ability to locally produce these aircraft is probably just as important as the aircraft itself. I believe 75% of the components will be locally sourced. The program seems to be progressing smoothly enough although we are yet to see details as to how many will be acquired and exactly what capabilities they will possess.

The speed at which this aircraft has moved from concept, development and now on the verge of production makes me wonder what is wrong with our ship building industry.

“We” didn’t build the MQ-28A. Boeing did...

If we employed the same methodology and contracted say, Bath Iron Works to build our ships for us, I wonder if our shipbuilding would be as ‘bad’?

 

[discodave]

Hello, I'm a longtime reader of these pages.

On page 40 of the National Defence Strategy document that was released yesterday, there is a bullet point that refers to replacing the E-7A with a next generation aircraft.

This seems surprising, given that the E-7 is a much newer platform than e.g. the E-3, and the USAF is only just beginning to procure the E-7.

Does anybody know of any program(s) working on this? Are we talking E-7Max or something from left field like Ghost Bat, or ???

Thanks,

 

[hauritz]

Hello, I'm a longtime reader of these pages.

On page 40 of the National Defence Strategy document that was released yesterday, there is a bullet point that refers to replacing the E-7A with a next generation aircraft.

This seems surprising, given that the E-7 is a much newer platform than e.g. the E-3, and the USAF is only just beginning to procure the E-7.

Does anybody know of any program(s) working on this? Are we talking E-7Max or something from left field like Ghost Bat, or ???

Thanks,

Not really surprising. The USAF is purchasing the E7 as a partial replacement for their E3 fleet. The US plans are still to introduce a new capability they call the Advanced Battle Management System. It wouldn't surprise me if Australia were to join the US in developing this system.

US Air Force Taps Five Companies for Advanced Battle Management System

The US Air Force has selected five companies to join the Advanced Battle Management System (ABMS) Digital Infrastructure Consortium.

www.thedefensepost.com

 

[Redlands18]

Not really surprising. The USAF is purchasing the E7 as a partial replacement for their E3 fleet. The US plans are still to introduce a new capability they call the Advanced Battle Management System. It wouldn't surprise me if Australia were to join the US in developing this system.

US Air Force Taps Five Companies for Advanced Battle Management System

The US Air Force has selected five companies to join the Advanced Battle Management System (ABMS) Digital Infrastructure Consortium.

www.thedefensepost.com

I suspect the eventual goal will be to get the operators out of the aircraft and into ground stations, a large non-LO airliner is just too vulnerable going forward, but I would not expect this system entering service much before 2040.

 

[Todjaeger]

I suspect the eventual goal will be to get the operators out of the aircraft and into ground stations, a large non-LO airliner is just too vulnerable going forward, but I would not expect this system entering service much before 2040.

Or ever, for that matter. Also from my POV attempting to design and build any sort of LO or SIG-managed AEW&C platform will never succeed unless/until there is a significant and revolutionary tech leap. The amount of power and RF energy generated and emitted, plus the comms emissions to relay contact and track data mean that detecting such aircraft and at range should not be a significant challenge. With that in mind, I would much rather current and further AEW&C aircraft be based off airframe designs which are large enough to fit enough systems to provide functionally useful capabilities. If too small a design were to get selected, then onboard power generation might be a problem and there could be insufficient resources to run the sensors and workstations effectively. Or there might be a more significant limitation in the amount of onboard coolant for the emitters and/or workstations. IIRC the P-8A Poseidon and the E-7 Wedgetail both have coolant limitations of 15-18 hours, so whilst a flight mission could be extended with in-flight refueling, once the onboard coolant is exhausted the mission essentially halts.

 

[hauritz]

At its heart the E-7 is a flying radar that just happens to have a team of Air battle managers and Airborne electronics analysts going along for the ride. If you can shift these people off the plane and give them access to battlefield data from autonomous vessels, aircraft, satellites, ships, ground stations and just about any other source of information you can think of, it would give an entirely new dimension to battle management.

It isn't hard to see how this would benefit a country like Australia. A small group of soldiers on a remote island spot an enemy ship and within minutes targeting information has been fed to a LRASM armed P8.

Australia is already well on the path to acquiring a range of almost fully automated systems. The next step would be acquiring a battle management system that would allow you to integrate and network these things into a kill chain.

 

[discodave]

At its heart the E-7 is a flying radar that just happens to have a team of Air battle managers and Airborne electronics analysts going along for the ride. If you can shift these people off the plane and give them access to battlefield data from autonomous vessels, aircraft, satellites, ships, ground stations and just about any other source of information you can think of, it would give an entirely new dimension to battle management.

...

Not to mention the risk of having all those people up there in a tube that's also emitting megawatts of EM radiation.

I wonder if it's possible to go so far as splitting the radar across multiple aircraft. An AESA-XL if you will. Could you could have a drone transmit, while another aircraft receives the reflection

 

[Todjaeger]

Not to mention the risk of having all those people up there in a tube that's also emitting megawatts of EM radiation.

I wonder if it's possible to go so far as splitting the radar across multiple aircraft. An AESA-XL if you will. Could you could have a drone transmit, while another aircraft receives the reflection

You are basically describing a bistatic or multi-static radar array. JORN and SECAR are in service examples of distributed systems like this.

IIRC some of the original radar systems had separate transmitter and receiver stations which were in different locations. As the tech improved, transceivers could be produced which co-located the two devices and integrated them.

However, I am not certain that it would practically possible to have a bistatic or multi-static system fitted and operating from platforms which would be in motion, particularly as much as an aircraft is, unless it was possible to keep both transmitter and receiver a fixed distance apart whilst operating.

 

[Going Boeing]

It looks like the Ghost Bat is no longer being considered for the USAF - Boeing‘s performance on a number of programs recently has been found wanting and may have gone against them in this competition.

Here are the two companies creating drone wingmen for the US Air Force

 

[John Fedup]

It looks like the Ghost Bat is no longer being considered for the USAF - Boeing‘s performance on a number of programs recently has been found wanting and may have gone against them in this competition.

Here are the two companies creating drone wingmen for the US Air Force

Big loss for Boeing unless Ghost Bat can be pitched to the USN and the non-US export market. If Boeing can't win the USN's NGAD requirement due to poor performance then who, LM? NG would seem to be the only other option but the Raider should be their priority. The USN kind of burned them wrt the X-47B.

 

[hauritz]

I am not sure how this will affect the Ghost Bat program. The DSR stated it wanted collaborative development with the United States.

Mind you we don’t know much at all about what the end goal of the program will be anyway. We don’t know how many will be acquired, what roles will eventually be filled or for that matter even precisely what the program is all about.

I would contend it is the AI and the sovereign capability to mass produce these things if required that is the important thing. What we might end up with is a family of vehicles filling just about every niche role you can imagine in the ADF.

The AI itself is something that could be applied to multiple platforms in the air, sea, land and even space domains. Ghost Bat could just just be a prototype for a far more expansive system of automated vehicles built around the same AI architecture.

 

[Sideline]

RE Ghost Bat AI program, there would be some advantages to having a different coding (re hacking), and threat response to US (and other players) unmanned systems. AI systems are very good at learning off past responses. If an adversary AI vehicle/system has been in contact with US systems and then find itself in contact with an Australian system, the fact that reacts differently would be advantageous.

Thinking about it, the E-7A Wedgetail, Jindalee radar and CEA phase array radars real are Aussie success stories

 

[SammyC]

I am not sure how this will affect the Ghost Bat program. The DSR stated it wanted collaborative development with the United States.

Mind you we don’t know much at all about what the end goal of the program will be anyway. We don’t know how many will be acquired, what roles will eventually be filled or for that matter even precisely what the program is all about.

I would contend it is the AI and the sovereign capability to mass produce these things if required that is the important thing. What we might end up with is a family of vehicles filling just about every niche role you can imagine in the ADF.

The AI itself is something that could be applied to multiple platforms in the air, sea, land and even space domains. Ghost Bat could just just be a prototype for a far more expansive system of automated vehicles built around the same AI architecture.

I would concur. I am sure the current version of the Ghost Bat (and for that matter the Ghost Shark) will not be the eventual matured AI technology that is then produced in larger numbers. The AI and the incountry build capability are the crown jewels.

Both are currently limited to surveilance functions, however the Government itself stated we will see an armed AI platform this year.

Ghost Bat/Shark may not be the actual platforms that get weapons, maybe it's a derivation or a new platform that uses the technology explored with these two, as you say Hauritz.

In regards to US involvement, given that AUKUS pillar 2 includes AI, one would view that the outcomes will be shared regardless of US investment or not. So Boeing do possibly get a back door access to the US program, through Ghost Bat if they do it well. I read that there are benefits to an Australian led v US led innovation style project with Ghost Shark (less red tape), so perhaps it helps to keep Ghost Bat as Australian.

Having said that, how much of a stretch would it be to develop an enlarged Ghost Bat with an internal weapons bay for say a couple of LRASMs. It would be a useful option to send a pack of them into harms way to launch a stand off attack against a heavily defended enemy fleet. Or alternatively a stretched shark with torpedos. Perhaps both.

I'm more familiar with Naval systems rather than aircraft, and I'm a bit old school for AI in general, so I'm somewhat of a novice in this area. But I would be interested in others views as to how far off something like this really is. Could we see a gen 2 Ghost Bat with an attack capability this year. I've read that more are being built, however the spec is vague, just that they would be updated versions of the existing ones.

I read the article talking about the USAF's efforts converting an F16 into an AI craft that can aparently do basic dog fighting. If that's the current cutting edge, then an independent AI mini stealth bomber doesn't seem that far fetched.