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

Bob53

Well-Known Member
From what I understand the new technology going into it and the new materials make it cheaper. However Frank Kendall, the SECAF wants the USAF to cancel the program. This looks like the same stupidity that happened with the F-22 in 2012. The USAF need the numbers to replace its old F-15C/D fleet and these can be built and entered into service quicker than the F-35. Now its about quantity because the USAF is short of modern capable fast jet aircraft.


I really like the aircraft and for nations like Australia or NZ it makes a great maritime strike capability.
The range reduces the need for tanker support, the volume of weapons is quite a bit higher than Shornets and the production line is hot And churning out airframes as we speak. For the life of me I cannot understand why the USAF would cancel or reduce the order…that is a head scratcher when they go on an on about pacific distances and the age of the F15 fleets.
 

Bob53

Well-Known Member
Frankly? No. The bit that every twitter strategist seems to forget,
Thanks….. I’ll change my tag line!… I understand what you’re saying that the time has past. I don’t think I was suggesting we actually buy them…just stating that even 20 years ago they seemed more suited to our requirements…. But I’m sure the decision was heavily influenced as you say by our existing fleet of f 18s.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
How is it more survivable than a Block II / III Super Hornet?
Quad mount A2A missiles on each pylon. Enhanced fully integrated EW capabilities. F-15EX
RAAF assessed F-15E and Super Hornet Block II back before Super Hornet Blk2 was selected in 2007. F-15EX wasn’t even on the drawing board then so it was not possible to directly compare the 2.

Compared to -E models however, Super Hornet Blk 2 was found to have a better radar, better LO capability, more advanced EWSP and avionics overall, easier to introduce into service given we already operated Classics, easier to maintain and it was cheaper.

Obviously much has been updated with F-15EX compared to the F-15E’s we looked at 17 years ago, but the same has occurred with the RAAF Super Hornets, which among many other Block III designed upgrades are not far off receiving their pod mounted long-wave IRST systems. Radar upgrades if they haven’t already occurred are not far off, nor are the rest of USN spec upgrades.
The F-15EX wasn't on the market or even been suggested for the USAF when the F-18Fs were being sourced for the RAAF.
Unlikely. I like F-15EX and if we had chosen F-15E back in the mid-2000’s it would be an excellent capability growth path that I am sure would serve us well.

But that was the time to acquire F-15 for RAAF and we didn’t.

The near future when 6th gen designs are close to production lines will most certainly not be the time to acquire an F-15 variant.
6th gen designs are years away and given the 5th gen design and development problems you can't wait another 20 years for any designs to enter LRIP. You and everyone else simply don't have the time. Now quantity is required far more than hitech advanced futuristic paper aircraft. The F-18F is short legged and everyone knows it. It can get away with it in the Mediterranean and probably the Atlantic, but not in the Pacific.
 

Tbone

Member
So if you add a link and then directly comment in the next post under that link you get banned here too??
feels a-little harsh..
 

Tbone

Member
If something has been spoken about at length earlier I’m the thread the decent thing to do is let the poster know what page this was discussed on.. most mods would be able to provide this direction to users instead of discarding them and banning them due to commenting not in the same post about something relevant and timely to today’s defence.
Maybe a more educational approach to users who haven’t been across defence talk for long would be more successful then being flippant and heavy handed.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
If something has been spoken about at length earlier I’m the thread the decent thing to do is let the poster know what page this was discussed on.. most mods would be able to provide this direction to users instead of discarding them and banning them due to commenting not in the same post about something relevant and timely to today’s defence.
Maybe a more educational approach to users who haven’t been across defence talk for long would be more successful then being flippant and heavy handed.
Maybe a PM to one of the Mods might be a better option than airing it out on the open forum,
 

Milne Bay

Active Member
RAAF C-27J Spartans at work.
We don't hear much about these, but it is always good to see occasions when their capability is utilised.
Currently assisting with access in the Kimberly:
And of course they were also used extensively during the bushfires:

MB
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Thanks….. I’ll change my tag line!… I understand what you’re saying that the time has past. I don’t think I was suggesting we actually buy them…just stating that even 20 years ago they seemed more suited to our requirements…. But I’m sure the decision was heavily influenced as you say by our existing fleet of f 18s.
Not really. Look back at the combat aircraft in the RAAF inventory in early 2003. It consisted of F/A-18 A/B Hornets, and F-111C/G's in a strike role. IIRC it was believed at the time that the F-111's could be kept in service until ~2020. However, by 2007 it was realized that the cpfh of the F-111 was getting too high, even more so when one also realizes that by the 2000's, the F-111 was no longer survivable in contested airspace and required fighter escort. So in 2007 the RAAF needed to order an essentially urgent replacement for the F-111, which could get brought into service as quickly as possible. The best option, for a number of reasons, was the F/A-18F SHornet.

For instance, the USN was willing to let the RAAF order 'jump' the order queue and take production slots which had been intended for existing USN orders. Also, whilst being different aircraft than the 'classic' Hornet, there was/is quite a bit of commonality between the two designs, enabling a more rapid transition training for aircrews.

Lastly, I believe that by the time when Australia realized an F-111 replacement was needed, the base F-15E was no longer in production (IIRC production ended in 2001) and by 2007, nation-specific variants to fill S. Korean, Singaporean and Israeli orders were in production. Boeing would likely have needed to develop an Australian version first, and then wait for production slots to open up.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
The range reduces the need for tanker support, the volume of weapons is quite a bit higher than Shornets and the production line is hot And churning out airframes as we speak. For the life of me I cannot understand why the USAF would cancel or reduce the order…that is a head scratcher when they go on an on about pacific distances and the age of the F15 fleets.
The USAF makes a big more sense, they are replacing older F-15's with newer F-15s, maintenance, support, training etc can all remain the same. Clearly the F-22 isn't replacing them and in fact the F-15 may replace some of the F-22's. But replacing old clapped out F-15's with new build F-15s is very simple and easy and allows the air force to remain the same size, be ready to fly hours and take some load off the F-35 production lines and spares.

The USAF is removing the conformal fuel tanks. They don't need the additional range. USAF doesn't think like RAAF or other air forces.

Which is also probably why the USN wasn't really interested in the conformal tanks on their Block III planes. They have other capabilities.

Block III Super hornet would be a significant upgrade. As @Takao points out ques for whole new platforms are quite long. But we could upgrade the Super hornets to Block III (or at least the cockpit) and the F-35 to TR3/Blk4. Acquire new weapons. Acquire more weapons. LRASM onto P8.F-35. JSM could be another one we look at with internal carriage in the F35, resulting in a clean long range profile..

I like the superhornets. We have growler capability, no one else even really plays in that space. We are lock step with the USN which is more relevant for Australia. It was an easy and quick transition from the Hornet. Its is a cheap and easy aircraft to work on and fly. The USN is going to fly it for decades and is still taking deliveries willingly. The BlkIII cockpit and networks and stealth improvements would make it a very useful aircraft going into the future. It is still one of the most stealthiest 4.5 gen aircraft.

Quad mount A2A missiles on each pylon. Enhanced fully integrated EW capabilities.
I dunno.. Super Hornet can carry more missiles than the F-15EX (12 vs 14 - AFAIK) and if we are talking about EW, fairly sure the growler is pretty strong in that area. I don't see it as a poor mans cousin to the F-15EX, just different. The F-15EX just reminds everyone that the Superhornets should probably go through a blkIII upgrade (atleast cockpit, networking, stealth improvements, IRST thingy, and those conformal tanks make it look thic!).

I don't see a picture like this and see the Super hornets key weakness is its lack of missile carriage. What the hell are we going up against? The aliens from Independence day?
1675318290490.png
 

Takao

The Bunker Group
Thanks….. I’ll change my tag line!… I understand what you’re saying that the time has past. I don’t think I was suggesting we actually buy them…just stating that even 20 years ago they seemed more suited to our requirements…. But I’m sure the decision was heavily influenced as you say by our existing fleet of f 18s.
Firstly, @Bob53 let me publicly apologise. I'm sorry, that comment was not directed at you in the slightest. It was aimed at some of the people and organisations held up as exemplar strategists on social and normal media, but are actually really poor thinkers. It was not intended to refer to you; I allowed my sarcasm to be unaimed. Sorry.

Secondly, generally speaking, you are correct. FSP20 shows that, the E-7 and KC-30 replacements call for additional airframes. The airlift and battlefield awareness of both (beyond their purely Air Force roles) really to make them truly Joint assets. For the 5 Sqn fast jet force we have now, you can easily argue that both fleets should be larger.

This article from The Strategist suggests that the "Ghost Bat" may also be developed to replace the Super Hornet under project Air 6000 Phase 7
Towards a sixth-generation air combat capability for the RAAF | The Strategist (aspistrategist.org.au)
Speaking of 'experts', hello ASPI....

But, seriously, this is 100% on point. Instead of focusing on buying more F-35s, what is the effect that AIR 6000-7 is meant to provide. Shifting those funds to MQ-28 may be a better choice, if only because it enhances the existing fleet. Relying on a promise (a tenuous one at best - there is a difference between those who approve the plan and AFHQ...) from 8+ years ago to justify buying a new capability is...sub-optimal. Note what wasn't available then but is now...
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
This article from The Strategist suggests that the "Ghost Bat" may also be developed to replace the Super Hornet under project Air 6000 Phase 7
Towards a sixth-generation air combat capability for the RAAF | The Strategist (aspistrategist.org.au)
The NGAD design system is particularly relevent to AI technology. To start with the risks associated with designing unmanned systems is significantly lower than manned systems. You can also design mission specific aircraft. No longer will you need to concern yourself with somehow utilising aircraft that weren't designed for a particular mission.
Marry this concept with 3d printing manufacturing and you could basically build a mix and match collection of UAVs ideally suited to Australian requirements. The ability to locally manufacture these aircraft could almost be as valuable as the aircraft themselves.
 

seaspear

Well-Known Member
Mentioned in the grants were 8 million dollars for Hypersonix to manufacture a hypersonic target drone is that a typo? I could understand a supersonic target drone ,I can't find records of a hypersonic target drone elsewhere.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Quad mount A2A missiles on each pylon. Enhanced fully integrated EW capabilities. F-15EX
Rhinos have had fully integrated IDECM since the Block II was rolled out. It’s been further advanced since then with SCS upgrades. I see little likelihood there is much in the way of differences between these 2 Boeing platforms on that front.

More AMRAAM’s equals more survivability? Possibly more persistence but as always there are tradeoffs and the difference is 6 missiles given Super Hornets carry dual-rail launchers.

In any case, marketing shots of maximum theoretical load-outs is hardly a basis for considering a capability. What are the drag implications of carrying 20+ missiles on quad-rails for example? Boeing won’t talk about it, but they have to exist.

The F-15EX wasn't on the market or even been suggested for the USAF when the F-18Fs were being sourced for the RAAF.
Which I acknowledged and specifically referred to the comparison RAAF conducted which was then spec F-15E v Super Hornet Block II.

6th gen designs are years away and given the 5th gen design and development problems you can't wait another 20 years for any designs to enter LRIP. You and everyone else simply don't have the time. Now quantity is required far more than hitech advanced futuristic paper aircraft. The F-18F is short legged and everyone knows it. It can get away with it in the Mediterranean and probably the Atlantic, but not in the Pacific.
RAAF has operated Rhinos just fine in that environment for 13 years. The range of any tactical fighter isn’t going to give many people a justification to replace an excellent fleet of in-service fighters with an older design whose sole capability advantages are a fraction more range and weapons.

Of course we have time. USN has an assured upgrade path for the Rhino and Growler, both of which it will operate for decades more, most likely as will RAAF and Kuwait (Rhinos only).

Additionally we will be in all likelihood be acquiring more JSF before anything else.
 
Last edited:

buffy9

Well-Known Member
Frankly? No. The bit that every twitter strategist seems to forget, these production lines are full, closed or slow. And the money has to be available in a year that the production line is too. As someone who spent hours pouring over *big grey aircraft* production dates with my RAAF offsider to fit one in - it's nearly impossible without something giving. That may have changed in the past 3 years (a nation may have given up a slot or similar), but with the effect of COVID and Ukraine on electronic supply lines I doubt it.

I also think its worth reminding people that the extra air combat capability is not explicitly for a Sqn of F-35s. It may be, but if you want the effect (which is more important), that may be answered by other platforms (and not necessarily a pointy grey thing). Depending on the effect needed, it could (for instance) be a Patriot Sqn or a buy of AIM-120 next gen....
Just out of curiosity, what would you argue is best to achieve the effect? Thinking about the amount of auxiliaries we have and the inability to buy more quickly, it may be worth turning those funds to upgrades for the current fighter fleet (Blk IV and Blk III respectively) and trying to jump onto the AIM-120D3 or AIM-260 program to grow missile stocks. This assuming they don't already exist.

Combined with hardened basing, the qualitative improvements could allow RAAF to stay in action (combat) for a while longer. Still not any great length of time, but arguably enough to have a greater effect overall.
 
Last edited:

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Noticed this article in APDR re the latest Growler upgrade.



This is serious coin.

Defence web site.


More coin.

Looks like this plane will definitely be around till the early 2030's.
As to the Super Hornets we will get some clarity next month.

Cheers S
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
More grunt for Growlers | Defence
Well the RAAF seem to think the approval went through as of 6 Feb 2023, they are planning for longer range and more advanced Anti-Radiation Missiles. Any knock back of the AGM-88 to Australia would have caused a major ruckus and we would know about it.
 
Top