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

[Volkodav]

Tempest Future Fighter Aims For “Really Extreme Range,” Twice F-35 Payload

We're getting a clearer picture of what the Global Combat Air Program 'fighter' will be capable of, including acting as a flying computer server.

www.twz.com

In light of the recent Coalition announcement of a 4th squadron of F-35’s. If the Tempest was a potential replacement, more F-35’s seem like a waste of $$$ at this point in time.

The comments about range and payload are very interesting for Australia. Maybe this could be our next gen fighter as opposed to a USA solution? Has anyone ever seen any interest expressed from Australia in this program?

That was my thoughts when I heard the suggestion last year.

Unless they are an addition, i.e. an extra sqn to be stood up supporting the current Lightning and Rhino fleets, and entering service in the next couple of years, I can't see the point.

Better waiting for a Rhino replacement.

There has also been some media speculation in SEA about Australia acquiring F-15X.

Somebody let the bright idea fairies out I think

 

[hauritz]

Tempest Future Fighter Aims For “Really Extreme Range,” Twice F-35 Payload

We're getting a clearer picture of what the Global Combat Air Program 'fighter' will be capable of, including acting as a flying computer server.

www.twz.com

In light of the recent Coalition announcement of a 4th squadron of F-35’s. If the Tempest was a potential replacement, more F-35’s seem like a waste of $$$ at this point in time.

The comments about range and payload are very interesting for Australia. Maybe this could be our next gen fighter as opposed to a USA solution? Has anyone ever seen any interest expressed from Australia in this program?

The US might not really have a solution. Anything 4th gen won't cut it into the 2030s and beyond. B-21 are too expensive, F-35s lack range and payload and the F-47 is an F-22 replacement. I don't know what the USN is planning but it will probably not have the range we require.

On paper I admit GCAP is very tempting and the timing might be right for a Rhino/Growler replacement.

 

[John Fedup]

The US might not really have a solution. Anything 4th gen won't cut it into the 2030s and beyond. B-21 are too expensive, F-35s lack range and payload and the F-47 is an F-22 replacement. I don't know what the USN is planning but it will probably not have the range we require.

On paper I admit GCAP is very tempting and the timing might be right for a Rhino/Growler replacement.

There was a comment recently that the USN 6th Gen range would only be 25% greater than a F-35C so the MQ-25 refueling UAV will be critical.

 

[seaspear]

A greater range and twice the payload of the f-35 worth a consideration for the R.A.A.F as a complement to present aircraft abilities, likely more expensive as a platform than the f-35 because of fewer numbers , more versatility for the R.A.A.F than the B-21or even additional f-35,s ,this is of course speculation

 

[swerve]

Japan wants range because, despite having a relatively small land area, its islands are strung out over a very long distance. Its southernmost inhabited island is at 24 degrees N, & the northernmost point of Hokkaido is at 45° 32' north. That's about 2400 km north-south. Its southernmost inhabited island is 400 km further south than the southernmost point of the Canaries, or about the same as Aswan, & the northern tip is about the same latitude as Lyon. In North American terms, that's roughly from Montreal to over the southern horizon from Key West.

Italy I'm not so sure about.

 

[StingrayOZ]

UK and Italy also want range. UK has interests all over the world and only two carriers, with limited sortie rates.
Italy has lots of interest around the mediterranean through to North Africa.

So this is highly likely to be focused on combat over air/sea gaps, with maritime capabilities, not just air to air combat.

While tankers are helpful, they are vulnerable, particularly if the opposition has extreme range fighters, that can fly out from land bases, out to where you are refuelling your short range aircraft. Im not sure the USN model fits as well for non-USN countries. MQ25 isn't really designed for small carriers and to be operated by mid sized nations.

All three nations operate carriers, so this is likely to augment carrier capability, but projecting power from land. Hence long range, with large payload, to load up with long range heavy weapons. So this kinda niche doesn't really have a comparable version in the US any more, its kinda how Australia operated the F-111.

Japan/pacific has always had a huge priority on range, while often euro focused plane prefered short range. UK would be able to keep threats very long way away, and make long range strikes. Italy projecting power all over the mediterranean.

 

[seaspear]

Is there a need for a long range interceptor capable of intercepting bombers before they come within missile range?

 

[Todjaeger]

Is there a need for a long range interceptor capable of intercepting bombers before they come within missile range?

Is there even a real, viable engineering possibility of designing such an interceptor? IMO I think no.

One needs to remember that long-ranged, standoff munitions have been in service with several nations for decades now. One old example being the Kh-55 with some versions having a range of some ~3,000 km. How realistic would it be to have an interceptor combat radius requirement of even coming close to 3,000 km?

 

[StevoJH]

Is there even a real, viable engineering possibility of designing such an interceptor? IMO I think no.

One needs to remember that long-ranged, standoff munitions have been in service with several nations for decades now. One old example being the Kh-55 with some versions having a range of some ~3,000 km. How realistic would it be to have an interceptor combat radius requirement of even coming close to 3,000 km?

There is also the *slight* issue of detecting the hostile platform with enough warning time that your interceptor could get that far out even if they had the range.

And you cannot have aircraft loitering at range because.....what if the enemy comes from a different vector?

 

[seaspear]

Would the Jindalee operational radar network be able to supply such information

https://www.petersonschriever.spaceforce.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/1059651/jindalee-operational-radar-network/

I'm not sure if Australia's military satellites have the ability to monitor aircraft without transceivers on

 

[Todjaeger]

Would the Jindalee operational radar network be able to supply such information

https://www.petersonschriever.spaceforce.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/1059651/jindalee-operational-radar-network/

I'm not sure if Australia's military satellites have the ability to monitor aircraft without transceivers on

As I understand it, JORN can provide a 'tripwire' detection capability at very long ranges, sometimes exceeding 3,000 km. In that regards, I suspect that JORN could be used to detect 'something' that far away, but not sure that it would be able to determine what that something was. Of course if the 'something' then separated into two different somethings, one still being the aircraft and the other being the now inbound LACM then I suspect JORN could detect that, but that would be after launch.

JORN I believe is used to provide improved SA across much of the approaches to Australia to detect/flag contacts for further investigation by other assets whilst an E-7 Wedgetail might be used to then actually ID what that 'something' was from several hundred kms away

Now some further food for thought. If it was decided that the RAAF needed to be able to intercept potential hostiles whilst they are still more than 3,000 km away from Australia, that would likely take a RAAF fighter some ~three hours to arrive at the intercept point assuming one was already aloft. I made the assumption that the intercepting aircraft would fly a high subsonic speed of ~.085 Mach because the fuel consumption would go up significantly at higher speeds and especially if using afterburners. Now if it would take some three hours for a RAAF fighter to get on station to intercept, that also means the target aircraft would be some three hours away from reaching the intercept point at the time the RAAF fighter would need to depart. Again assuming a high subsonic approach for more fuel efficient travel given the times and distances involved, then the target aircraft might be some 6,000 km away when Australia would need to make the decision and order an interceptor to depart.

I do not think Australia, even with JORN, has the sort of sensor footprint needed for detection and identification of targets at these ranges.