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

[ngatimozart]

A reminder, any talk of the ADF acquiring the B-21 is pure fantasy because, as far as we are aware, it hasn't migrated from the CAD program to physical form yet. The B-2 would also most likely would be out of contention purely on cost basis alone and the US may not be willing to sell such a sensitive strategic platform anyway. Let's keep things in the realm of reasonable possibilities please.

PS. This is the second time I've had to post this so next time red ink warnings will be issued to miscreants.

 

[Todjaeger]

Addressing the why, and noting that long-range strike =/= F-111 replacement, it comes down to two things: survivability and options. There are some other things, but these are the two key policy reasons.

Survivability. The targets that need to be destroyed exist, no matter what. Take a enemy Divisional C2 node. We could send in an SO element, strike with M777 (ha!), strike with Tiger, use NGFS or use an F-35 with a GBU or similar. All of these will work, some better than others, but all involve putting people at risk. The chances of any of those forces taking casualties are high, especially for a high priority target like a Div HQ. The stand-off range of long-range strike though? It's a lot easier. If I can launch a strike that is uncrewed for the last 200 nm, than our forces can live for another day.

Options. Now the Government / commander has options on force disposition or the like. We may not need forces in a third country (ie, an artillery Regt) if we can launch from our soil, or from another platform. Our DDG/FFGs do not have to penetrate as far. Think US operations in Iraq from 1992 onwards - especially Desert Fox. They didn't have to get base rights as they could launch long-range missile strikes. It also provides options to the use of force, now we can through fires against a target from another direction to divert enemy attention, we can use a variety of warheads or, most importantly for the ADF, achieve local mass with no real increase in personnel.

Range is always good. No one will, allowing for an acceptable minimum range, complain about range. It just makes a military force more flexible, capable and effective.

Honestly when I am thinking of a long-ranged strike, what comes to my mind is not something as minor as a divisional-level formation. I tend to first think of targets that the status of which will impact a theatre. As a result, these are usually permanent (until they get visited by hostile forces with ill-intent) static facilities, that while not necessarily resource intensive to replace, it will take time. Meanwhile, the loss of the facility would force those targeted to adjust their plans and capabilities.

 

[old faithful]

A question as well as a comment. When you mention AS missiles, are you referring to air-to-surface, or anti-ship missiles?

The closest PRC airfield with a ~3,000 m runway is ~3,200 km from Darwin, on one of the reclaimed or built up islands in the Spratlys, just about in the middle of the SCS. This same island also appears to have some port facilities. If the PRC continues to object to FON through the SCS, and/or rejecting that most of the SCS is international waters, then neutralizing air and naval bases which could be used to reinforce such claims would quickly become a priority.

3200km is pretty close eh.
Its 1000 km from Darwin to Tennant Creek.
Darwin to Adelaide is about 3050km and Darwin to Perth is just over 4000km

 

[ngatimozart]

3200km is pretty close eh.
Its 1000 km from Darwin to Tennant Creek.
Darwin to Adelaide is about 3050km and Darwin to Perth is just over 4000km

Tennant Creek is just around the corner from Darwin and Adelaide down the road a bit.

 

[ngatimozart]

Honestly when I am thinking of a long-ranged strike, what comes to my mind is not something as minor as a divisional-level formation. I tend to first think of targets that the status of which will impact a theatre. As a result, these are usually permanent (until they get visited by hostile forces with ill-intent) static facilities, that while not necessarily resource intensive to replace, it will take time. Meanwhile, the loss of the facility would force those targeted to adjust their plans and capabilities.

Australia is a big place but to the Aussies (& most Kiwi's) it's not a problem, they are used to it. China and Russia are big places too without the luxury and softness of the US, UK and Europe so they and the Aussies (& most Kiwi's) are hardier people better equipped physically and mentally to handle such large distances and harsh environments. Yes the Aussies and Kiwi's have western luxuries but we also live in harsher environments, having to be more self reliant.

Me thinks that you need to have a really good look at a map.

 

[t68]

3200km is pretty close eh.
Its 1000 km from Darwin to Tennant Creek.
Darwin to Adelaide is about 3050km and Darwin to Perth is just over 4000km

I think those are via road transport, not direct via air, but what's 400km when doing Mach 1.25


2620 Km - Flight distance between Darwin and Adelaide

 

[hauritz]

Tennant Creek is just around the corner from Darwin and Adelaide down the road a bit.

I don't know why it bothers me that there are even parts of the Australian mainland that we probably couldn't strike at

Google Maps

I don't think we could bomb Port Headland.

 

[Todjaeger]

3200km is pretty close eh.
Its 1000 km from Darwin to Tennant Creek.
Darwin to Adelaide is about 3050km and Darwin to Perth is just over 4000km

AND

Australia is a big place but to the Aussies (& most Kiwi's) it's not a problem, they are used to it. China and Russia are big places too without the luxury and softness of the US, UK and Europe so they and the Aussies (& most Kiwi's) are hardier people better equipped physically and mentally to handle such large distances and harsh environments. Yes the Aussies and Kiwi's have western luxuries but we also live in harsher environments, having to be more self reliant.

Me thinks that you need to have a really good look at a map.

3,200 km is not what I would describe as 'close' but it is significantly closer to mainland Australia than the 4,000 to 5,000 km that another poster had suggested. BTW it is also ~1,600 km from Butterworth. An additional item worth mentioning is that a range of 3,200 km would also put RAAF Base Darwin within strike range of H-6 bombers armed with some of the longer-ranged ALCM...

Incidentally, that distance could also potentially be within strike range using P-8 Poseidons, if JASSM-ER were cleared for use from the aircraft.

To be honest, distance is not something that phases many people in the US and Canada either, given that both countries are within the top four largest by land area, while Australia is sixth.

As for needing to look at a maps, it would really depend on where I am traveling to. A specific solo drive of ~1,200 km that I have been known to do with only a day's notice can be done from memory and in about 14 hours.

Lastly...

I don't know why it bothers me that there are even parts of the Australian mainland that we probably couldn't strike at

Google Maps

I don't think we could bomb Port Headland.

Did you mean Port Hedland WA? If so, then it would really be a surprising shame that the RAAF could not reach that location with ordnance, since it is just over 600 km from RAAF Base Curtin, and RAAF Base Learmonth is closer still, being just over 500 km away...

 

[old faithful]

AND



3,200 km is not what I would describe as 'close' but it is significantly closer to mainland Australia than the 4,000 to 5,000 km that another poster had suggested. BTW it is also ~1,600 km from Butterworth. An additional item worth mentioning is that a range of 3,200 km would also put RAAF Base Darwin within strike range of H-6 bombers armed with some of the longer-ranged ALCM...

Incidentally, that distance could also potentially be within strike range using P-8 Poseidons, if JASSM-ER were cleared for use from the aircraft.

To be honest, distance is not something that phases many people in the US and Canada either, given that both countries are within the top four largest by land area, while Australia is sixth.

As for needing to look at a maps, it would really depend on where I am traveling to. A specific solo drive of ~1,200 km that I have been known to do with only a day's notice can be done from memory and in about 14 hours.

Lastly...


Did you mean Port Hedland WA? If so, then it would really be a surprising shame that the RAAF could not reach that location with ordnance, since it is just over 600 km from RAAF Base Curtin, and RAAF Base Learmonth is closer still, being just over 500 km away...

curtin and learmonth are bare bases. They are runways in the bush.

 

[ngatimozart]

I don't think we could bomb Port Hedland.

You can as long as you don't hit my sisters place.

 

[Todjaeger]

curtin and learmonth are bare bases. They are runways in the bush.

Learmonth is still a bare base AFAIK, but I believe that Curtin is now a joint facility, functioning as Curtin Airport serving Derby which is about 35 km away.

Of course one of the major reasons behind the construction of what were at the time to be four 'bare bases' would be to enable the RAAF to rapidly redeploy aircraft to areas which were able to cover the northern approaches to the continent. One of the reasons why permanent staffed bases were not established was that a number of the areas were quite remote, with little in the way of location population.

Since then, RAAF Base Tindall has had aircraft and personnel permanently station there, and RAAF Base Curtin sees joint military and civilian use, not unlike RAAF Base Darwin, which shares space with Darwin Int'l Airport. As a side note, Broome Int'l Airport has in the past seen RAAF operations, and IIRC was also supporting a Surveillance Australia DHC/Bombardier 'Dash 8' in a maritime patrol configuration.

 

[foxdemon]

A question as well as a comment. When you mention AS missiles, are you referring to air-to-surface, or anti-ship missiles?

The closest PRC airfield with a ~3,000 m runway is ~3,200 km from Darwin, on one of the reclaimed or built up islands in the Spratlys, just about in the middle of the SCS. This same island also appears to have some port facilities. If the PRC continues to object to FON through the SCS, and/or rejecting that most of the SCS is international waters, then neutralizing air and naval bases which could be used to reinforce such claims would quickly become a priority.

I mean anti ship missiles. A number of people, including myself, feel P-8s would benefit from longer ranged anti ship missiles so as to create an sea access denial capability. My vote goes for LRASM but others advocate JSM, which might reach the radar limit given the launch altitude and a suitable flight profile.

The traditional bomber is not the only possible solution to deliver an unpleasant surprise.

Attached is a reasonably current RAAF paper on hypersonics http://airpower.airforce.gov.au/APDC/media/PDF-Files/BPAF Series/BPAF01-Hypersonic-Air-Power.pdf

The following attachment lists some of the Australian players and shows a picture of a launch at Woomera
Hypersonic flight test goes like a rocket

Hypersonics will eventually evolve from one-way packages to survivable autonomous vehicles. Australia currently has a competent hypersonics research capability - if we get too concerned, either alone or in collaboration with others, we could develop a military hypersonics capability that could deliver a totally unmanned strike, surveillance and interceptor force).

Thanks for that article.

So maybe it is the hyper velocity weapons threat that is getting Australian defense planners interested in long range strike options? The idea being to launch preemptive attacks before those weapons can be launched, given active defences can’t stop them.

I would take issue with that. The article mentions passive defences. Surely this would be the best response? Getting back to bombing airfields, a military airfield isn’t that easy to suppress due to these passive measures. Harding, dispersal, camouflage, decoy and recovery. The article didn’t mention recovery but did mention mobility and redundancy, as it referred to force protection generally. All these together reduce the effects of an attack. Recovery is quite important. Basically damage control parties that get the base back up and running again

This is why I think stealth bombers would be better at airfield suppression than ballistic missiles (if using conventional warheads) or the few cruise missiles the RAAF might be able to employ. Same goes for hypersonic weapons unless used in large numbers. The bomber can bring enough Ordnance to saturate all those damage reduction measures and then come back to do it again tomorrow. The others only cause temporary disruption to air operations.

Of course the RAAF doesn’t have stealth bombers. I have no idea of what platform they might be contemplating for their preemptive long range strike capability.

But is an aggressive preemption doctrine employing long range strike a good idea? Maybe training for coping with bases being attacked and recovering quickly would be better. After all, preemptive strike doctrines have a habit of spiralling out of control.

 

[ASSAIL]

Learmonth is still a bare base AFAIK, but I believe that Curtin is now a joint facility, functioning as Curtin Airport serving Derby which is about 35 km away.

Of course one of the major reasons behind the construction of what were at the time to be four 'bare bases' would be to enable the RAAF to rapidly redeploy aircraft to areas which were able to cover the northern approaches to the continent. One of the reasons why permanent staffed bases were not established was that a number of the areas were quite remote, with little in the way of location population.

Since then, RAAF Base Tindall has had aircraft and personnel permanently station there, and RAAF Base Curtin sees joint military and civilian use, not unlike RAAF Base Darwin, which shares space with Darwin Int'l Airport. As a side note, Broome Int'l Airport has in the past seen RAAF operations, and IIRC was also supporting a Surveillance Australia DHC/Bombardier 'Dash 8' in a maritime patrol configuration.

All the Bare bases are regularly fully mobilised during large scale exercises and Learmonth ( Exmouth), Curtain (Derby) and Tyndall (Katherine) are RPT airports.

 

[south]

I don't know why it bothers me that there are even parts of the Australian mainland that we probably couldn't strike at

Google Maps

I don't think we could bomb Port Headland.

From Tindal - 1500km - Easy.

Worst case, From Williamtown - less so. But given the OKRA strike element has demonstrated the ability to fly 2000km from the Host Nation to Eastern Syria, conduct a few hours on station, and then rtb routinely I would argue the 3500km from would be certainly be in the realm of the possible. This is even more so if JASSM or in the future JASSM ER (or similar) were to be employed.

 

[Todjaeger]

I mean anti ship missiles. A number of people, including myself, feel P-8s would benefit from longer ranged anti ship missiles so as to create an sea access denial capability. My vote goes for LRASM but others advocate JSM, which might reach the radar limit given the launch altitude and a suitable flight profile.

JSM is more of a land attack missile than an anti-ship missile (AShM), for that you might want NSM.

Me being me, I would be more inclined to have the RAAF follow whatever AShM programme the US is planning to field from the P-8A Poseidon. That should reduce weapons integration costs significantly, alongside spiral development costs while both expanding the user base significantly, as well as introducing a weapon that would likely have a greater variety of roles available.

Thanks for that article.

So maybe it is the hyper velocity weapons threat that is getting Australian defense planners interested in long range strike options? The idea being to launch preemptive attacks before those weapons can be launched, given active defences can’t stop them.

I would take issue with that. The article mentions passive defences. Surely this would be the best response? Getting back to bombing airfields, a military airfield isn’t that easy to suppress due to these passive measures. Harding, dispersal, camouflage, decoy and recovery. The article didn’t mention recovery but did mention mobility and redundancy, as it referred to force protection generally. All these together reduce the effects of an attack. Recovery is quite important. Basically damage control parties that get the base back up and running again

This is why I think stealth bombers would be better at airfield suppression than ballistic missiles (if using conventional warheads) or the few cruise missiles the RAAF might be able to employ. Same goes for hypersonic weapons unless used in large numbers. The bomber can bring enough Ordnance to saturate all those damage reduction measures and then come back to do it again tomorrow. The others only cause temporary disruption to air operations.

Of course the RAAF doesn’t have stealth bombers. I have no idea of what platform they might be contemplating for their preemptive long range strike capability.

But is an aggressive preemption doctrine employing long range strike a good idea? Maybe training for coping with bases being attacked and recovering quickly would be better. After all, preemptive strike doctrines have a habit of spiralling out of control.

I have a somewhat different take on how viable long-ranged attacks upon hostile, or potentially hostile airbases are. Given the pace and ferocity modern warfare can achieve between advanced, peer-level armed forces, even temporary reductions in capacity or performance from an airbase at a strategic location in the opening stages of hostilities could have a significant impact on the outcome of a campaign.

Passive measures can make it more difficult, or require a larger strike package to achieve the desired impact, but in and of themselves are IMO insufficient to stop a strike from being successful, particularly if the objective is to reduce or destroy a static emplacement of strategic value. Also, if the attackers have been paying attention, then several of the passive defensive measures will be of at least significantly reduced effective, if not rendered ineffective outright. For instance, it would be rather difficult for an airbase to disperse and/or camoflauge fixed infrastructure like fuel storage tanks, unless these efforts were designed into the storage tanks at the time of their construction. Any damage to or loss of the fuel tanks would immediately reduce both the amount of fuel available at the base to refuel aircraft, vehicles, ships, etc. but also the amount of fuel the base is able to store. Or alternatively, the fuel tanks themselves could remain intact and with minimal damage but the systems used to distribute the fuel from the tanks could be damaged or destroyed, rendering the tanks and stored fuel largely irrelevant. A RAAF base would have a difficult time sustaining operations with minimal usable/accessible fuel stocks, particularly if the base was trying to support larger aircraft that would be operating at range (E-7, P-8, C-17, etc.) and/or the base was one of the more remote one, some distance from most Australian ports and fuel infrastructure. The situation holds true for Army and RAN bases as well, though IMO the situation would be more serious for a RAN base than Army.

There are of course other fixed installations located at a hypothetical base aside from just fuel facilities that could be struck as well, but I just used fuel infrastructure as an example.

 

[ngatimozart]

JSM is more of a land attack missile than an anti-ship missile (AShM), for that you might want NSM.

Me being me, I would be more inclined to have the RAAF follow whatever AShM programme the US is planning to field from the P-8A Poseidon. That should reduce weapons integration costs significantly, alongside spiral development costs while both expanding the user base significantly, as well as introducing a weapon that would likely have a greater variety of roles available.

JSM is a derivative of the NSM that has been modified to fit into the F-35 mission bay and it is both a land attack and AShM. Kongsberg stated that right from the get go. Harpoon is presently fielded on the P-8 by the USN, but it's well past it's use by date and is basically obsolete because it does not have stealth or avoidance capabilities.

I have a somewhat different take on how viable long-ranged attacks upon hostile, or potentially hostile airbases are. Given the pace and ferocity modern warfare can achieve between advanced, peer-level armed forces, even temporary reductions in capacity or performance from an airbase at a strategic location in the opening stages of hostilities could have a significant impact on the outcome of a campaign.

Passive measures can make it more difficult, or require a larger strike package to achieve the desired impact, but in and of themselves are IMO insufficient to stop a strike from being successful, particularly if the objective is to reduce or destroy a static emplacement of strategic value. Also, if the attackers have been paying attention, then several of the passive defensive measures will be of at least significantly reduced effective, if not rendered ineffective outright. For instance, it would be rather difficult for an airbase to disperse and/or camoflauge fixed infrastructure like fuel storage tanks, unless these efforts were designed into the storage tanks at the time of their construction. Any damage to or loss of the fuel tanks would immediately reduce both the amount of fuel available at the base to refuel aircraft, vehicles, ships, etc. but also the amount of fuel the base is able to store. Or alternatively, the fuel tanks themselves could remain intact and with minimal damage but the systems used to distribute the fuel from the tanks could be damaged or destroyed, rendering the tanks and stored fuel largely irrelevant. A RAAF base would have a difficult time sustaining operations with minimal usable/accessible fuel stocks, particularly if the base was trying to support larger aircraft that would be operating at range (E-7, P-8, C-17, etc.) and/or the base was one of the more remote one, some distance from most Australian ports and fuel infrastructure. The situation holds true for Army and RAN bases as well, though IMO the situation would be more serious for a RAN base than Army.

There are of course other fixed installations located at a hypothetical base aside from just fuel facilities that could be struck as well, but I just used fuel infrastructure as an example.

I agree fixed installations are prime targets and will always be vulnerable to enemy strikes. However widespread dispersal of important assets and consumables like fuel and munitions can limit the impact of a enemy strike on your sortie regeneration rate. If a nuke is used by the enemy then your problems are somewhat magnified. Having said that, such important installations should have good anti air / missile defence but in peacetime this is not seen as a necessary priority and it's too late when enemy warheads are inbound. WW2 has numerous examples of this.

 

[hairyman]

Anyone fancy the German version of the Typhoon, which they are beefing up to replace the Tornado, Europe's answer to the F111? If they get it to the same payload, 11 tons, it may be well worth considering.

 

[t68]

Anyone fancy the German version of the Typhoon, which they are beefing up to replace the Tornado, Europe's answer to the F111? If they get it to the same payload, 11 tons, it may be well worth considering.

Do you have a source on what they are doing to it to make it comparable to an F1 11?

 

[hauritz]

Anyone fancy the German version of the Typhoon, which they are beefing up to replace the Tornado, Europe's answer to the F111? If they get it to the same payload, 11 tons, it may be well worth considering.

Probably the closest match you would find to the F-111 would be the F-15E. It has a combat radius of over 1200 kms ... that compares to about 700kms for the Superhornet. I haven't been able to find accurate figures for the F-111 but Kopp claims about 1400 kms.

Australia never really considered the F-15E as an F-111 replacement, but really we could have done a lot worse.

 

[Boagrius]

Seems like fantasy land stuff to me. Another 4++ Gen jet with all the sig reduction/management issues that brings with it. Yesterday's technology with bells and whistles added. RAAF clearly want to go all 5th Gen sooner rather than later. Uber-Typhoon just doesn't gel there at all.