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

[Redlands18]

Not really. The first few years of a programme usually involve planning. Getting that planning started earlier can enable contract signing earlier which would in turn likely cause funding to be required sooner. OTOH the date of contract signing and/or start of production and delivery could be left alone.

One of the important things to keep in mind is just how long some of this stuff really takes. At one point about a decade ago, a specific DT member who was involved in ADF planning and procurement mentioned that Australia was averaging a 14 year time frame between the start date for new projects, and the in-service date. As things stand now, it seems like major projects usually take about a two year time frame between the issuance of a RFT, and contract signing. Given that getting to where there is a RFT requires a number of phases be completed first, getting more of what needs to be done out of the way to give more time if/when needed for other phases of a project, I am not terribly fussed about getting a head start on things.

I think the issue here is what the definition of a program is, the definition i used was from the 2016 DWP/IIP. Of course there is still a lot of work to be done before you actually start the program and that work started at least in 2014/15 to be included in the DWP.

 

[John Newman]

Is it normal for a RFI to be released 2 years before a program is due to start? According to the IIP the Lead in Fighter Trainer replacement is due to run 2022-33, certainly a pretty decent heads up otherwise.

It may well be that the LiFT replacement may happen a bit sooner:

RFI released for RAAF Hawk 127 LIF replacement | ADBR

The Commonwealth has released a Request for Information to industry for technologies that could lead to the replacement of the RAAF’s BAE Hawk 127 lead in fighter capability. The RFI…

adbr.com.au

Interesting article in ADBR, by Andrew McLaughlin, regarding the RFI release, couple of interesting paragraphs:

"The Hawk is powered by the Rolls-Royce Turbomeca Adour Mk 871 which, in recent years has become increasingly difficult to support and has experienced cracking in the low bypass turbine. Engine problems and a persistent wing fatigue issue have led to a couple of groundings of the fleet, the last one in 2019.

"ADBR understands the RAAF is looking at an option to re-engine the aircraft with the newer R-R Adour 951 engine, although this has had a luke-warm reception due to the aircraft’s age and its ongoing fatigue issues. The Hawk also lacks the secure systems required to conduct integrated training and operations with F-35, EA-18G, E-7A, and other next-generation systems.

"Industry sources suggest the program could accelerate once the RFI responses are received, and that the planned life-of-type of the Hawk could be brought forward due to the engine and fatigue issues."

Normally I take most things written in the Media, even Defence Media with a grain of salt, but I've usually found that Andrew's articles (going back many years with AA magazine too) are usually pretty accurate.

If the problems with the Hawk fleet are as large as Andrew is suggesting, then it might well be a waste of money to perform the upgrades mentioned above, bringing the replacement forward a few years might well be a more sensible use of money.

For those old enough to remember, the aircraft that was replace by Hawk, the Macchi MB-326H, also had structural problems that let to earlier retirement despite the aircraft having gone through a wing replacement program, history repeating itself??

Cheers,

 

[John Newman]

The RAAFs first F-35A, A35-001, has now reached 1000 flight hours:

1,000 Hours on the Clock and Counting

The article also goes on to confirm that the RAAF has now received 26 airframes, 17 based in Australia (I had read elsewhere that 12 are assigned to 3Sqn and five with 2OCU), five based in the US with the International PTC, and another four airframes that will be ferried to Australia before August (I read elsewhere they should arrived next month, July).

All ticking along smoothly,

Cheers,

(PS, I often wonder how the APA Goon squad react to that sort of good news? Ha Ha!).

 

[ngatimozart]

(PS, I often wonder how the APA Goon squad react to that sort of good news? Ha Ha!).

Can't you hear the gnashing of teeth, the tearing of hair, that rendering of cloth, and the incessant ghostly wailing? It is like wistful winsome music upon the gentle breeze.

 

[John Newman]

Came across this article on the Super Hornet fleet the other day too:

Training Flight Trial Launched at Amberley

It would appear that the RAAF is bringing Super Hornet conversion training back here to Oz.

If I remember correctly back when 6 Sqn became the Growler Sqn and handed it's airframes to 1 Sqn (making a total of 24 airframes), the OCU work was sent offshore to the USN.

Hope it all works well bringing it all back in house.

Cheers,

 

[John Newman]

Can't you hear the gnashing of teeth, the tearing of hair, that rendering of cloth, and the incessant ghostly wailing? It is like wistful winsome music upon the gentle breeze.

I actually googled APA a little while ago to see if their website was still live and active, and guess what? Yes it still live!

But .......

The last update to the site was in January 2014! Ha ha ha!!!

 

[StobieWan]

I actually googled APA a little while ago to see if their website was still live and active, and guess what? Yes it still live!

But .......

The last update to the site was in January 2014! Ha ha ha!!!

Is there a comments section ? We should pop over

 

[Bob53]

I actually googled APA a little while ago to see if their website was still live and active, and guess what? Yes it still live!

But .......

The last update to the site was in January 2014! Ha ha ha!!!

i hope this isn’t classed as fantasy by the mods but assuming the APA guys got their way and F111 were still flying, what additional capability would they providing vs the current air fleet and that of 2025? Aside from range nothing is coming to mind at this point?

 

[Redlands18]

i hope this isn’t classed as fantasy by the mods but assuming the APA guys got their way and F111 were still flying, what additional capability would they providing vs the current air fleet and that of 2025? Aside from range nothing is coming to mind at this point?

Might be worth a read through the early days of this thread, there would certainly be a far bit of discussion on APA and there proposals.
I wouldn’t push this discussion here, APA is not well regarded here and the F-111 upgrade would definitely come under fantasy.

 

[Pusser01]

Might be worth a read through the early days of this thread, there would certainly be a far bit of discussion on APA and there proposals.
I wouldn’t push this discussion here, APA is not well regarded here and the F-111 upgrade would definitely come under fantasy.

APA are still trying to push their cause on their "Best Fighter For Australia" page on Facebook. I have a look every now & then for a laugh.
Cheers. https://www.facebook.com/bestfighteraustralia/?epa=SEARCH_BOX

 

[Todjaeger]

i hope this isn’t classed as fantasy by the mods but assuming the APA guys got their way and F111 were still flying, what additional capability would they providing vs the current air fleet and that of 2025? Aside from range nothing is coming to mind at this point?

Effectively none, including range. IMO it would actually have resulted in a loss of RAAF capability compared to where the RAAF is currently.

To better understand this, look into why the F-111C was replaced when it was, what it was replaced with, and why.

 

[Mark_Evans]

N

APA are still trying to push their cause on their "Best Fighter For Australia" page on Facebook. I have a look every now & then for a laugh.
Cheers. https://www.facebook.com/bestfighteraustralia/?epa=SEARCH_BOX

Not exactly fans of the F35 are they.
I will have a look and see what posts bring a chuckle or three.
Ok. 5 minutes looking in the rabbit hole and had to eject.

 

[John Newman]

Is there a comments section ? We should pop over

As mentioned by Pusser01 they now operate a Facebook page, it might be fun pop over there and make a few comments!!

 

[John Newman]

i hope this isn’t classed as fantasy by the mods but assuming the APA guys got their way and F111 were still flying, what additional capability would they providing vs the current air fleet and that of 2025? Aside from range nothing is coming to mind at this point?

Whilst I'm sure that we all miss The Pig, probably mostly with our hearts rather than our heads, lets not forget that had they not been retired in 2010, their planned retirement date was set for 2020, eg, this year!

The airframes were first introduced to service 47 years ago, and they were built 52 years ago. And lets not forget that when the USAF retired their fleet of F-111s, the RAAF became the sole operator, the sole operator of a relatively small fleet too.

Can you imagine the cost and effort to maintain and keep such a small fleet relevant as at today? I can imagine that it would have required a huge chunk of time, effort and money.

There is one question that I have thought about from time to time, if the US had actually gone ahead and produced a direct replacement for the F-111 (eg, long unrefuelled range with a decent weapons load), would the RAAF had been interested in procuring said long range strike aircraft??

Cheers,

 

[Redlands18]

Whilst I'm sure that we all miss The Pig, probably mostly with our hearts rather than our heads, lets not forget that had they not been retired in 2010, their planned retirement date was set for 2020, eg, this year!

The airframes were first introduced to service 47 years ago, and they were built 52 years ago. And lets not forget that when the USAF retired their fleet of F-111s, the RAAF became the sole operator, the sole operator of a relatively small fleet too.

Can you imagine the cost and effort to maintain and keep such a small fleet relevant as at today? I can imagine that it would have required a huge chunk of time, effort and money.

There is one question that I have thought about from time to time, if the US had actually gone ahead and produced a direct replacement for the F-111 (eg, long unrefuelled range with a decent weapons load), would the RAAF had been interested in procuring said long range strike aircraft??

Cheers,

Probably the closest we saw to a new Gen US Strike Aircraft, somewhere in the same class was the A-12 Avenger 11 for the USN, and it got out of control cost wise and was cancelled, my suspicion would be that using the $2b B-2 as some sort of guide you might be looking at somewhere North of a quarter of a billion USD each,

 

[John Newman]

Probably the closest we saw to a new Gen US Strike Aircraft, somewhere in the same class was the A-12 Avenger 11 for the USN, and it got out of control cost wise and was cancelled, my suspicion would be that using the $2b B-2 as some sort of guide you might be looking at somewhere North of a quarter of a billion USD each,

Firstly, I wasn't referring to or suggesting that the RAAF procure a strategic long range bomber/strike aircraft such as B-52, B-1, B-2 or B-21, so lets leave them out of the mix.

As for the A-12 Avenger II, it was planned to be more of a direct replacement for the A-6 Intruder, according to Wiki the A-12 was to have range of 1500km (which appears to be comparable to the A-6 which had a combat radius of 1626km and a ferry range of 5219km).

The F-111C on the other hand, according to Wiki, had a combat radius of 2140km and a ferry range of 6760km, to my way of thinking, the F-111 was actually in a class of its own, right in the middle of shorter range fighter and strike aircraft at one end and strategic bombers at the other end.

It's probably going to remain a rather unique aircraft that we won't ever see a one for one replacement for.

Cheers,

 

[John Newman]

Following on from above, here's a little something to ponder .......

What is short/tactical range? What is mid/medium range? What is long/strategic range? Is it as simple as saying that short is 1000km-1500km or mid is 2000km-3000km or long is 5000km+, is it as simple as that? (and of course I’m referring to combat radius, not ferry range, two different animals).

I think the answer is more to do with where you are geographically located on the globe.

Let’s look at two countries that both start with AUST, there is Austria right in the middle of Europe, land locked and completely surrounded, and there is Australia that sits at the cross roads of the Indian and Pacific Oceans, right at the bottom of Asia and nothing below but a lot of water and Antarctica.

Let’s also assume that in some alternate reality Austria and Australia had both operated F-111Cs during the same time period (and with no organic tanker support either).

According to Wiki, the F-111C had a combat radius of 2140km, for Austria in geographic terms, that is a long/strategic range capability, an F-111C based in Vienna would have had the unrefuelled capability to strike every other country in Europe (including Russia and Moscow), Scandinavia and most of North Africa too.

For Australia it is a different story, if an F-111C was based in Darwin, it could strike Indonesia, Timor, PNG, maybe just the very bottom of the Philippines and not much else. An interesting fact, Manus Island is at a distance of 2107km from Darwin, right on the very edge of the F-111Cs combat radius (one more interesting fact, Manus Island is 4573km from Shanghai).

So what does that all mean? Maybe not much?

But it is an interesting bit of information regarding geography and distance. Long range is like the old saying about a piece of string, it’s as long as you cut it (or as long a distance you are from wherever you are measuring that distance).

Did Australia ever possess a long/strategic range capability? Yes certainly during the time of confrontation with Indonesia, but since the end of that confrontation, I would suggest not for a long time, even prior to the F-111Cs being retired (based on our geography).

As at today (the here and now), the RAAFs maritime strike capability is P-8A, Super and Classic Hornets armed with Harpoon, and P-8A is no doubt the longest ranged of all three, from a land attack point of view the RAAF has Supers armed with JSOW-C1 and Classics armed with JASSM.

I would suggest that in fact it may possibly(?) be the soon to be retired Classic fleet that has the longest ranged land attack capability, JASSM has a reported range of 370k, JSOW-C1 (which is an unpowered glide bomb) has a reported range between 22km and 130km, depending on launch profile.

Will be interesting to see if we get any sort of announcement in the next couple of years regarding what will happen to JASSM when the last of the Classic fleet retires.

Anyway, does the RAAF have a short range capability? Certainly yes, now and well into the future. Does the RAAF have a medium range capability? Certainly yes, but only with sufficient tanker support and armed with the appropriate land and maritime attack weapons.

The big question, does the RAAF have, or will have, a long/strategic range capability against the obvious potential threat in our part of the world? Definitely not, even with a lot of tanker support and very long range weapon capability the combat radius will probably be somewhere around 3000km, give or take at the very extreme, sounds like a long way, but not really in our part of the world.

The only way the RAAF will ever have a long/strategic range strike capability is if it acquires something that has a range capability well beyond anything currently planned for service, and as we know, that capability won’t be acquired.

The RAAF long range baton has been handed over to the RAN, but in reality that capability won’t materialize for at least another 12-15 years or so, at least not until the first of the Attack class has reached FOC and is equipped with a land attack type capability too.

Cheers,

 

[ngatimozart]

The way I see it John, at present the only way that the RAAF can present a long range deterrent capability for the Australian homeland, is to have a strike sqn based in a third country well to the north. That creates another set of problems including the reduction of the capability for Australia to launch strikes at will, because the third party may refuse to allow their country to be used for such purposes.

Maybe you could look at launching dropbears using ballistic missiles as launch vehicles. You would only need about 5,000 nm range and the dropbears will be real grumpy when they arrive at the destination. Sure they'll be particular to some Chinese tucker.

 

[Todjaeger]

Following on from above, here's a little something to ponder .......

What is short/tactical range? What is mid/medium range? What is long/strategic range? Is it as simple as saying that short is 1000km-1500km or mid is 2000km-3000km or long is 5000km+, is it as simple as that? (and of course I’m referring to combat radius, not ferry range, two different animals).

I think the answer is more to do with where you are geographically located on the globe.

Let’s look at two countries that both start with AUST, there is Austria right in the middle of Europe, land locked and completely surrounded, and there is Australia that sits at the cross roads of the Indian and Pacific Oceans, right at the bottom of Asia and nothing below but a lot of water and Antarctica.

Let’s also assume that in some alternate reality Austria and Australia had both operated F-111Cs during the same time period (and with no organic tanker support either).

According to Wiki, the F-111C had a combat radius of 2140km, for Austria in geographic terms, that is a long/strategic range capability, an F-111C based in Vienna would have had the unrefuelled capability to strike every other country in Europe (including Russia and Moscow), Scandinavia and most of North Africa too.

For Australia it is a different story, if an F-111C was based in Darwin, it could strike Indonesia, Timor, PNG, maybe just the very bottom of the Philippines and not much else. An interesting fact, Manus Island is at a distance of 2107km from Darwin, right on the very edge of the F-111Cs combat radius (one more interesting fact, Manus Island is 4573km from Shanghai).

So what does that all mean? Maybe not much?

But it is an interesting bit of information regarding geography and distance. Long range is like the old saying about a piece of string, it’s as long as you cut it (or as long a distance you are from wherever you are measuring that distance).

Did Australia ever possess a long/strategic range capability? Yes certainly during the time of confrontation with Indonesia, but since the end of that confrontation, I would suggest not for a long time, even prior to the F-111Cs being retired (based on our geography).

As at today (the here and now), the RAAFs maritime strike capability is P-8A, Super and Classic Hornets armed with Harpoon, and P-8A is no doubt the longest ranged of all three, from a land attack point of view the RAAF has Supers armed with JSOW-C1 and Classics armed with JASSM.

I would suggest that in fact it may possibly(?) be the soon to be retired Classic fleet that has the longest ranged land attack capability, JASSM has a reported range of 370k, JSOW-C1 (which is an unpowered glide bomb) has a reported range between 22km and 130km, depending on launch profile.

Will be interesting to see if we get any sort of announcement in the next couple of years regarding what will happen to JASSM when the last of the Classic fleet retires.

Anyway, does the RAAF have a short range capability? Certainly yes, now and well into the future. Does the RAAF have a medium range capability? Certainly yes, but only with sufficient tanker support and armed with the appropriate land and maritime attack weapons.

The big question, does the RAAF have, or will have, a long/strategic range capability against the obvious potential threat in our part of the world? Definitely not, even with a lot of tanker support and very long range weapon capability the combat radius will probably be somewhere around 3000km, give or take at the very extreme, sounds like a long way, but not really in our part of the world.

The only way the RAAF will ever have a long/strategic range strike capability is if it acquires something that has a range capability well beyond anything currently planned for service, and as we know, that capability won’t be acquired.

The RAAF long range baton has been handed over to the RAN, but in reality that capability won’t materialize for at least another 12-15 years or so, at least not until the first of the Attack class has reached FOC and is equipped with a land attack type capability too.

Cheers,

I agree that the range question is rather like asking, "how long is a piece of string..." but certain things have not changed. Australia has never, to my knowledge, ever possessed an intercontinental strike capability. If the position is that the primary threat to Australia is who I think it is, and thus causing Australia to have a possible need for a 3,000+ km strike range, then one is really talking about an intercontinental strike.

Given that would require a strike package crossing the airspace of one or more other countries, I do not really see that as viable.

From a practical perspective, the F-111C could most likely only have provided a longer-ranged, un-escorted strike capability in the first decade of actual RAAF service. The aircraft itself certainly had long range and was capable of high speed, but by a certain point it became vulnerable to detection to hostile air, and then interception.

 

[south]

Australia procures third Triton

A welcome boost to the ISR fleet...