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

[Redlands18]

The new C-130Js are beyond doubt the best tactical aircraft to replace the old A/E/H/Js. Please forget about A400 and the stupidly political C-27J (absolutely nothing against the peps of 35SQN).
We just need to get enough frames and introduce the helicopter AAR / non strategic F-18F/G AAR roles.
The next best thing would be to bring Apache and Chinook back into proper air power and the RAAF, after the disaster of Army stewardship.

The Army has been operating Chinooks since the mid 90s, including operational deployments into a war zone. They operated Blackhawks from around 1990 to 2021, without any issues at all (except for the 1996 collision), so how have they been a disaster? I don't know if there is enough information in the public domain to say whether the Tiger and Taipan problems would not have occurred with RAAF stewardship. Also, there is virtually no experience left in the RAAF for operating Helicopters.
The future medium airlift fleet looks to be pretty much settled on 24 C-130Js but no KC-130Js at this time, so no Helo AAR capability at this time. I would not say that the C-130J is beyond doubt the best but as an all-up package they suit Australia's requirements better than the A400, C-2 or C-390

 

[Stampede]

I was thinking in the context of maritime interdiction against PLAN surface action groups and carrier battle groups. Keeping them as far away from Australia as possible. Hitting mobile DF-21 and DF-26 launchers and airfields on those artificial islands in the South China Sea which threaten our surface action groups. A squadron of B-21s would be ideal for this role and would be acting in a joint role (in concert with other assets e.g SSNs) so as to ensure freedom of movement for our navy and army in the maritime domain. They can perform this role quickly and repeatedly over and over again. The P-8s should be hunting PLAN submarines which is their forte ( not going up against Type 55 AAW destroyers).

I confess to not being a big fan of the B-21 for the ADF.
Sure it would likely do what you propose, but I'm concerned as to what we would give up to acquire such a capability.
Too expensive and niche for my liking.

Anyway just my two bobs worth.


Cheers S

 

[Bob53]

Your overall point is 100% correct, however I’d note that the modelling I think you’re talking about indicates that the NDIS is tracking towards a total cost of $60bn p.a. - not $60bn over 8 years.

When put into this context the proposed spend on the National Shipbuilding Plan ($160bn to $180bn) pales into to insignificance against the net present value of this liability ($2.1trn).

$80bn over 20 years for a B21 program is very affordable in this context. But your overall point - that it’s still an inefficient use of these funds that can be better put to use elsewhere and the capability delivered by other platforms - is spot on.

Slightly off topic but in context. NDIS was initially estimared to have around 200k + participants. Now at around 500k and estimates are saying will hit 600k participants within 5 years. NDIS Quarterly Report: NDIS now supporting more than half a million Australians | NDIS

I read an article that I cannot find that The NDIS spending will exceed the combined federal spend on defence and education by 2026… this article just says will exceed $50billion. NDIS forecast to cost extra $8.8bn over estimates as Shorten announces independent review

 

[ngatimozart]

The B-21 is very nice and flash looking. They had a real flash show debuting it yesterday.

However, it hasn't flown yet. It's only at the beginning of its flight development program. USAF high tech aircraft procurement hasn't the best record both time and cost wise. The B-2 and F-22 acquisition numbers were severely cut back because of costs. The B-1A was canned by Jimmy Carter because of the ongoing delays and costs. It was only later that the B-1B saw the light of day and went operational. The current KC-46 is a continuing "disaster" because of Boeing's ineptitude. The F-35 has had delays cost overruns, the full gamut, and it hasn't even gone into full production yet after what, 20 years.

A lot can happen between now and when the B-21 Raider becomes IOC with the USAF. I think some peoples attitudes that you require this aircraft to go chasing screaming red hordes of foreign devils north of the equator are somewhat over the top. I will be brutally honest, just because the USAF has it doesn't mean that the ADF should have it. As much as my mate @John Newman makes a good argument about affordability, given the current state of affairs, I would argue that whilst have the best kit is good, a B-21 cannot be in two places at once; even a Borg cube can't do that, yet. It is my opinion that Australia starts needing to build up numbers of good quality platforms. F-35s, E-7As, P-8As, KC-30, HALE, MALE, F-18F and Growlers etc., because that is what will be needed more than any flash new bomber that's years, if not decades away. Quantity also has a quality of its own and now quantity is in greater need than quality.

Next is munitions and logistics; Australian needs to sort out its munitions supply, missiles, bombs, cannon shells etc., and the other 1001 things required to keep its aircraft flying and fighting. Maybe it's time to start building up stocks of aircraft spares and munitions. For example things like 155mm shells are becoming very had to acquire now because of the Ukrainian requirement for them. NATO incl., US have run their stocks fairly low and industry isn't able to replace war stocks at anywhere near the rate required. The BAE plant at Washington in the UK makes tens of thousands of shells a year.

So it would be better to focus on what's actually achievable within the next ten years; something that you'll have FOC and battle ready rather than a maybe. Because if / when the war comes a maybe capability is about as useful to you as nipples on a bull.

 

[Todjaeger]

The B-21 is very nice and flash looking. They had a real flash show debuting it yesterday.

However, it hasn't flown yet. It's only at the beginning of its flight development program. USAF high tech aircraft procurement hasn't the best record both time and cost wise. The B-2 and F-22 acquisition numbers were severely cut back because of costs. The B-1A was canned by Jimmy Carter because of the ongoing delays and costs. It was only later that the B-1B saw the light of day and went operational. The current KC-46 is a continuing "disaster" because of Boeing's ineptitude. The F-35 has had delays cost overruns, the full gamut, and it hasn't even gone into full production yet after what, 20 years.

A lot can happen between now and when the B-21 Raider becomes IOC with the USAF. I think some peoples attitudes that you require this aircraft to go chasing screaming red hordes of foreign devils north of the equator are somewhat over the top. I will be brutally honest, just because the USAF has it doesn't mean that the ADF should have it. As much as my mate @John Newman makes a good argument about affordability, given the current state of affairs, I would argue that whilst have the best kit is good, a B-21 cannot be in two places at once; even a Borg cube can't do that, yet. It is my opinion that Australia starts needing to build up numbers of good quality platforms. F-35s, E-7As, P-8As, KC-30, HALE, MALE, F-18F and Growlers etc., because that is what will be needed more than any flash new bomber that's years, if not decades away. Quantity also has a quality of its own and now quantity is in greater need than quality.

Next is munitions and logistics; Australian needs to sort out its munitions supply, missiles, bombs, cannon shells etc., and the other 1001 things required to keep its aircraft flying and fighting. Maybe it's time to start building up stocks of aircraft spares and munitions. For example things like 155mm shells are becoming very had to acquire now because of the Ukrainian requirement for them. NATO incl., US have run their stocks fairly low and industry isn't able to replace war stocks at anywhere near the rate required. The BAE plant at Washington in the UK makes tens of thousands of shells a year.

So it would be better to focus on what's actually achievable within the next ten years; something that you'll have FOC and battle ready rather than a maybe. Because if / when the war comes a maybe capability is about as useful to you as nipples on a bull.

TBH I am not certain I agree regarding the potential affordability for Australia/the ADF re: B-21 Raider. Consider the whole of the systems of systems approach to battlespace management. The US has a range of sensing and datalink capabilities which could enable a long-ranged LO strategic strike platform (B-21 Raider) to take off from safe base, fly hundreds or even thousands of kms to a launch area, and then fire standoff ordnance at the intended targets which might be fixed or even potentially mobile, because the US has capabilities to detect where intended targets are and then relay that data to both launching platforms as well as some times of ordnance. AFAIK Australia has some ability to tap into US systems, as well as some ability to detect potential targets over broad areas (but not providing target quality data) but a capability like the B-21 Raider in Australian service would likely be limited to hitting relatively fixed targets at long range, unless Australia were to start investing in some of the systems which the US already has.

 

[Gooey]

Nga & Todga

I believe the point of air power is kinetic effects. If its required (yes, a huge word 'if') then VLR capability could be an option for CoA. Your argument that the money is better spent elsewhere or that ISR is not currently available to exploit distant targets are both 'glass half empty' ways of looking at the world.

The same arguments of costs and years from IOC/FOC and the complexity of high technology programs (which previously led to the Pig after a difficult start) is equally applicable to the RAN SSN procurement. Yet the long term risk and high cost SSN is planned to proceed because of its strategic benefits at the same time as other short term programs are undertaken, in a planned force structure.

Equally, there are future ISR programs for ADF and, as exemplified by AUKUS, increasing levels of tech exchanges; perhaps including intelligence. I understood CoA was addressing, or attempting to, war stocks of rockets etc by manufacturing them in Australia. The rest is 'just' ILS, something the RAAF is pretty good at.

The whole sacrificing capability thing to fund others is how RNZAF ended up with no ACF capability and the promised financial savings were not invested elsewhere into NZDF. Most importantly, NZ has shown how not to conduct a long term and planned (cough, yea right) force structure.

 

[Gooey]

The Army has been operating Chinooks since the mid 90s, .....

Red

I agree completely with your points.

I'm attempting to debate or highlight that attack and long range helicopter capability belongs in the domain of air power; that is central command and control for decentralised execution in the RAAF. The ship may well have sailed after Army bastard politics and I do not want to slight the commitment of past or current AAAvn. We may have to settle with an ineffective structure but the point remains.

WRT C-130 AAR; for a nation continent like Australia, the range/payload equations are obvious to me. Be it helicopter or additional support of F/G's.

 

[Volkodav]

Looking at history Australia first acquired strat

Red

I agree completely with your points.

I'm attempting to debate or highlight that attack and long range helicopter capability belongs in the domain of air power; that is central command and control for decentralised execution in the RAAF. The ship may well have sailed after Army bastard politics and I do not want to slight the commitment of past or current AAAvn. We may have to settle with an ineffective structure but the point remains.

WRT C-130 AAR; for a nation continent like Australia, the range/payload equations are obvious to me. Be it helicopter or additional support of F/G's.

If memory serves the RAAF Chinooks were retired when the RAAF refused to operate them any longer. Army was unable to take them on at the same time they were taking on the Blackhawks and remaining Iroquois.

 

[John Fedup]

Looking at history Australia first acquired strat

If memory serves the RAAF Chinooks were retired when the RAAF refused to operate them any longer. Army was unable to take them on at the same time they were taking on the Blackhawks and remaining Iroquois.

AFAIK all CAF air and CCG air assets are under jurisdiction of the RCAF. Debatable if that is a good solution. Probably some older RCN members see that as a reason senior was able to $hitcan HMS Bonneventure after a just completing a multi million refit.

 

[Todjaeger]

Nga & Todga

I believe the point of air power is kinetic effects. If its required (yes, a huge word 'if') then VLR capability could be an option for CoA. Your argument that the money is better spent elsewhere or that ISR is not currently available to exploit distant targets are both 'glass half empty' ways of looking at the world.

The same arguments of costs and years from IOC/FOC and the complexity of high technology programs (which previously led to the Pig after a difficult start) is equally applicable to the RAN SSN procurement. Yet the long term risk and high cost SSN is planned to proceed because of its strategic benefits at the same time as other short term programs are undertaken, in a planned force structure.

Equally, there are future ISR programs for ADF and, as exemplified by AUKUS, increasing levels of tech exchanges; perhaps including intelligence. I understood CoA was addressing, or attempting to, war stocks of rockets etc by manufacturing them in Australia. The rest is 'just' ILS, something the RAAF is pretty good at.

The whole sacrificing capability thing to fund others is how RNZAF ended up with no ACF capability and the promised financial savings were not invested elsewhere into NZDF. Most importantly, NZ has shown how not to conduct a long term and planned (cough, yea right) force structure.

Not quite the point I was attempting to make TBH.

I approach something like the arguments for (and against) the B-21 Raider by asking what the intended capability is? If long-ranged strike is the desired capability, there are a plethora of potential options to gain such a capability. However, there are also a host of follow-up questions regarding where the strikes would be taking place/targeting, as well as who/what is the target.

When I start considering various scenarios, I do not really see very many occasions when long-ranged strikes from ADF assets would not be better delivered by platforms other than something like the B-21 Raider. In many cases the term 'better' is rather subjective, but given that there are a number of planned platforms which could be utilized, that IMO makes much more sense than spending literally billions to acquire a small number of platforms to deliver a capability which is being largely replicated elsewhere within the ADF. Keep in mind that the per aircraft price for the B-21 Raider as of yesterday was ~USD$692 mil. per aircraft, and that is also assuming that there are no hidden costs being paid by black project funds. That works out with current conversion rates to over AUD$1 bil. per aircraft, which is starting to approach the platform costs for major fleet units.

The above touches on the systems of systems approach. What specific capabilities would a B-21 Raider in RAAF service bring to the ADF vs. what the ADF could gain by having a different platform? Further, how many B-21 Raiders would actually be needed to have such a capability and what else could be acquired with that level of funding, or what might need to be sacrificed in order to fund such a B-21 Raider purchase? One has to remember that the whole of the ADF really needs to be able to fit together in terms of the capabilities it provides to gov't.

Another approach to looking at this would be to consider specific scenarios where the B-21 Raider might be used by the RAAF and then consider what would be needed to make a platform useful for such a mission, as well as what alternatives might exist.

 

[Depot Dog]

https://www.airforce.gov.au/aircraft/18f-super-hornet

https://hars.org.au/general-dynamics-f-111c/

When the RAAF purchase niche combat aircraft we buy 24. We did this with the super hornet, Phantom, F111. Does anyone know why we do this?
Going on this track record, this could be the number B21 ordered. If the government decides to order them

Regards
DD

 

[Redlands18]

https://www.airforce.gov.au/aircraft/18f-super-hornet

https://hars.org.au/general-dynamics-f-111c/

When the RAAF purchase niche combat aircraft we buy 24. We did this with the super hornet, Phantom, F111. Does anyone know why we do this?
Going on this track record, this could be the number B21 ordered. If the government decides to order them

Regards
DD

McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in Australian service | Military Wiki | Fandom
We did not buy the Phantom, we ordered 24 F-111s in the mid 60s but due to development issues, meant we would not get them till 1973, the US loaned us 24 Phantoms from 1970-73.
Canberra Bomber - AFA - Air Force Association (raafa.org.au)
The RAAF operated a total of 52 Canberra's. We replaced the F-111s with Super Hornets, originally on a one for one basis, but have now added 12 EA-18Gs to 82 Wing as well. I don't think we can use 24 as a basis for any B-21 Buy. B-21s offer a vastly superior LR strike capability over even the F-111, so would you require the same number of aircraft as the F-111s. Also originally the FA-18F was only an interim buy for 10 years and would be replaced by 28 JSFs, this has been changed to a strike group of 24 Fs and 12 Gs, so in reality the 24 number has gone out the door anyway.

 

[CJR]

https://www.airforce.gov.au/aircraft/18f-super-hornet

https://hars.org.au/general-dynamics-f-111c/

When the RAAF purchase niche combat aircraft we buy 24. We did this with the super hornet, Phantom, F111. Does anyone know why we do this?
Going on this track record, this could be the number B21 ordered. If the government decides to order them

Regards
DD

Because, 18-24 airframes represents about the minimal viable force: Active squadron (10-14ish aircraft) + OCU (4-6ish aircraft) + attrition/maintenance reserve.

 

[Redlands18]

Because, 18-24 airframes represents about the minimal viable force: Active squadron (10-14ish aircraft) + OCU (4-6ish aircraft) + attrition/maintenance reserve.

Though most aircraft in the ADF don't have OCUs with their own aircraft, the F-35s and MRH-90s are the only exceptions that I know of and they are the only ones with aircraft home based at more than one site. F-35s, Williamstown and Tindall, MRH-90s in Townsville, Holsworthy and Oakey(trg). The rest are all based at one site and held in one pool of aircraft that is split between the Sqns, Trg or in maintenance.

 

[Todjaeger]

Because, 18-24 airframes represents about the minimal viable force: Active squadron (10-14ish aircraft) + OCU (4-6ish aircraft) + attrition/maintenance reserve.

Unfortunately though, there is no real information available in the public domain on what the B-21 Raider maintenance needs would be, or even what the capabilities are. One could make guesses about what the capabilities might be, but anything other than rather vague guesses we really do not know. Public domain has the size of the B-21 Raider as smaller than a B-2 Spirit, albeit with more advanced internals. This suggests that onboard payload would be less, but we do not know. Public statements also has that the range of a B-21 is to be greater than a B-2.

That leaves one with little information to go on in terms of what potential strike packages might be, what could be targeted, and so on. In short, no real idea on just how many aircraft would be required to meet scenario needs. For instance, if a strike mission required say 30 JASSM-ER to hit targets in a given area, we have no idea if B-21 Raiders could meet such a requirement, or if it could, how many would be required to delivery such ordnance.

In short, there are an awful lot of unknowns which makes having any serious, realistic discussion quite difficult for an aircraft with a flyaway cost of ~AUD$1 bil. each.

 

[Redlands18]

Unfortunately though, there is no real information available in the public domain on what the B-21 Raider maintenance needs would be, or even what the capabilities are. One could make guesses about what the capabilities might be, but anything other than rather vague guesses we really do not know. Public domain has the size of the B-21 Raider as smaller than a B-2 Spirit, albeit with more advanced internals. This suggests that onboard payload would be less, but we do not know. Public statements also has that the range of a B-21 is to be greater than a B-2.

That leaves one with little information to go on in terms of what potential strike packages might be, what could be targeted, and so on. In short, no real idea on just how many aircraft would be required to meet scenario needs. For instance, if a strike mission required say 30 JASSM-ER to hit targets in a given area, we have no idea if B-21 Raiders could meet such a requirement, or if it could, how many would be required to delivery such ordnance.

In short, there are an awful lot of unknowns which makes having any serious, realistic discussion quite difficult for an aircraft with a flyaway cost of ~AUD$1 bil. each.

And how much information would be getting passed on even to an Ally as close as Australia is? We have great access but even we don't get 100% and 100% doesn't flow the other way either.

 

[Todjaeger]

And how much information would be getting passed on even to an Ally as close as Australia is? We have great access but even we don't get 100% and 100% doesn't flow the other way either.

I was thinking more in terms of information on what potential payload combinations might be possible. If (and these are all big IF's) the B-21 Raider was available for Australia, then such information would become available since Australia would either be told, or could figure out how many SDB's, JSOW's, JASSM's, etc. could be carried by weight and/or by space available. As it stands now, we have no idea and therefore have no way to determine what is possible, what would be required, or how much it would likely cost.

 

[ngatimozart]

Nga & Todga

I believe the point of air power is kinetic effects. If its required (yes, a huge word 'if') then VLR capability could be an option for CoA. Your argument that the money is better spent elsewhere or that ISR is not currently available to exploit distant targets are both 'glass half empty' ways of looking at the world.

The same arguments of costs and years from IOC/FOC and the complexity of high technology programs (which previously led to the Pig after a difficult start) is equally applicable to the RAN SSN procurement. Yet the long term risk and high cost SSN is planned to proceed because of its strategic benefits at the same time as other short term programs are undertaken, in a planned force structure.

Equally, there are future ISR programs for ADF and, as exemplified by AUKUS, increasing levels of tech exchanges; perhaps including intelligence. I understood CoA was addressing, or attempting to, war stocks of rockets etc by manufacturing them in Australia. The rest is 'just' ILS, something the RAAF is pretty good at.

The whole sacrificing capability thing to fund others is how RNZAF ended up with no ACF capability and the promised financial savings were not invested elsewhere into NZDF. Most importantly, NZ has shown how not to conduct a long term and planned (cough, yea right) force structure.

You are missing the point of my post as well. The axing of the RNZAF ACF has nothing to do with this at all and I don't see any bearing on it all. Maybe you should re-read my post and think about what I wrote about timelines, consumables, and increasing existing platform numbers. You and others are to busy focussing on the flash new toy that your mate has and not on the situational awareness. You're target fixated.

All this talk about Australia acquiring the B-21 is utter crap at the moment and it will be such until the Commonwealth of Australia ever decides to acquire the platform. And that's a huge what if. The world is entering a recession and money is going to be tight across many nations and Australia won't be any different. How the bloody hell do you expect to pay for these on top of all the other capabilities that you are entering into service? You have a SSN program that's going to be hugely expensive, no matter which way you cut it. It will be the most expensive defence capability program that Australia has ever undertaken. Then there's the Hunter FFG, Land 400 Parts 2 and 3, and various other programs.

In the next 20+ years the Australian climate, along with the rest of the world, will change for the worse and you also have an energy problem. How are you going to supply and pay for badly needed new electricity generation? You can't go on using coal or gas as your main electricity generation capability. If you go nuclear you still require ample water supply as coolant; where are you going to get that from? That's just one area of funding a govt will have to find. Then there will be managed retreat from the coast as the sea level rises. Govt will be expected to pay for that. You like the other FVEY partners have a bulge in the population pyramid at the 55 - 75 year quantiles where the old age pensioners are now hitting the govt coffers with everything from pension costs to increasing health costs per person as they age. Again that's more money especially with govt tax revenues decreasing as the work age quartiles decrease in numbers. So what does a govt do? Tax highly? That'll go down like a lead balloon.

Another thing to think about while you're at it, the current human population on this planet is 8 billion. World population to reach 8 billion on 15 November 2022 | United Nations. It has now reached the level where the planet can no longer support humanity. During my lifetime the world population has increased by 5 billion people. WDI - A changing world population So have a think about that and how it will impact upon Australia. It took 12 years to go from 6 - 7 billion and 10 years to go from 7 - 8 billion. It is projected to reach 8.5 billion by 2030 and 9.5 billion by 2050.

This brings me back to my point that quantity definitely has a quality of its own and in this case increased quantities of F-35, F-18 etc., plus consumables including munitions are a far better and more timely option than a B-21 or any other flash hi tech toy. As fancy as the B-21 maybe, it cannot be in two places at the same time and at a current cost of around AU$1 billion flyaway, you can buy 9 or so F-35A.

 

[Depot Dog]

McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in Australian service | Military Wiki | Fandom
We did not buy the Phantom, we ordered 24 F-111s in the mid 60s but due to development issues, meant we would not get them till 1973, the US loaned us 24 Phantoms from 1970-73.
Canberra Bomber - AFA - Air Force Association (raafa.org.au)
The RAAF operated a total of 52 Canberra's. We replaced the F-111s with Super Hornets, originally on a one for one basis, but have now added 12 EA-18Gs to 82 Wing as well. I don't think we can use 24 as a basis for any B-21 Buy. B-21s offer a vastly superior LR strike capability over even the F-111, so would you require the same number of aircraft as the F-111s. Also originally the FA-18F was only an interim buy for 10 years and would be replaced by 28 JSFs, this has been changed to a strike group of 24 Fs and 12 Gs, so in reality the 24 number has gone out the door anyway.

My curiosity wasn't what or why we purchased said aircraft. Reading the RAN forum they talk in 3's. One in port, one in maintenance and one in operations. The RAAF seems to work in 24. 24 Hercs , 24 Orions, 24 Super Hornets

Thank you @CJR
Because, 18-24 airframes represents about the minimal viable force: Active squadron (10-14ish aircraft) + OCU (4-6ish aircraft) + attrition/maintenance reserve.
This answer satisfies my curiosity. Sorry its a cut and paste. I just can't combine two messages in the same post.

In regards to B21, 24 airframes seems to be the sweet spot. I do agree we have acquired 8x C17, 14x P8.

https://www.airforce.gov.au/aircraft/p-8a-poseidon

https://www.airforce.gov.au/aircraft/c-17-globemaster

I doubt we could afford 24 but I'm just pointing out 24 is favoured in the RAAF.

Regards
DD

 

[Aardvark144]

My curiosity wasn't what or why we purchased said aircraft. Reading the RAN forum they talk in 3's. One in port, one in maintenance and one in operations. The RAAF seems to work in 24. 24 Hercs , 24 Orions, 24 Super Hornets

Slight correction, the RAAF only ever had a maximum of 20 P3.