Aardvark144
Active Member
Deleted
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
Aardvark144
Active Member
Funding a seventh KC30? We already have a fleet of seven. The Albanese Express performs standard ops when not VIP tasked.[/QUOTE]
Excellent points Takao, but this one in particular jumped out.
If you were to ask me whether we are better off with a squadron of STOL that isn't actually super useful, or an extra Hunter, I'd tell you the Hunter 10/10 times.
We're a maritime nation. An island continent. The RAN needs to be the senior service, and the RAAF needs to focus on maritime patrol and strike, which it is actually quite well capitalised to do.
I certainly think it is a complete furphy to suggest that the RAAF is the poor cousin of the other services. The Army has gotten by far the shortest end of the stick, but that also is quite appropriate. We don't have any land borders with anyone. That's not to say we don't need a well funded top tier Army - we absolutely do - but it should also clearly get less funding than firstly the RAN, and secondly the RAAF.
Takao
The Bunker Group
Sorry, some poor phrasing there.
The seventh (and eighth and ninth) KC-30s were challenging. The former due to the VIP additions, the latter due to when the $$ were needed versus when money was available. When we were looking at the KC-130J/MH-47G capability, the funding for #7 would have cut across to the KC-130s. It was in mid-conversion, but we it was feasible to walk away with little financial impact.
When it was decided to not go down that path, the money went back to #7. Part of the decision was that a seventh KC-30 gave so much more than 6x KC-130s could; likewise without the MH-47G there was no need.
Absolutely. The mobilisation maths demand that.
It takes years to build a ship. In peacetime, we should focus on that as much as possible.
It takes months to build a Sqn. This is where we transition to from ship building when the threat picks up.
It takes weeks to build a Regt. This is the final stage before conflict.
This has been borne out over the 1900s. Look at the Royal Navy; a focus during the interwar period, but as war grew closer the RAF became the priority, then the Army. The build ship-building plans for the 1938-1942 period were slashed; the majority of the ships were designed/built during the 20s and 30s. The RAF struggles through the 30s; but then expands, meaning that at the critical point, they have just enough Hurricanes and Spitfires to defend the island. Yes, there are still Defiants and Battles and Gladiators, but the transition had started. These bought the time for industry to kick in and spread more; that spread included replacing and growing the Army
The key is (a) to have a detailed mobilisation plan, and (b) to have enough to build on. So you cannot cut the Army to zero - you need just enough tanks and IFVs and SPH to keep the skills there - but you can deprioritise it. You just have to, and this is the key, do it deliberately. There appears to be a stumble towards accidently cutting Army currently, that is the frustrating bit. There is also the need to do the below open war missions, for another INTERFET you need a capable Army.
But in the end, broadly speaking, for us we should absolutely be prioritising the Fleet. It's a particularly easy decision when you realise that a proper national shipbuilding plan sees significant industrial and economic advantages that can help across the nation.
Don’t we like the F111.
The P8 Poseidon is not a bomber!
It’s a modified commercial aircraft with no stealth and a speed commensurate with its civil background.
That said, as an ASW aircraft it allegedly has a combat radius of over 2000km and can carry the
AGM -158c LRASM which apparently has a range based off its sibling AGM-158BJASSM-ER of some 900km.
Thats what’s in the public domain.
What the P8s range is with four external LRASM I don’t know other than to speculate it is probably considerable.
So does a P8 have a 3000k strike range?
Does that make it a bomber over land or sea?
Serious question , because as an observation across land, sea and air the arrows in the form of missiles and drones are doing the distance stuff much further away from the archer.
In the P8 context, if the launch platform is way out of reach from an adversary’s reach (land, sea and air) is it a hunter or the hunted?
Cheers S
PS Acknowledge no aircraft operates alone in this day and age but rather as just one part of a larger kill chain.
Bomber or not, the P-8 is a much more flexible airframe then the B-21, Especially if you are only planning on using stand off munitions anyway.
Of course there is also the option of using enablers such as rapid dragon from your Transport Fleet if you need a large one off strike.
Remembering that Australia is more likely to be fighting over pacific islands then over Chinese territory, and for that B-21 is complete overkill.
I've posted this before, if you are going to be operating over the South China Sea or over China itself, you are going to need F-35 with the Jamming support of EA-18G's to have any chance. And given the size of the RAAF fleet, its likely to become a degraded capability quite quickly. These aircraft would obviously need to be forward based.
Of course there is also the option of using enablers such as rapid dragon from your Transport Fleet if you need a large one off strike.
Remembering that Australia is more likely to be fighting over pacific islands then over Chinese territory, and for that B-21 is complete overkill.
I've posted this before, if you are going to be operating over the South China Sea or over China itself, you are going to need F-35 with the Jamming support of EA-18G's to have any chance. And given the size of the RAAF fleet, its likely to become a degraded capability quite quickly. These aircraft would obviously need to be forward based.
Lolcake
Active Member
We wont be getting B-21s... a ridiculous thought..it was merely a hipfired political comment.
Sustainment costs alone would amount to a fortune, then you have the training and basing infrastructure also. We have made the correct choice in extending the SH line.
GCAP/F-47 would likely restore most of ranged strike lost with the f-111s.
Let the USAF base them here by all means. Little to gain from a fleet of 10-12 bombers whos effect can mostly be achieved with Virginia tomahawks/future hypersonic options and long range strike aircraft.
Money better spent on having 10 attacks subs with the infrastructure and funding already in place to support such
Sustainment costs alone would amount to a fortune, then you have the training and basing infrastructure also. We have made the correct choice in extending the SH line.
GCAP/F-47 would likely restore most of ranged strike lost with the f-111s.
Let the USAF base them here by all means. Little to gain from a fleet of 10-12 bombers whos effect can mostly be achieved with Virginia tomahawks/future hypersonic options and long range strike aircraft.
Money better spent on having 10 attacks subs with the infrastructure and funding already in place to support such
Last edited:
PRSM 4 …. 2000km range? Thought it was going to be approx 1000km? Future Anti-Ship PrSM Prioritizes Indo-Pacific Ops and 1,000 km Range - Naval News
US Army’s requirement is 1000k + for Increment 4. 1000k is the “minimum” viable capability required…
Doesn’t of course rule out such extreme ranges, but managing form factor for HIMARS (and potentially M270) is more important, so long as the MVC is demonstrated.
Gents
I’ve been bush for a while so apologies for this tardy reply.
Thank you for your extensive notes which I have attempted to digest, especially the FII which reminded me is a good source of information.
Additionally, I apologise for my own light blue perceptions, bias, and banter.
1. Within Space Ops, I used to be part of a team banging on about a large Sandy countries SRBM threat to our MEO mission: 5 min flight time with a lot of threat systems, equivalent to a one-way FJ sortie. Cons: large warning signature; entirely reactive, sitting waiting for trade; limited targeting options; single axis; and once fired a process to rearm. Very similar to SAM ops.
- all reasonable arguments for why air is more mission flexible
- SSN strikes have similar pro/con (TLAM being multi axis) but for a platform that
— relies on stealth to survive
— will presumably be full-bottle on ASW/SAG ops
- our team recommended unsexy TBM warning and various concrete shelters and associated training before Patriots etc
2. Mobilisation timelines are a problem for ADF due to lack of reserves but to suggest a FJ pep is the same type of animal as a navy or army high technology peps is … not correct.
- noting the good efforts of ADF doctrine to attempt to shape mobilisation and strategy
- I’ll give you that STOL acft could be delayed until pending hostilities!!!
3. AAR M/CH-47G. Thank you for the correction. I had no idea that these were not being obtained
- I did helicopter FOB FARPing training a long time ago; possibly the most dangerous flying I’ve done
- I did C-130 FJ point AAR ops a long time back; the FJ mates loved it for the flexibility over strategic AAR and didn’t seem to have safety concerns
- ADF needs LR helicopters
- ADF needs more AAR acft
Just my 2 cents
I’ve been bush for a while so apologies for this tardy reply.
Thank you for your extensive notes which I have attempted to digest, especially the FII which reminded me is a good source of information.
Additionally, I apologise for my own light blue perceptions, bias, and banter.
1. Within Space Ops, I used to be part of a team banging on about a large Sandy countries SRBM threat to our MEO mission: 5 min flight time with a lot of threat systems, equivalent to a one-way FJ sortie. Cons: large warning signature; entirely reactive, sitting waiting for trade; limited targeting options; single axis; and once fired a process to rearm. Very similar to SAM ops.
- all reasonable arguments for why air is more mission flexible
- SSN strikes have similar pro/con (TLAM being multi axis) but for a platform that
— relies on stealth to survive
— will presumably be full-bottle on ASW/SAG ops
- our team recommended unsexy TBM warning and various concrete shelters and associated training before Patriots etc
2. Mobilisation timelines are a problem for ADF due to lack of reserves but to suggest a FJ pep is the same type of animal as a navy or army high technology peps is … not correct.
- noting the good efforts of ADF doctrine to attempt to shape mobilisation and strategy
- I’ll give you that STOL acft could be delayed until pending hostilities!!!
3. AAR M/CH-47G. Thank you for the correction. I had no idea that these were not being obtained
- I did helicopter FOB FARPing training a long time ago; possibly the most dangerous flying I’ve done
- I did C-130 FJ point AAR ops a long time back; the FJ mates loved it for the flexibility over strategic AAR and didn’t seem to have safety concerns
- ADF needs LR helicopters
- ADF needs more AAR acft
Just my 2 cents
Lolcake
Active Member
After digging through Defence documents, AIR6500/AIR6502 wording, IIP funding lines, think-tank analysis and industry positioning, I increasingly think David's Sling / SkyCeptor is the strongest overall fit for Australia’s future MRGBAD requirement.
The biggest clue is that Defence has shifted from talking about simple “air defence” to “integrated air and missile defence” against advanced missile threats, which points toward a system capable of cruise missile and limited ballistic missile interception rather than just aircraft defence. Australia already has NASAMS for the lower layer, so the new system likely needs to sit above NASAMS in range and capability. David’s Sling fits that middle layer unusually well while also integrating relatively cleanly into AIR6500/JABMS and wider US-compatible architecture through the Raytheon connection.
The other major factor is scale and cost. Australia’s geography and dispersed basing strategy mean Defence likely needs coverage for Darwin, Tindal, HMAS Stirling, Amberley and potentially Williamtown/Edinburgh as well. A MIM-104 Patriot-heavy solution may only allow 2–4 batteries once missile stockpiles and sustainment are included, whereas David’s Sling/SkyCeptor could realistically allow 6–8 batteries for similar funding. That gives Australia broader national coverage and deeper interceptor inventories, which matters massively in any prolonged conflict. Aviation Week also reported Raytheon and Rafael preparing SkyCeptor specifically for Australia’s MRGBAD requirement, which is one of the clearest open-source indicators that industry itself sees it as a serious contender. Patriot still has strong advantages in alliance politics and interoperability, but from a pure capability-to-cost-to-scale perspective, David’s Sling currently looks like the best fit.
I expect a modest expansion of nasams to compliment the DS system with priority given towards local manufacturing.
The biggest clue is that Defence has shifted from talking about simple “air defence” to “integrated air and missile defence” against advanced missile threats, which points toward a system capable of cruise missile and limited ballistic missile interception rather than just aircraft defence. Australia already has NASAMS for the lower layer, so the new system likely needs to sit above NASAMS in range and capability. David’s Sling fits that middle layer unusually well while also integrating relatively cleanly into AIR6500/JABMS and wider US-compatible architecture through the Raytheon connection.
The other major factor is scale and cost. Australia’s geography and dispersed basing strategy mean Defence likely needs coverage for Darwin, Tindal, HMAS Stirling, Amberley and potentially Williamtown/Edinburgh as well. A MIM-104 Patriot-heavy solution may only allow 2–4 batteries once missile stockpiles and sustainment are included, whereas David’s Sling/SkyCeptor could realistically allow 6–8 batteries for similar funding. That gives Australia broader national coverage and deeper interceptor inventories, which matters massively in any prolonged conflict. Aviation Week also reported Raytheon and Rafael preparing SkyCeptor specifically for Australia’s MRGBAD requirement, which is one of the clearest open-source indicators that industry itself sees it as a serious contender. Patriot still has strong advantages in alliance politics and interoperability, but from a pure capability-to-cost-to-scale perspective, David’s Sling currently looks like the best fit.
I expect a modest expansion of nasams to compliment the DS system with priority given towards local manufacturing.
I know its a completely different class to the C-27J but the recent announcement of trials of an optionally crewed fleet of Jabiru JabX light aircraft is very interesting.
www.defenceconnect.com.au
Once proven, larger types could also be developed and employed.
It strikes me that as they are optionally crewed, the could also be used to grow a force of flight qualified personnel.
RAAF converts Jabiru 400 to autonomous aircraft for Project Camel Train
The RAAF is experimenting with autonomous aircraft to bolster its logistics capabilities, including conversions of existing light planes.
www.defenceconnect.com.au
It strikes me that as they are optionally crewed, the could also be used to grow a force of flight qualified personnel.
We are getting to the point where light UAV aircraft might move some cargo long distances intertheatre, and then get picked up by a VTOL UAV a short distance to the battlefield intratheatre. This could result in a more effective rapid light cargo delivery system for priority needs. Medical, technical, perhaps even light ammunition and food etc.
Murse
New Member
This is good to see! 208 Caravan floatplane UAV, optimised for AME. That's my vision for littoral work (as a medic)I know its a completely different class to the C-27J but the recent announcement of trials of an optionally crewed fleet of Jabiru JabX light aircraft is very interesting.
Once proven, larger types could also be developed and employed.RAAF converts Jabiru 400 to autonomous aircraft for Project Camel Train
The RAAF is experimenting with autonomous aircraft to bolster its logistics capabilities, including conversions of existing light planes.
It strikes me that as they are optionally crewed, the could also be used to grow a force of flight qualified personnel.
I too think it would be a strong, cost effective contender. But there is no getting around the fact it would be highly controversial in current times, due to it’s undeniable Israeli origins, whatever the level of Raytheon involvement…
I would bet my house on this Government not touching it with a 10 foot barge pole…
I think the Skyceptor technically fits the bill. I would however suggest it only works if:
- it can be fully integrated with the existing NASAMS ecosystem, meaning control via the NASAMS fire distribution centre and CEA radars (I can't see us apopting the full David's Sling packge, we would just be interested in the missile); and
- A factory outside Israel is established for missile production, under Raytheon rather than Rafael.
There is a factory being built in Romania, but I can't see us being supplied from that (just too far away and it will focus on Europe). I can't see the US building a factory in the near term (they seem focussed on patriot). There are no likely S E Asian countries that are looking at the Skyceptor (S Korea and Japan have their own system).
Does that mean we would need to establish our own production line if we wanted Skyceptor?
I can't see that being easy, but it might be an option if Raytheon set up a joint missile factory for multiple missile types, such as perhaps AMRAAM, ESSM and Skyceptor.
Last point is that the final integrated system has to have some form of short range utra cheap mass interception capability (drones, lasers and/or guns). It can't be an all multi million dollar missile system. Even the Skyceptor is supposedly in the million dollar range.
Last edited:
Different capabilities and different projects though “hopefully” they are highly integrated. LAND 19 for NASAMS, LAND 156 for counter-UAS (lasers, drones, guns etc) AIR-6500 for MRAD and C2 systems and either a new phase of LAND 19 for the VSHORAD system or some new project altogether we haven’t yet been told about (or maybe hasn’t even been stood up yet).
30 Sqn only operated 14 of 24 Bloodhounds in the 1960's, I wonder what sort of numbers AIR 6500 would be looking at?