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

A good SLD update about the E7A Wedgetail. Well worth the read.

AN UPDATE ON THE AUSTRALIAN WEDGETAIL AND ITS EVOLUTION: A DISCUSSION WITH GROUP CAPTAIN STUART BELLINGHAM

ngatimozart said:

A good SLD update about the E7A Wedgetail. Well worth the read.

AN UPDATE ON THE AUSTRALIAN WEDGETAIL AND ITS EVOLUTION: A DISCUSSION WITH GROUP CAPTAIN STUART BELLINGHAM

Click to expand...

Very interesting, nice to have these abilities in this part of the world. The comments on the necessity and the ability of the KC30A also en lighting.

Quote from the Wedgie article above - wow:

"...we are working with the Navy and the Army with regard to supporting expeditionary blue water operations and operating in concert with the new LHD and its evolving concepts of operations in the littoral space...."

Click to expand...

SpazSinbad said:

'hairyman' said: "...(Shouldnt this be in the Navy Thread)?" Aaahh always difficult to pigeon hole naval aviation eh. :dance I'm not commenting further because I've done my time on the naughty step thank you veddy much. :smilie

Click to expand...

Thanks SpazSinbad

I think I need to back off but will continue to watch this subject with interest even though I have a different sense of priority and expectation to other posters and suggest current defence and government aspirations. Having being around the sun a few times what you do realise is regardless of current planning an expectations the dynamics of the world have a habit of throwing up change in quick and unexpected ways.
Consequently I am open to the fact we may never get the F35B off the Canberra's; however I would also never rule it out in both the SHORT or LONG term.
Time will tell

Regards S

Stampede said:

Thanks SpazSinbad

I think I need to back off but will continue to watch this subject with interest even though I have a different sense of priority and expectation to other posters and suggest current defence and government aspirations. Having being around the sun a few times what you do realise is regardless of current planning an expectations the dynamics of the world have a habit of throwing up change in quick and unexpected ways.
Consequently I am open to the fact we may never get the F35B off the Canberra's; however I would also never rule it out in both the SHORT or LONG term.
Time will tell

Regards S

Click to expand...

Well said:duel

t68 said:

Well said:duel

Click to expand...

The thing is the RAAF is far more purple these days and are becoming increasingly platform agnostic, i.e. they don't care about which platform is used, they care about the effect. Where as once air staff would have had a fit at the thought of RAAF assets deploying on RAN ships I believe they would welcome it now if it added to the over all capability and effect.

Purchasing a few warshots by the look of it... Still find it interesting we are acquiring both HARM B and AARGM...

Government of Australia– Anti-Radiation Missiles | The Official Home of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency

Government of Australia– Anti-Radiation Missiles

PDF Version: PDF icon australia_17-11.pdf
Media/Public Contact: [email protected]
Transmittal No: 17-11
WASHINGTON, Apr. 28, 2017 - The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Australia for Anti-Radiation Missiles. The estimated cost is $137.6 million. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale on April 27, 2017.

Australia has requested a possible sale of up to seventy (70) AGM-88B High Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles (HARM) Tactical Missiles; up to forty (40) AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missiles (AARGM) Tactical Missiles; up to sixteen (16) CATM-88B HARM Captive Air Training Missiles (CATM); up to sixteen (16) CATM-88E AARGM CATM; up to twenty-five (25) AGM-88B Control Sections; up to twenty-five (25) AGM-88B Guidance Sections; up to twenty (20) AGM-88E Control Sections; up to twenty (20) AGM-88E Guidance Sections; up to forty eight (48) Telemetry/Flight Termination Systems; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services; and other associated support equipment andservices. The total estimated cost is $137.6 million.

This sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a major contributor to political stability, security, and economic development in the Western
Pacific. Australia is an important Major non-NATO Ally and partner that contributes significantly to peacekeeping and humanitarian operations around the world. It is vital to the U.S. national interest to assist our
ally in developing and maintaining a strong and ready self-defense capability.

Australia is requesting these missiles for its Electronic Attack EA-18G Growler aircraft. The proposed sale will improve Australia’s capability in current and future coalition efforts. Australia will use this capability as a
deterrent to regional threats and to strengthen its homeland defense. Australia will have no difficultly absorbing these additional missiles into its armed forces.

The proposed sale of this equipment and support does not alter the basic military balance in the region. The prime contractors will be Orbital ATK (OA), Ridgecrest, CA, and Raytheon Missile Systems Company,
Tucson, AZ. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale. Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to travel to Australia.

There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

This notice of a potential sale is required by law and does not mean the sale has been concluded.

All questions regarding this proposed Foreign Military Sale should be directed to the State Department's Bureau of Political Military Affairs, Office of Congressional and Public Affairs, [email protected].

ADMk2 said:

Purchasing a few warshots by the look of it... Still find it interesting we are acquiring both HARM B and AARGM...

Click to expand...

Saw that too and wondered why both were being procured (if I remember correctly, a previous DSCA request for the above a year or so ago?, also had both types being requested too).

From what I've seen published, AARGM is approx. three times the cost of HARM per missile, so possibly its a case of 'horses for courses'.

Possibly HARM is appropriate for the job at hand in most cases, but occasionally AARGM is more appropriate to do the job (overkill in those cases possibly?).

Just speculation on my behalf of course too!

John Newman said:

Saw that too and wondered why both were being procured (if I remember correctly, a previous DSCA request for the above a year or so ago?, also had both types being requested too).

From what I've seen published, AARGM is approx. three times the cost of HARM per missile, so possibly its a case of 'horses for courses'.

Possibly HARM is appropriate for the job at hand in most cases, but occasionally AARGM is more appropriate to do the job (overkill in those cases possibly?).

Just speculation on my behalf of course too!

Click to expand...

Perhaps HARM to force radar shutdown (SEAD) with a few AARGMs thrown in to actually kill the emitters? (DEAD) Might be more cost effective given that OPFOR won't be able to tell which missile is which.

John Newman said:

Saw that too and wondered why both were being procured (if I remember correctly, a previous DSCA request for the above a year or so ago?, also had both types being requested too).

From what I've seen published, AARGM is approx. three times the cost of HARM per missile, so possibly its a case of 'horses for courses'.

Possibly HARM is appropriate for the job at hand in most cases, but occasionally AARGM is more appropriate to do the job (overkill in those cases possibly?).

Just speculation on my behalf of course too!

Click to expand...

Cost of would be part of it I guess, but there is an additional cost incurred through dual logistics streams for multiple weapons types, a cost in training on both types and a cost in overall capability given the capability differences between the two weapons too...

Anyway, good to see such a capability gaining a place in the RAAF Orbat. Such is long overdue.

Boagrius said:

Perhaps HARM to force radar shutdown (SEAD) with a few AARGMs thrown in to actually kill the emitters? (DEAD) Might be more cost effective given that OPFOR won't be able to tell which missile is which.

Click to expand...

They might, given the AARGM has an active millimetric wave radar sensor included, whereas HARM doesn't...

ADMk2 said:

Cost of would be part of it I guess, but there is an additional cost incurred through dual logistics streams for multiple weapons types, a cost in training on both types and a cost in overall capability given the capability differences between the two weapons too...

Anyway, good to see such a capability gaining a place in the RAAF Orbat. Such is long overdue.

Click to expand...

Agree, there is no doubt an extra 'overhead' in operating two types of similar weapons, but there is probably a logical reason for it too.

And yes good to see such a capability being introduced, at the end of the day, as long as there is sufficient stock of both types to do the jobs required, does it really matter?

John Newman said:

Agree, there is no doubt an extra 'overhead' in operating two types of similar weapons, but there is probably a logical reason for it too.

And yes good to see such a capability being introduced, at the end of the day, as long as there is sufficient stock of both types to do the jobs required, does it really matter?

Click to expand...

I suppose not, but as you know with the ADF, every little bit counts...

For instance, chatting with the RAAF guys at Avalon, there is little to no likelihood that HARM / AARGM will go onto any platform except Growler, and yet it is integrated as a standard weapon in the USN on Hornet, Super hornet and Growler...

If there is a bit of 'fat' to be spent, surely more capability could be gained consolidating on AARGM and rolling out the weapon integration onto Super Hornet as well as Growler, in RAAF service?

ADMk2 said:

They might, given the AARGM has an active millimetric wave radar sensor included, whereas HARM doesn't...

Click to expand...

True, although I always assumed that was for terminal phase, not the whole flight(?). I can't imagine an incoming volley of ~ Mach 3 missiles would leave much time to sort AARGMs from HARMs. Just a thought...

Boagrius said:

True, although I always assumed that was for terminal phase, not the whole flight(?). I can't imagine an incoming volley of ~ Mach 3 missiles would leave much time to sort AARGMs from HARMs. Just a thought...

Click to expand...

True, the response to volleys of warshot HARM's and stand off weapons to date has been 'shut down all emitters and run like hell...' So the ability to differentiate between weapons might only be in theory at best...

ADMk2 said:

True, the response to volleys of warshot HARM's and stand off weapons to date has been 'shut down all emitters and run like hell...' So the ability to differentiate between weapons might only be in theory at best...

Click to expand...

I have heard anecdotes of red team (Iraqi IIRC) SAM operators shutting up shop following "Magnum" calls from US aircrews alone. Don't know how true that is but I do suspect actually being on the receiving end would quickly put a few things in perspective!

I think it shows the RAAF have been paying attention to the lessons of recent conflicts. The high rate of munitions expenditure in Libya and now against ISIS has demonstrated a need for larger quantities. The decision to bulk order SDB v1 rather than v2, HARM as well as AARGM, show that they get it. The deterrent effect alone is very important.

Goknub said:

I think it shows the RAAF have been paying attention to the lessons of recent conflicts. The high rate of munitions expenditure in Libya and now against ISIS has demonstrated a need for larger quantities. The decision to bulk order SDB v1 rather than v2, HARM as well as AARGM, show they get that it. The deterrent affect alone is very important.

Click to expand...

True. And while we have been talking about the historic tendency of OPFOR crews to shut down and run for it when faced with weapons like HARM in the past, I suppose there is the possibility of higher attrition rates for these weapons in future scenarios.

AFAIK we never saw Iraqi/Libyan/Serb SA2/3/5/6 operators attempt to engage the incoming weapons directly, let alone succeed. With double digit SAMs proliferating along with their Chinese analogues, the potential for OPFOR to hard kill them in future is probably growing - in which case quantity may have a quality all of its own! (ie. target saturation).

Goknub said:

I think it shows the RAAF have been paying attention to the lessons of recent conflicts. The high rate of munitions expenditure in Libya and now against ISIS has demonstrated a need for larger quantities. The decision to bulk order SDB v1 rather than v2, HARM as well as AARGM, show they get that it. The deterrent affect alone is very important.

Click to expand...

I agree but there is also the factor that SDB1 production is winding down and SBD2 is about to start up...

With weapons like these and the SPEAR group in due course, beginning to proliferate, I don't see that the 'double digit' SAM's will be the problem that many see them to be...

On the contrary, the target saturation that is going to occur is not going to be stacked in favour of ground based air defences...

Today tacair are carrying 2-4 weapons routinely. In the next decade each aircraft will be carrying 4-8 weapons routinely...

ADMk2 said:

I agree but there is also the factor that SDB1 production is winding down and SBD2 is about to start up...

With weapons like these and the SPEAR group in due course, beginning to proliferate, I don't see that the 'double digit' SAM's will be the problem that many see them to be...

On the contrary, the target saturation that is going to occur is not going to be stacked in favour of ground based air defences...

Today tacair are carrying 2-4 weapons routinely. In the next decade each aircraft will be carrying 4-8 weapons routinely...

Click to expand...

Also a fair point. Mind you I was talking more about a higher visibility weapon like HARM/AARGM with respect to potential for enemy hard killing our PGMs. Perhaps not as likely against less capable opponents but still a possibility in the near-peer fight. For example I would imagine it might factor into the development of a China-oriented deterrent in our context.