King Wally
Active Member
If it's worth anything I sent them a complaint and they have now changed the title to remove the word "turkey". Now "trillion dollar stealth fighters touch down".
Small baby steps....
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
Small baby steps....
SpazSinbad
Active Member
Several recent posts about the SAD reporting in Oz about the F-35 and ours in general is par for the course in the USA/UK as well. It seems the Murdoch press has not got over itself and the ability to sway events - I just find them trying whilst rarely watching/ listening to Oz news and reading online any Oz 'news' reporting except that which is 'hinted at' by others. 
ShortSharp Video of Arrival: F-35 fighter jets touchdown in Australia | Sky News Australia
PHOTO: http://yaffa-cdn.s3.amazonaws.com/yaffadsp/images/dmImage/StandardImage/f-35-arrival-1.jpg
NOT A BAD STORY here mit photie (wot he tooketh): First Australian F-35s at RAAF Williamtown 10 Dec 2018 Ewen Levick
ShortSharp Video of Arrival: F-35 fighter jets touchdown in Australia | Sky News Australia
PHOTO: http://yaffa-cdn.s3.amazonaws.com/yaffadsp/images/dmImage/StandardImage/f-35-arrival-1.jpg
NOT A BAD STORY here mit photie (wot he tooketh): First Australian F-35s at RAAF Williamtown 10 Dec 2018 Ewen Levick
Last edited:
SpazSinbad
Active Member
Canadians must be thrilled watching their 'new' aircraft break in front of the first two arriving Oz F-35As 10 Dec 2018. RAAF F-35As Arrive Willamtown 10 Dec 2018 - 4 Hornets Break
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Well maybe one guy is thrilled. That would the guy who was a failed drama teacher prior to taking on his new job. He is even worse in his new job. His old man went for a ride when he ordered our Hornets back in the early eighties. I wonder if he wants a photo op riding in a 30 year old Australian Hornet?
SpazSinbad
Active Member
PDF one page article attached has some interesting statistics about F-35 and OLD RAAF journeys across oceans of the world with ARFs ARFs and more ARFs aplenty - from page 31 (of 84) WINGS magazine WINTER 2017 edition: https://www.raafa.org.au/sites/default/files/Winter17.pdf (11.5Mb)
t68
Well-Known Member
Hi Spaz,
Thanks for the article interesting. Have never seen that site before is that a subscription to receive that?
SpazSinbad
Active Member
Dunno. Found it via GOOGLE (have found other WINGS over the years) when researching the HICKAM to AMBERLEY RAAF F-35 ocean sojourn recently in nine hours (some others elsewhere could not believe it). I could boast about the first A4G (pair) to fly from NAS Nowra to arrest aboard HMAS Melbourne just off Perth WA non stop but I guess it does not compute in a RAAF forum.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Just on the topic of Long Range Strike Weapons in the RAAF (has come up in other threads):
It was mentioned that extant western weapons like Tomahawk are becoming too long in the tooth to be a worthwhile option in the face of growing Chinese capabilities. My question is whether JASSM-ER, along with the forthcoming JASSM-XR and NGLAW would fit the bill for us here instead. Certainly the first two ought to be viable options for the RAAF fleet in due course..?
It was mentioned that extant western weapons like Tomahawk are becoming too long in the tooth to be a worthwhile option in the face of growing Chinese capabilities. My question is whether JASSM-ER, along with the forthcoming JASSM-XR and NGLAW would fit the bill for us here instead. Certainly the first two ought to be viable options for the RAAF fleet in due course..?
New AIM-9x for RAAF
More AIM-9X AAMs for the RAAF – ADBR
Australia has ordered 49 Raytheon AIM-9X Block II+ ......
According to the article RAAF will field AIM-9M, AIM-9X Block I, AIM-9X Block II & now AIM-9X Block II+
I'm guessing the Block II+ are for the F-35, but that's just a guess based on the timing of the order.
One thing I didn't know was that Hawk LIF can be fitted with the AIM-9M. I can't imagine they'd be a particularly useful fighter though.
More AIM-9X AAMs for the RAAF – ADBR
Australia has ordered 49 Raytheon AIM-9X Block II+ ......
According to the article RAAF will field AIM-9M, AIM-9X Block I, AIM-9X Block II & now AIM-9X Block II+
I'm guessing the Block II+ are for the F-35, but that's just a guess based on the timing of the order.
One thing I didn't know was that Hawk LIF can be fitted with the AIM-9M. I can't imagine they'd be a particularly useful fighter though.
Bit of RAAF history. Photos of RAAF F111 taken in NZ Southern Alps on way to Warbirds Over Wanaka by a UK based photographer who normally frequents the Mach Loop. Doesn't say what year the photos were taken, but I was there for the 2008 show which was the final appearance by the F-111 there.
IMG_9701-01 by ANDY HEAP, on Flickr
IMG_9702-01 by ANDY HEAP, on Flickr
IMG_9707-01 by ANDY HEAP, on Flickr
111 by ANDY HEAP, on Flickr
IMG_9739-03 by ANDY HEAP, on Flickr
IMG_9736-01 by ANDY HEAP, on Flickr
IMG_9726-02 by ANDY HEAP, on Flickr
IMG_9720-01 by ANDY HEAP, on Flickr
IMG_9716-01 by ANDY HEAP, on Flickr
IMG_9721-01 by ANDY HEAP, on Flickr
IMG_9701-01 by ANDY HEAP, on Flickr
IMG_9702-01 by ANDY HEAP, on Flickr
IMG_9707-01 by ANDY HEAP, on Flickr
111 by ANDY HEAP, on Flickr
IMG_9739-03 by ANDY HEAP, on Flickr
IMG_9736-01 by ANDY HEAP, on Flickr
IMG_9726-02 by ANDY HEAP, on Flickr
IMG_9720-01 by ANDY HEAP, on Flickr
IMG_9716-01 by ANDY HEAP, on Flickr
IMG_9721-01 by ANDY HEAP, on Flickr
SpazSinbad
Active Member
Luckily the F-111 crew survived OK. OHAKEA 24 Aug 1979 water down intakes during take off - engines out. RAAF Pilot went on to deck land S-2 Trackers aboard MELBOURNE.
NZ F-111 crash Aug 79 photos ADF-serials.com | Wings Over New Zealand [I oosed to be 'FlyNavy' there]
NZ F-111 crash Aug 79 photos ADF-serials.com | Wings Over New Zealand [I oosed to be 'FlyNavy' there]
Steady man, you’ll have Goon and the APA crowd fainting in ecstasy.Bit of RAAF history. Photos of RAAF F111 taken in NZ Southern Alps on way to Warbirds Over Wanaka by a UK based photographer who normally frequents the Mach Loop. Doesn't say what year the photos were taken, but I was there for the 2008 show which was the final appearance by the F-111 there.
IMG_9701-01 by ANDY HEAP, on Flickr
IMG_9702-01 by ANDY HEAP, on Flickr
IMG_9707-01 by ANDY HEAP, on Flickr
111 by ANDY HEAP, on Flickr
IMG_9739-03 by ANDY HEAP, on Flickr
IMG_9736-01 by ANDY HEAP, on Flickr
IMG_9726-02 by ANDY HEAP, on Flickr
IMG_9720-01 by ANDY HEAP, on Flickr
IMG_9716-01 by ANDY HEAP, on Flickr
IMG_9721-01 by ANDY HEAP, on Flickr
One of my cobbers was a firey there that day and on duty. Was around a similar time that another one joined the submarine service Hauraki Gulf.
I think it is my fault the subject of long range strike came up. I started a discussion of long range AS missiles, which the ADF really needs to do something about. But somehow it got onto the subject of long range strike.
Now, I am curious about this as some people at ASPI are arguing a long range strike capability is what they regard should be one of the highest priorities. I believe the last white paper mentions the subject also.
But to what ends? Why do they rank long range strike to be so important for the ADF to reaquire? Are they just F-111 fans? Certainly AS missiles with a decent range are essential as sinking ships ought to be a speciality for the ADF. Long range land attack for the RAAF would mean going after infrastructure, like airfields. Is there a need to attack (to pick a country at random) Chinese H6K bombers on their own airfields? That would be a capability needing to deliver a decent amount of odanance at a range of 4000 - 5000km.
What are they thinking off? B-21s would fit that requirement. Surely the nation can’t afford yet another big ticket project.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #6,256
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.
Who knows what the next 30 to 40 years will bring. We are currently in a deteriorating strategic environment and predicting where that may eventually lead is pretty much impossible. Who is to say that countries won't switch their allegiances or the US won't start cutting back on its commitments.
One thing that is obvious though is that pure defence probably won't be sufficient to protect assets such as ships. If you want to operate forces in the South China sea then you are going to have to be able to take out any surrounding airfields and missile batteries before you deploy your naval forces there.
As for buying B-21s ... I am not even sure the US would be willing to sell them. Even if they were the $500 million price tag would probably be too much for Australia. The only way that money would be found is if there is another boost in spending or we sacrifice some other capability. Even if we did something drastic like buying the B-21 instead of additional F-35s to replace the SuperHornet we could only afford a token number of 5 or 6 aircraft.
Takao
The Bunker Group
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.
FoxtrotRomeo999
Active Member
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).
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).
Last edited:
1. I posted the F-111 photos purely as a historically reference and for the fact that I really like the pig.
2. Long range strike capability is IMHO high priority, but it necessarily is not as platform centric today as it was 30 years ago, because of longer range AGM that are capable of being launched from the current platforms in service with, or due to enter service with the RAAF. There are force multipliers in, or due to enter service with the RAAF service that enhance the current platforms capabilities for long range strike.