Read the forum code of contact
By: - 29th August 2013 at 04:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's no surprise that this is the case: Australia is one of the few western countries with significant population growth over the period and continuing into the future, with economy proceeding apace.
That said, things could be better. Rafale in place of Super Hornet and F-35, more C-130Js + C-27Js (alternatively A400M + C295 combo) and A330s in place of C-17, AAS-72X in place of Tiger, UH-60M over NH90, more Chinooks, fourth AWD, no Abrams, etc.
By: - 29th August 2013 at 04:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
C-17 offers a whole new level of capability not possible with C-27J or C-130J-30.
5 x A330 seems sufficient for maintaining air refueller coverage. More would be better but there's only so much even rich Australia can afford.
To be honest only C-27 doesn't seem to really fit with modern Australian ops - it seems to be a hangover from Vietnam.
Also Rafale doesn't fit. It's weapons and systems are not US compatible. And US compatibility is the Holy Grail for just about all US allied forces. And especially as pretty much all of Australia's defence is focused around fighting in conjunction with USA.
The French committed commercial suicide by not integrating more US systems with the airframe.
I agree on UH-60M instead of NH90, more Chinooks, no Abrams and 4th AWD.
By: - 29th August 2013 at 04:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
C-17 offers a whole new level of capability not possible with C-27J or C-130J-30.
Capability that comes at enormous expense and which isn't necessary once foolhardy missions like Afghanistan and platforms like Abrams are discarded. And ofc. when it comes to operating within Australia they are very limited in accessible airfields compared to C-130J, which itself offers significantly increased range over previous C-130s.
5 x A330 seems sufficient for maintaining air refueller coverage. More would be better but there's only so much even rich Australia can afford.
They can also serve cargo and VIP roles (upper deck is standard AFAIK). Should be enough of a value proposition to swing an extra couple airframes with the money freed up from the C-17s, the rest going to reinforce the C-130J/C-27J inventories.
Also Rafale doesn't fit [....] And especially as pretty much all of Australia's defence is focused around fighting in conjunction with USA.
This should change. ADF should be focussed on autonomous operation in defence of Australia, with such limited regional capabilities as we can afford. No globetrotting or reliance upon allies.
I agree on UH-60M instead of NH90, more Chinooks, no Abrams and 4th AWD.
I would also take a long look at the Canberra LHDs on account of their expense and Australia's questionable capacity to robustly support them, e.g. escort requirements.
By: - 29th August 2013 at 05:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
C-17's also handy for disaster relief ala Darwin 1975 or recent QLD floods.
Also handy if you need to bolster north of country with units located further south.
I still can't justify C-27J acquisition. I'm not sure what the C-27J is meant to do in Australian service.
I would've brought more C-130J-30s or C-17s.
This should change. ADF should be focussed on autonomous operation in defence of Australia, with such limited regional capabilities as we can afford. No globetrotting or reliance upon allies.
Even if Australia is fully autonomous in terms of defence and foreign policy, Rafale is a poor pick.
Advantages to buying US kit:
1. Economies of scale not only in terms of aircraft but also weapons, spares, systems etc.
2. Interoperability across region e.g. more reliable allies ala Singapore.
3. In times of war US is easier to access for replacement equipment (think Operation Nickel Grass in 1973 or supply of USAF F-15C/Ds to Saudi Arabia in 1990-91). French can't do this.
If RAAF lost 10 jets in quick succession or needed an extra squadron delivered ASAP, do the French have the Rafales to supply quickly given they will only operate 175 of them?
4. The above also applies to missiles, bombs, spares etc.
5. A lot more manufacturers do US compatible systems than French. Buying American also opens you up to Israeli and European manufacturers. With Rafale it's got a very limited number of options.
6. Access to regular upgrade programs generally funded by USA.
In my opinion the Rafale as a whole is a dud in terms of these critical logistics and range of options. I think it's why other than India, it has not sold well. Countries prefer to plug into US supply chains for F-15s and F-16s than go for Rafale.
It'll work for India because they'll manufacture a lot of it regardless of economic inefficiency.
Australia cannot manufacture fighters or even many weapons - we're simply too expensive (it's why our manufacturing has dwindled from 25% of GDP in 1980 to about 7% in 2013).
I would also take a long look at the Canberra LHDs on account of their expense and Australia's questionable capacity to robustly support them, e.g. escort requirements.
Totally agree. Instead of LHD's I would buy more destroyers/frigates.
By: - 29th August 2013 at 05:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Totally agree. Instead of LHD's I would buy more destroyers/frigates.
I wouldn't, LHD bring utility & flexibility to an entirely new level,
and would also add a credible defense in the form of a few F-35B if need ever be.
Agree on the issue of expensive french weapons, in spite how well i think Mica was/is specced,
it is expensive and so the stock will be even smaller,
but meteor is taking over and will be in use by many countries.
By: - 29th August 2013 at 05:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Except Australia has no intention to acquire F-35B. It's F-35A all the way.
The LHDs are for humanitarian ops and interventions in the Pacific (e.g. Solomon Islands).
This is why their defensive weapons are limited to 4 x 25mm guns only.
By: - 29th August 2013 at 05:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The situation downunder is better than most (i.e. no budget slashing) but it's not all rosy...
The 24SH + 72JSF is likely to become 48SH (inc 12 Growlers) + whatever is affordable later on.
The Wedgetails were meant to be a game changer but somehow the RAAF aren't exactly fist pumping..which makes me wonder if they delivered on their promises.
The Tigers are back in the air, but again without fanfare. Also I'm not sure which land based enemy they are meant to destroy.
The C-27J cost $1.4 billion for 10 aircrafts...
I can't think of any western country without procurement issues, and Australia is no exception. Not worse, but not the shining light on the hill!
By: - 29th August 2013 at 05:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Given your average NATO airforce is cutting down aircraft numbers like they were going out of fashion, I'd say that RAAF is the shining light on the hill.
In 1990 Australia had less fighters than Canada, Netherlands, Belgium, Czechslovakia, Yugoslavia, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, and same number as Norway (including F-5s).
Now all of these have far less (admitedly a couple of these countries don't exist but their successors don't maintain large air forces anymore)!
Re: F/A-18F/G. This is limited to 24 F/A-18F + 12 E/A-18G (36 airframes in total). 2013 White Paper only mentioned acquisition of new E/A-18G and not acquisition of 12 additiional F/A-18Fs.
Also E/A-18G's don't count as "combat aircraft" but as "support aircraft." Hence requirement is still for 0-24 F/A-18F + 72-100 F-35A.
2 F-35As have already been ordered.
As for Wedgetail, situation is far improved over past when we had no AWACS at all!
By: - 29th August 2013 at 05:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Except Australia has no intention to acquire F-35B. It's F-35A all the way.The LHDs are for humanitarian ops and interventions in the Pacific (e.g. Solomon Islands).
This is why their defensive weapons are limited to 4 x 25mm guns only.
That may change one day, if
1] F-35B ever becomes a fairly good price, and
2] If Australia ever think they would need carrier born protection without US assistance, (admit the unlikelihood of this)
Like with the British Carriers, there are some provisions in place for conversation, but unlike the british,
it won't cost a dime for ship conversion to add fighters on the deck.
By: - 29th August 2013 at 05:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Also forgot to mention that other than Singapore, no other SE Asian country has maintained air force re-equipment at rate RAAF has. Hence RAAF has generally maintained a qualitative lead and in most instances a quantitative one.
By: - 29th August 2013 at 08:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
For those wondering about the C27J, have a read of this.
http://www.aspi.org.au/publications/publication_details.aspx?ContentID=333&pubtype=-1
In particular note Figure 1 which shows a map of Queensland with C130 accessible airfields and C27J accessible airfields, there's a huge difference.
Also the $1.4 billion includes all support equipment, 3 years spares and a comprehensive training package. That's where the Super Hornet beats the Rafale, in the Total Package Approach and by giving total costs upfront and out in the open.
By: - 29th August 2013 at 09:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
To be honest only C-27 doesn't seem to really fit with modern Australian ops - it seems to be a hangover from Vietnam.
.
Actually it does.... Unlike the USA which has massive runways within reach of major towns, Australia has a lot of minor towns which cant handle a C-130.
During previous natural disasters the Caribou got in where the Herc couldn't land in order to deliver much needed aid.
Also the C-130 is limited to Port Moresby in PNG whereas the Caribou got into a lot of the airstrips in the highlands.
C-27 while needing a longer strip then the Caribou will be able to service some of those grass runways again.
Currently the B350 are flying in and out PNG.
The only stupid thing about it is that the C-27 will be based at Amberley and none will come to Townsville.
Considering the amount of soldiers now based in Townsville (1,2 and 3 RAR) it seems a strange move.
Previously the Caribou in Townsville used quite often by the Army during its exercises.
Now imagine if they bought the palletized kit to turn the C-27 into the gunship version....
By: - 29th August 2013 at 13:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Isn't the C27J going to be based in Richmond at this stage?
You're right about Asian airfields, as well as the dodgy ones throughout Australia. Hercs can badly damage austere airfields and the RAAF will then have to pay to repair them, which is not great.
By: - 29th August 2013 at 13:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Actually it does.... Unlike the USA which has massive runways within reach of major towns, Australia has a lot of minor towns which cant handle a C-130.
During previous natural disasters the Caribou got in where the Herc couldn't land in order to deliver much needed aid.Also the C-130 is limited to Port Moresby in PNG whereas the Caribou got into a lot of the airstrips in the highlands.
C-27 while needing a longer strip then the Caribou will be able to service some of those grass runways again.
Currently the B350 are flying in and out PNG.The only stupid thing about it is that the C-27 will be based at Amberley and none will come to Townsville.
Considering the amount of soldiers now based in Townsville (1,2 and 3 RAR) it seems a strange move.
Previously the Caribou in Townsville used quite often by the Army during its exercises.Now imagine if they bought the palletized kit to turn the C-27 into the gunship version....
Agree. A400M could also be a nice solution for heavier payloads.
By: - 29th August 2013 at 13:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Again that BS about Rafale being incompatible with US weapons. 1st several US bombs are integrated. Second Rafaleis fully stanag compliant. Third, Israeli official stated that israeli components ARE being integrates (for indian rafales). Fouth, (and it wasnt intended to), Russian missiles are negociated for implementation on Rafale (in particular, for sure KH31)...Any other clue about Rafale capability to integrateforeign weapons?
Which interoperablity are you talking about? MADL (wont work with F18) or Link 16?
By: - 29th August 2013 at 18:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If you already have Super Hornets, you don't necessarily need Rafales. IMHO, they are the same class of aircraft and the Growler update does seem to offer some interesting options which Rafale cannot provide.
By: - 29th August 2013 at 23:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Again that BS about Rafale being incompatible with US weapons. 1st several US bombs are integrated. Second Rafaleis fully stanag compliant. Third, Israeli official stated that israeli components ARE being integrates (for indian rafales). Fouth, (and it wasnt intended to), Russian missiles are negociated for implementation on Rafale (in particular, for sure KH31)...Any other clue about Rafale capability to integrateforeign weapons?
Which interoperablity are you talking about? MADL (wont work with F18) or Link 16?
What about A2A missiles - AIM-9, ASRAAM, AMRAAM, Python etc? Australia uses AIM-120, AIM-9 and AIM-132 ASRAAM.
What about A2G munitions - AGM-84, AGM-154, AGM-65 etc etc. Again Australia uses AGM-84 and AGM-154.
Link 16 is also critical in an era where there are significant focus on networking and information sharing.
In terms of weapons Rafale is about as compatible with RAAF (or RCAF or RNLAF or ROKAF) as a Su-30MKI.
By: - 29th August 2013 at 23:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
They currently have no official plan to purchase F-35B's. Yet, that doesn't mean they won't at some point. I like many others believe they will. Especially, considering the rise of China's own Carrier Program. Honestly, I think the "odds" are very good that Australia, Japan, and South Korea will all purchase F-35B's are some point. That is of course just my opinion.
Indeed your opinion and certainly not reflected in anything coming out of DoD or RAN.
By: - 30th August 2013 at 02:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If you already have Super Hornets, you don't necessarily need Rafales. IMHO, they are the same class of aircraft and the Growler update does seem to offer some interesting options which Rafale cannot provide.
The suggestion was in the context of prior to SH acquisition. In the actual world of 2013 we are of course left with the mess that has resulted from playing America's deputy, diving into JSF, etc. As for additional flexibility offered by Growler, it comes at the cost of operating two platforms (F-35 + SH) which was a big no-no in the first place as it demands doubled logistical chains and training paths. And if you are going to operate two platforms, F-35 + SH is a dumb mix anyway as they are both in the same class and with similar strengths and deficiencies. Gripen E + F/A-18F/G maybe... but Rafale (or Tiffy) still better.
EDIT: Also Meteor is not replacing MICA but supplementing it. Future Rafale A2A loadout will likely be 2xMeteor, 2xMICA-EM, 2xMICA-IR + EFTs.
Posts: 2,120
By: thobbes - 29th August 2013 at 03:50
Of all the Western air forces, the Royal Australian Air Force (as well as Army Aviation) is one of the bright spots.
Unlike most Western airforces which have shrunk in size and lost capabilities, RAAF and Australian Army have actually been increasing their capabilities:
1. Fighter fleet has been maintained at c.100 aircraft since 1980s.
2. Fighter fleet to stay at c.100 aircraft into future (0-24 F/A-18F + 72-100 F-35)
3. Introduction of Wedgetail AWACS
4. Introduction of C-17 as replacement for C-130H - increase in strategic transport capability
5. Introduction of C-130J as replacement for C-130E
6. Introduction of C-27J as long overdue DHC-7 Caribou replacement
7. Introduction of KC-30A (A330 MRCA) as replacement for older B707s - they can reufel both via flying boom (F-111, f-35) and probe and drogue (F/A-18) unlike older B707s.
8. EDIT: Forgot to mention planned E/A-18G acquisition.
Army:
1. Replacement of S-70 Black Hawk with MRH-90 (NH90).
2. Reintroduction of CH-47 into service
3. Expansion of OH-58 scout squadrons into armed recce helo squadrons with Tiger.