R686 wrote:towards having a Brigade and Battalion capabilty, that's what we are supposed to have
Are you referring to airmobilty? Is a Bde capability e.g. one bn in a single lift?
- sorry, not as read up on the doctrinal papers as on Beersheba (I guess the latter's ambition is to bring the doctrine and prgrms for kit closer together, to actually end up with the targeted overall capabilities; seems to be better in hand, though, than the FF 2020/25 prgrms over here!)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
R686 wrote:towards having a Brigade and Battalion capabilty, that's what we are supposed to have
Are you referring to airmobilty? Is a Bde capability e.g. one bn in a single lift?
- sorry, not as read up on the doctrinal papers as on Beersheba (I guess the latter's ambition is to bring the doctrine and prgrms for kit closer together, to actually end up with the targeted overall capabilities; seems to be better in hand, though, than the FF 2020/25 prgrms over here!)
As far as I know yes that was for air mobilty, the doctrine has changed a fair amount from when I was in uniform, goverment wanted to be able to support a brigade and battalion group concurrently, we have never had the capabilty to do that expect for WWII but that's was a different concept material wise.
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.
Not exactly the rumor mill that I heard but,The part about F35B caught me by surprise.
Report Raises Chance Of More Australian F/A-18 Super Hornets
Oct 21, 2016
Bradley Perrett | Aviation Week & Space Technology
Expect Australia’s finger to be on the trigger in case of further delays in the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning program. A parliamentary committee has called on the defense department to prepare a backup plan, increasing the possibility of the country ordering more Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornets.
The committee did not go as far as recommending that Canberra place another Super Hornet contract. But its proposal closely follows the reasoning of a submission from a think tank, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), urging the government to be ready to do so no later than 2019.
Separately, the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) has mentioned the possibility of a further Super Hornet order, apparently without much conviction, while also suggesting the F-35B, the vertical-landing version of the Lightning, as potential equipment. Unmanned strike aircraft are notably absent from its list of alternatives.
Australia’s Combat Aircraft Plans
72 F-35As to replace Hornets in fighter squadrons
28 more aircraft next decade to sustain strike squadrons now equipped with Super Hornets
The RAAF identifies F-35As, F-35Bs and Super Hornets as options, though it is very unlikely to want the latter
Australia is acquiring 72 F-35As to replace 71 Boeing F/A-18A/B Hornets, survivors of an original fleet of 75 that were delivered starting in 1985. Next, Canberra is due to decide in 2022 or 2023 how to replace 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets that entered service in 2010 as strike aircraft and are penciled in for retirement around 2030. The order should cover 28 aircraft.
The defense department told the panel, the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Committee, that Australia’s F-35A acquisition program had leeway to ensure that initial operational capability would be reached as planned in 2020.
The committee is not convinced. It “recommends that the Department of Defense develop a hedging strategy to address the risk of a capability gap resulting from further delays to the acquisition of the F-35A. The strategy should be completed by 2018 and capable of implementation by 2019 at the latest.”
Buying more Super Hornets would be the only economical hedge. As ASPI told the committee, Australia has paid for all, or almost all, of the fixed costs associated with operating the type. Stretching out the Hornet force beyond 2023, when the last Lightning is due to arrive, looks like an improbably expensive alternative, since the 1980s fighters are expected to last into the early 2020s, thanks primarily to careful structural analysis.
The Liberal-National government’s adoption of the committee’s bipartisan recommendation would be politically prudent but not compulsory. It would mean that the department would be poised for a Super Hornet order if the F-35 program slipped again.
The RAAF is unlikely to be enthusiastic. It once hoped for a homogenous combat fleet of 100 F-35As. But an earlier administration, unwilling to countenance the chance of a capability gap, forced it into the risk-reduction move of introducing Super Hornets as early replacements for F-111 strike bombers.
The service seems to still harbor hopes of an all-Lightning fighter and strike force. In a little-noticed address to an ASPI meeting in July, the head of the RAAF, Air Marshal Leo Davies, listed the candidates for Australia’s next combat-aircraft program as Super Hornets, F-35As and F-35Bs.
More Super Hornets were presumably suggested as a way of sharing airframe usage with the current fleet, extending the life of the type. But the RAAF has never shown eagerness for keeping the Super Hornet in service for longer than it must, and is unlikely to favor the option. In contrast, buying more F-35As would create the homogenous fleet the service has long desired.
Davies did not explain the merits of the third, quite surprising option, the F-35B. But an obvious possibility is that Australia has begun to wonder about the survivability of its northern airbases in the face of attack by Chinese cruise and ballistic missiles.
Unmanned strike aircraft, until now officially listed as candidates for Super Hornet replacements, were omitted. According to ASPI’s account of the address, Davies’s “reasoning was one of timing—since we have to make a decision by 2022 or 2023, it is unlikely that unmanned systems would be good enough for air combat in time.” The think tank suggests that the decision could instead be deferred, since the Super Hornets could last until 2040.
But the RAAF may have another reason for sticking to the schedule. If, by 2030, all the fighter and strike squadrons are equipped with new or fairly new manned aircraft, then any combat drones ordered around that time would become supplementary, expanding the fast-jet force.
An impending order for armed, medium-altitude, unmanned aircraft, likely to be General Atomics MQ-9 Reapers, will presumably result in the RAAF having a squadron that will eventually need reequipping with jets.
Well past 2030, the service will also have 12 EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft, due to be initially operational in 2018. Their commonality with Super Hornets is not an argument for keeping the latter for longer, RAAF officers have suggested, since Australia could easily rely on the U.S. Navy’s support system for Growler sustainment.
R686 wrote: how to replace 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets that entered service in 2010 as strike aircraft and are penciled in for retirement around 2030
Interesting... Australia replacing SuperHornets by time the last operators (Finland, Kuwait) are ridding themselves of the previous gen. Hornets (the Swiss have them, too, but they seem to be a bit confused about fighters generally... do they want any?).
- the additional buy, and spreading the hours across a bigger fleet, would make that 2040... sounds better value for money
- esp. as the Growlers will continue to co-exist with the F-35 fleet
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
R686 wrote: how to replace 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets that entered service in 2010 as strike aircraft and are penciled in for retirement around 2030
Interesting... Australia replacing SuperHornets by time the last operators (Finland, Kuwait) are ridding themselves of the previous gen. Hornets (the Swiss have them, too, but they seem to be a bit confused about fighters generally... do they want any?).
- the additional buy, and spreading the hours across a bigger fleet, would make that 2040... sounds better value for money
- esp. as the Growlers will continue to co-exist with the F-35 fleet
From memory the original plan was to replace the SH fleet once F35A reached FOC under the Howard Goverment and they would be merged back within the USN fleet, the Rudd/Gillard Goverment amended the original SH buy with 12x airframes being pre-wired to EA-18G spec's with the possibility of EW aircraft.
Keeping in mind that SH where bought to replace our medium bombers of the F111 fleet which was originally earmark for replacement in the 2020's with F35A, but because of continued increases in the cost versus capabilty it was decided to replace F111 early, one of the problems was the cold wing test which produced unacceptable results.
In 2011 goverment was keen to exercise the EW aircraft capabilty and proposed a further buy of F's which was not taken up but instead enter the EA-18G of the production line.
From my limited understanding the reason option was taken was that the F's were already brought up to readiness and by take them out of service to make the neccasry capabilty upgrades to the G's and waiting for more F's was actually lower our capabilty to the bomber force, also the G's are supplemental in a similar regards such as P3 and the new special mission aircraft such as Gulfstream 550 and so are not seen as part of first line fighter aircraft.
Also remember that any new build E/F's will be to replace leagacy hornets incase of any new slipagged to the schedule of the 72x F35 on order, but don't be surprised once F35 start to become avalible in number that the pre-wired jets might become G's.
What find annoying is that we have the building blocks that would make a return to a naval air combat capabilty with F's and G's either a single UK CVF with cat's would give us the kind of capabilty lost when Melbourne was payed off, I really like the Idea of 24xF's 6xG's along with rebuilding the S3 Viking for a multi role stile ASW carrier and one that could intergrate into the US 7th fleet easy enough
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Australia receives first P-8A anti-submarine and surveillance aircraft
Boeing has delivered its first P-8A Poseidon surveillance and anti-submarine aircraft to the Royal Australian Air Force on November 16.
The Prime Minister of Australia, Malcolm Turnbull MP, together with other government and defense officials welcomed the new Poseidons at the Royal Australian Air Force base Fairbairn in Canberra.
The $5.4 billion P-8A program will provide Australia’s future manned maritime patrol and response aircraft capability, replacing in part the AP-3C Orion aircraft.
Thales to upgrade RAN Collins submarines with latest generation sonar systems from UK & France
Thales has signed a design and pre-production contract to upgrade Australia’s Collins class submarine sonar systems, enhancing their capability to outperform the most advanced underwater threats in an increasingly complex environment. As Australia’s leading provider of sonar technologies, Thales will build on its local and international expertise to prepare for upgrades to the submarines’ cylindrical array, flank array, and on-board processing to maintain Royal Australian Navy superiority in the region.
Australia and France Sign Future Submarine Inter-Governmental Agreement
Australia’s Minister for Defence, Senator the Hon Marise Payne and France’s Minister of Defence, Mr Jean-Yves Le Drian, today welcomed the signing of an Agreement on Australia’s Future Submarine Program. The agreement establishes the framework between the Governments of Australia and France required for the development of the Royal Australian Navy’s new fleet of submarines.
The LHD, HMAS Adelaide, was involved in the apprehension of a drug running vessel last week. Some interesting photos from the CDF's Twitter feed have popped up:
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.
Would this part refer to the factory fitted Growlers
"In July of 2013, only three months after signing the FMS for twelve EA-18Gs, we ambitiously planned to start training aircrew"
rather than part of the original batch (prewired for conversion)?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Here's another story on the future submarine construction program. Useful for a general overview of the construction timetable. Quite a long period of time for test and evaluation of the first submarine in the late 2020s. http://www.naval-technology.com/feature ... s-5710860/
Would this part refer to the factory fitted Growlers
"In July of 2013, only three months after signing the FMS for twelve EA-18Gs, we ambitiously planned to start training aircrew"
rather than part of the original batch (prewired for conversion)?
Not 100% sure as we don't know the full extent of exchange between RAAF and USN, it's quite possabile we may have had a USN exchange in country as part of the planning group once it was decided to pre-wire, as there was debate at one stage should we buy more vanilla airframes then convert. But as we know they decide just to buy off the line instead for G's
RE "RAAF Growlers have the added ability to use Raytheon’s ATFLIR targeting pod "
I guess that is down to the RAAF (usually) having fewer a/c in a strike package than the USN has - and therefore individual a/c cannot be as specialised in their function?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
ArmChairCivvy wrote:RE "RAAF Growlers have the added ability to use Raytheon’s ATFLIR targeting pod "
I guess that is down to the RAAF (usually) having fewer a/c in a strike package than the USN has - and therefore individual a/c cannot be as specialised in their function?
I pretty sure I read somewhere that the USN was going to follow suit on new build aircraft, but dammed if it can confirm it.
So, sending the Test (1/2) Sqdrn
"During the 2011 Operation Odyssey Dawn engagement a squadron of five Growlers supporting the air war over Libya..."
was well worth it.
Joking apart, the sqdrns are gaining numbers, this is from 2013
" increase the AEA squadron size to eight—up from five. However, the Navy has settled on increasing the unit composition to seven aircraft—that is if it can convince the Congress to fund additional Growlers."
and I think I read a definitive on 8 (per sqdrn/ carrier) coming.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
ArmChairCivvy wrote:RE "RAAF Growlers have the added ability to use Raytheon’s ATFLIR targeting pod "
I guess that is down to the RAAF (usually) having fewer a/c in a strike package than the USN has - and therefore individual a/c cannot be as specialised in their function?
I pretty sure I read somewhere that the USN was going to follow suit on new build aircraft, but dammed if it can confirm it.
Air Marshal Brown explained the Australian requirement to fit the AIM-9X and ATFLIR came out of US Navy experience operating the Growler in operations over Libya.
“One of the things you see on our aeroplane is an ATFLIR and an AIM-9X. That was one of the lessons that the Navy learnt [from Libya],” Brown told journalists after the ceremony. “We’re the only ones that have got that capability and I suspect the US Navy will follow very quickly.”
Modifying the Growler to carry the ATFLIR and AIM-9X requires a relatively minor change to the aircraft’s software, as the Super Hornet, upon which the Growler is based, is already cleared to carry both the missile and the pod.
“One of the big lessons out of Libya was to actually have an electro-optical pod on the Growler,” Brown said. “You can get the electronic emissions, see where something is and get eyes on with a pod.”
Isn't the IRIS type, IR scan device to detect hostile (and other) a/c also carried podded, so will it be either-or... or is ATFLIR capable of doing the same (at the same or superior range)?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
MRH 90 to conduct first of class flight trials in the Anzac class.
Interesting that they are doing this not sure if any vanilla Blackhawks ever did this, they operated off the Kanimbla's. Wonder what's pushing this trial?
Has the new SF helo type been chosen yet (some xx[y]90 variation?]?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Has the new SF helo type been chosen yet (some xx[y]90 variation?]?
Not as far as I know, but there was a talk of a collaboration between AU and FR on a on special forces NH90 helicopter, havnt heard anymore, last I heard that SOCOMD were wanting new build BlackHawks.
But with the latest DWP stating that they plan to buy a new armed light helicopter for Special Forces support may be the catalyst for the modified NH-90. One of the stated aims was a quick deployable flight of 4x aircraft to be lifted by C17
