More F-35's for RAAF?
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 9840
- Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14
A number of Defense Analyst believe the projected number of 75 - 100 F-35's is totally inadequate to defend the Australian Mainland against a serious Chinese Threat! So, how many should they have in the opinion of the members of the forum???
-
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 28404
- Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
- Location: Australia
Care to cite these anal istas PLEASE. There is a long thread about Oz F-35s with recent postings about the future - there is no mention there from ADF officials about 'extra' F-35s on top of the 100 maximum cited for many a year with only less?
viewtopic.php?f=58&t=23043&p=441672&hilit=list#p441672 SCROLL DOWN from this item....
How many should Oz have? As many as required and which can be paid for. Already ADF thinks ahead for a replacement.
viewtopic.php?f=58&t=23043&p=441672&hilit=list#p441672 SCROLL DOWN from this item....
How many should Oz have? As many as required and which can be paid for. Already ADF thinks ahead for a replacement.
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 9840
- Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14
spazsinbad wrote:Care to cite these anal istas PLEASE. There is a long thread about Oz F-35s with recent postings about the future - there is no mention there from ADF officials about 'extra' F-35s on top of the 100 maximum cited for many a year with only less?
viewtopic.php?f=58&t=23043&p=441672&hilit=list#p441672 SCROLL DOWN from this item....
How many should Oz have? As many as required and which can be paid for. Already ADF thinks ahead for a replacement.
First, you see no need for more than 75-100 F-35's. Second, who said anything about Australian Government Officials???
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 9840
- Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14
Australia can only deploy two fighters in a contested environment?
Quotes:
The impact of the 'tyranny of distance' has recently gained renewed traction following an analysis in Forbes, drawing on detailed analysis by Marcus Hellyer from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute in the aftermath of the Prime Minister's $270 billion announcement.
While the Air Force has been the high profile recipient of many major capability developments in recent years, with the acquisition of the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter, Super Hornets, Growler electronic attack aircraft and a range of support capabilities, government at least in some small part seems committed to extending Australia's capability in the Indo-Pacific.
This includes the proposed acquisition of two additional KC-30A tankers to better support the tactical and strategic mobility of the Air Force and its air combat forces, however, as Hellyer explains, this may not be enough.
"If a commander wanted to keep F-35As on station around 1,500 kilometres out from mainland airbases (potentially protecting an amphibious task force, a lodged land force, or a naval task force patrolling choke points), planners would likely need to set up two refuelling circuits - one to enable the fighters to reach their station, and then one a few hundred kilometres behind the fighters’ station so they can pull back, refuel and return to station with fuel to fight," Hellyer said.
This limitation is further explained by David Axe writing for Forbes, who explains, "For all the billions of dollars that Canberra plans to spend on its air force in coming years, it still could struggle to significantly expand its capacity for long-range, high-intensity aerial combat.
"With its planned fleet of 72 F-35A and 24 F/A-18F fighters, the RAAF could keep just two jets on station with Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-Off Missiles or Long-Range Anti-Ship Missiles, which can range as far as 300 miles and 230 miles, respectively.
"The reason for this hard limit on combat capacity is not that the air force lacks fighters. Even taking into account training and maintenance demands, the RAAF in theory could deploy dozens of F-35s and F/A-18s. But both types can fly just 300 miles or so with weapons and internal fuel."
Further compounding the air combat limitations is the additional material costs associated with supporting the necessary E-7A Wedgetail airborne early warning, command and control platforms, which will also require their own dedicated tanker support.
Hellyer builds on Axe's thesis, explaining, "In that scenario, keeping just two F-35As on station would take at least eight F-35As in the air at one time around the clock (two heading out, four cycling between their station and the refueller, and two heading home).
"Each of them would need to fly an eight-hour mission, potentially tanking four or five times. Taking aircraft maintenance and unserviceability into account (which will increase as the operation continues), that would potentially require at least 12 to 16 aircraft to sustain.
"But since pilots can fly that mission only once per day, the cycle needs a minimum of 24 pilots (and more to account for ‘unserviceability’ of pilots as the operation grinds into the future).
"But more is needed. The whole concept of a fifth-generation air force relies on superior situational awareness, so to fully exploit the F-35A’s capabilities the package would need to include an E-7A Wedgetail early warning and control aircraft flying a circuit a hundred kilometres or so behind the fighters to detect enemy aircraft."The RAAF has six, and fewer than that will be available for operations, and fewer again serviceable for missions. Therefore, sustaining that one combat air patrol will likely require all the Wedgetails. Keeping them on station will likely draw on some of the tankers’ fuel.
"But the biggest stressor on the viability of the mission is tanker capacity. The air force now has seven KC-30A air-to-air refuellers after recently acquiring an additional two. It’s hard to see more than five being available, and fewer will be serviceable on any given day.
"One tanker, engaged in continuously refuelling fighters on the combat air patrol, can’t stay on station for more than four to six hours before needing to refuel."
Long range munitions can't make up the difference
It is apparent that despite the government's commitment to acquiring additional long-range, precision strike munitions, they simply won't be enough to bridge the glaring capability gap that effectively limits Australia's application of credible air combat power in defence of the long vaunted 'sea-air gap', which continues to serve as the foundation for Australia's defence doctrine.
Recognizing these factors, combined with the ever-shrinking reality of Australia's long vaunted strategic moat in the 'sea-air gap', renowned Australian strategic policy thinker Hugh White presented an idea for a significantly enhanced Royal Australian Air Force to meet these challenges.
White's premise, along with the potential for a doubling of the nation's defence budget, is for the acquisition of some 200 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters armed with the latest in long-range stand-off weapons systems to dictate and dominate the terms of engagement throughout Australia's northern approaches.
Combining the fifth-generation capabilities of the F-35 with other key platforms like the E-7A Wedgetail, KC-30A Tankers and future submarines to severely blunt a potential adversary's hostile intent towards the Australian mainland.
https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/strik ... kMtXjxt-yE
Quotes:
The impact of the 'tyranny of distance' has recently gained renewed traction following an analysis in Forbes, drawing on detailed analysis by Marcus Hellyer from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute in the aftermath of the Prime Minister's $270 billion announcement.
While the Air Force has been the high profile recipient of many major capability developments in recent years, with the acquisition of the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter, Super Hornets, Growler electronic attack aircraft and a range of support capabilities, government at least in some small part seems committed to extending Australia's capability in the Indo-Pacific.
This includes the proposed acquisition of two additional KC-30A tankers to better support the tactical and strategic mobility of the Air Force and its air combat forces, however, as Hellyer explains, this may not be enough.
"If a commander wanted to keep F-35As on station around 1,500 kilometres out from mainland airbases (potentially protecting an amphibious task force, a lodged land force, or a naval task force patrolling choke points), planners would likely need to set up two refuelling circuits - one to enable the fighters to reach their station, and then one a few hundred kilometres behind the fighters’ station so they can pull back, refuel and return to station with fuel to fight," Hellyer said.
This limitation is further explained by David Axe writing for Forbes, who explains, "For all the billions of dollars that Canberra plans to spend on its air force in coming years, it still could struggle to significantly expand its capacity for long-range, high-intensity aerial combat.
"With its planned fleet of 72 F-35A and 24 F/A-18F fighters, the RAAF could keep just two jets on station with Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-Off Missiles or Long-Range Anti-Ship Missiles, which can range as far as 300 miles and 230 miles, respectively.
"The reason for this hard limit on combat capacity is not that the air force lacks fighters. Even taking into account training and maintenance demands, the RAAF in theory could deploy dozens of F-35s and F/A-18s. But both types can fly just 300 miles or so with weapons and internal fuel."
Further compounding the air combat limitations is the additional material costs associated with supporting the necessary E-7A Wedgetail airborne early warning, command and control platforms, which will also require their own dedicated tanker support.
Hellyer builds on Axe's thesis, explaining, "In that scenario, keeping just two F-35As on station would take at least eight F-35As in the air at one time around the clock (two heading out, four cycling between their station and the refueller, and two heading home).
"Each of them would need to fly an eight-hour mission, potentially tanking four or five times. Taking aircraft maintenance and unserviceability into account (which will increase as the operation continues), that would potentially require at least 12 to 16 aircraft to sustain.
"But since pilots can fly that mission only once per day, the cycle needs a minimum of 24 pilots (and more to account for ‘unserviceability’ of pilots as the operation grinds into the future).
"But more is needed. The whole concept of a fifth-generation air force relies on superior situational awareness, so to fully exploit the F-35A’s capabilities the package would need to include an E-7A Wedgetail early warning and control aircraft flying a circuit a hundred kilometres or so behind the fighters to detect enemy aircraft."The RAAF has six, and fewer than that will be available for operations, and fewer again serviceable for missions. Therefore, sustaining that one combat air patrol will likely require all the Wedgetails. Keeping them on station will likely draw on some of the tankers’ fuel.
"But the biggest stressor on the viability of the mission is tanker capacity. The air force now has seven KC-30A air-to-air refuellers after recently acquiring an additional two. It’s hard to see more than five being available, and fewer will be serviceable on any given day.
"One tanker, engaged in continuously refuelling fighters on the combat air patrol, can’t stay on station for more than four to six hours before needing to refuel."
Long range munitions can't make up the difference
It is apparent that despite the government's commitment to acquiring additional long-range, precision strike munitions, they simply won't be enough to bridge the glaring capability gap that effectively limits Australia's application of credible air combat power in defence of the long vaunted 'sea-air gap', which continues to serve as the foundation for Australia's defence doctrine.
Recognizing these factors, combined with the ever-shrinking reality of Australia's long vaunted strategic moat in the 'sea-air gap', renowned Australian strategic policy thinker Hugh White presented an idea for a significantly enhanced Royal Australian Air Force to meet these challenges.
White's premise, along with the potential for a doubling of the nation's defence budget, is for the acquisition of some 200 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters armed with the latest in long-range stand-off weapons systems to dictate and dominate the terms of engagement throughout Australia's northern approaches.
Combining the fifth-generation capabilities of the F-35 with other key platforms like the E-7A Wedgetail, KC-30A Tankers and future submarines to severely blunt a potential adversary's hostile intent towards the Australian mainland.
https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/strik ... kMtXjxt-yE
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 9840
- Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14
beepa wrote:Wouldn't surprise if there were more calls for an expression of interest in the B21. If the US allow export sales and the price is not too exorbitant, it may be a good fit for long range ship sinking.
Honestly, I would like to see a Tanker Version of the B-21 Stealth Bomber. This would push numbers up and drive prices down. Maybe to a point the USAF could buy more and possibly export the type.
That would clearly be in the interest of the US and her Allies....
-
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 28404
- Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
- Location: Australia
AXE explaining now? Cool Cool Cool - that really adds to the credibility of the whole scenario - manufactured for effect.
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 9840
- Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14
spazsinbad wrote:AXE explaining now? Cool Cool Cool - that really adds to the credibility of the whole scenario - manufactured for effect.
David Axe is just quoting other sources. Yet, the math is easily supportable....8 F-35's just to maintain 2 F-35's on station.
Then consider the vast territory of Australia and the surrounding region....
-
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 28404
- Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
- Location: Australia
As others interested have pointed out in the other long running Oz thread: our ADF will have allied F-35s and tankers in the mix likely NOT flying from Australia but their territories to our north. SLDinfo has been banging on about this for AGES.
Australia is part of a coalition with F-35s that are easily interoperable along with other allied assets. IS THAT ENOUGH?
Australia is part of a coalition with F-35s that are easily interoperable along with other allied assets. IS THAT ENOUGH?
-
- Elite 3K
- Posts: 3667
- Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36
Corsair1963 wrote:Quotes:
... following an analysis in Forbes...
...drawing on detailed analysis by Marcus Hellyer...
... as Hellyer explains...
...further explained by David Axe
"The reason for this hard limit on combat capacity is not that the air force lacks fighters. Even taking into account training and maintenance demands, the RAAF in theory could deploy dozens of F-35s and F/A-18s. But both types can fly just 300 miles or so with weapons and internal fuel." [ so explaineth the Axed ]
Hellyer builds on Axe's thesis, explaining... [ so Axe has a thesis now? ]
...renowned Australian strategic policy thinker Hugh White presented an idea ...
White's premise...
https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/strik ... nvironment
So Axe is writing for Forbes now? He must feel so relieved he can write serious journalistic pieces, studies, theses and whatnot... and yet cannot get the combat range of the F-35 correct? What's lopping off over 50% of the range anyhow? Who's going to know? A Forbes reader?
Super Hornet's flying 300 mile combat missions on internal fuel alone? You just know this article HAS TO BE correct, and authoritative, because it uses words like stressor, the authors are renowned and have premises and theses.
Criminy.... YABDT?
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
- Active Member
- Posts: 158
- Joined: 10 Jul 2018, 22:02
steve2267 wrote:Corsair1963 wrote:Quotes:
... following an analysis in Forbes...
...drawing on detailed analysis by Marcus Hellyer...
... as Hellyer explains...
...further explained by David Axe
"The reason for this hard limit on combat capacity is not that the air force lacks fighters. Even taking into account training and maintenance demands, the RAAF in theory could deploy dozens of F-35s and F/A-18s. But both types can fly just 300 miles or so with weapons and internal fuel." [ so explaineth the Axed ]
Hellyer builds on Axe's thesis, explaining... [ so Axe has a thesis now? ]
...renowned Australian strategic policy thinker Hugh White presented an idea ...
White's premise...
https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/strik ... nvironment
So Axe is writing for Forbes now? He must feel so relieved he can write serious journalistic pieces, studies, theses and whatnot... and yet cannot get the combat range of the F-35 correct? What's lopping off over 50% of the range anyhow? Who's going to know? A Forbes reader?
You just know this article HAS TO BE correct, and authoritative, because it uses words like stressor, the authors are renowned and have premises and theses.
Criminy.... YABDT?
One of my "favorite" things about Axe's bridge burning with The National Interest is that despite his claims about how Big Bad Corporate beat all his headlines into clickbait monstrosities with a dash of stolen photography on top, all of Forbes' defense coverage after he jumped there has completely identical headlines to what they would have were they to go up on TNI.
The article in the opening post is exactly what people mean by "garbage in, garbage out". RAAF F-35 fleet size is not the bottleneck for RAAF force projection into the South China Sea, it's the support assets like tankers and AEW&C and forward basing to reduce transit times or strain on support assets. This is exactly what the original ASPI article noted, Axe just spun it to hell and back. And people who aren't familiar with the article he mangled lap it up.
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1458
- Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09
spazsinbad wrote:AXE explaining now? Cool Cool Cool - that really adds to the credibility of the whole scenario - manufactured for effect.
Spaz it looks like you may see a dedicated Carrier foying Australian colors again in your life time.
China has really done alot to help the Australian and American military industrial complex.
- Active Member
- Posts: 148
- Joined: 08 Nov 2016, 23:53
beepa wrote:If the US allow export sales and the price is not too exorbitant, it may be a good fit for long range ship sinking.
I could see that. A couple of B-21s slinging 32 LRASMs might significantly reduce the size of a naval task force in just one sortie.
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 9840
- Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14
steve2267 wrote:
So Axe is writing for Forbes now? He must feel so relieved he can write serious journalistic pieces, studies, theses and whatnot... and yet cannot get the combat range of the F-35 correct? What's lopping off over 50% of the range anyhow? Who's going to know? A Forbes reader?
You just know this article HAS TO BE correct, and authoritative, because it uses words like stressor, the authors are renowned and have premises and theses.
Criminy.... YABDT?
Yeah, he doesn't have a stellar reputation.
My mistake I should have posted another source...
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 9840
- Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14
jessmo112 wrote:spazsinbad wrote:AXE explaining now? Cool Cool Cool - that really adds to the credibility of the whole scenario - manufactured for effect.
Spaz it looks like you may see a dedicated Carrier foying Australian colors again in your life time.
China has really done alot to help the Australian and American military industrial complex.
Yes, China can never win an Arms Race with the US and her Allies. All they end up doing is making them richer...
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 32 guests