Many of my Australian friends have expressed there concern over losing the venerable F-111 and replacing it with the F-35. While, personally I don’t see much of a choice for the RAAF or at least not in the short-term. Except that is to lease a small number of F-15E’s. The Strike Eagle is still in production and Boeing would surely be happy to lease a squadron or two to the RAAF. This is very common and many nation lease aircraft on a short-term bases. For example the RAF until recently leased 4 C-17’s……………now they are going to buy the 4 examples and order one more! 😀

Certainly the UK leased new build C-17s but its the only example I can think of for such an arrangement. Plans for leasing new build tankers in both the US and UK are yet to come to fruition. Most other leasing arrangements have been for aircraft from the leasor nations existing stocks eg the Tornado F.3s and F-16 ADVs leased to Italy ,the F-4Es leased to Australia or Gripens leased to Hungary. Maybe an arrangment could be reached for Strike Eagles between Australia and Boeing that involved the aircraft going to the US after the F-35s had arrived. The USAF budget is pretty tight though and they would have to part of the deal lest the RAAF have to bear the full cost fo the aircraft production and support. Tanker aircraft, expecially in QC combo configuration can be easily onsold on the civilian market when the military operator is done with them. The same does not hold for a top of the range combat aircraft like the F-15O would be (homage to the Mirage IIIO 🙂 ).

Daniel

Well, I didn’t realize that you had such close ties to the RAAF? Regardless, I was just expressing my opinion! That said, my comments are surely less offensive than yours………….Grow Up :p

I apologise unreservedly and have edited the offensive elements out of the post.

Now could we address the central points.

1) Where is the RAAF going to find a couple of dozen Strike Eagles to lease as an interim type that will have sufficient airframe hours available for 5-10 years service?

2) If aforementioned pre-loved Strike Eagle’s cannot be had then does it seem reasonable that the RAAF would pay the going rate for new aircraft for such a short period of service.

Personnally I agree that the F-15E and derivatives are the superior aircraft compared with the Super Bug. If the idea was to provide a long term solution for the F-111 issue then it would be a valid choice (probably not my own first choice given that it would likely then serve for 30 years with the RAAF). However that wasn’t the issue. To use your own words the discussion was regarding

If, the RAAF wanted an interm solution

Daniel

In regards to Raptor capability, it has not been cleared yet for most air-to-ground ordnance. I know it’s currently cleared for JDAM, WCMD and SDB but I haven’t seen it cleared for any other munitions yet (I might be wrong). But how long will it take to integrate these other weapons into the Raptor, if at all?

Australia has been expanding it’s range of AG ordnance including AGM-142 and Harpoon Anti-Shipping missiles. Would an F-22 be able to haul this sort of ordnance?

The AGM-142 was purchased specifically for the F-111. Once the Pigs go so will the Popeyes. I doubt the F-22 will be cleared for the Harpoon but other muntions in the range that will be will cover the role.

Daniel

Edit: Danrh, you stated “eight cells each for for ESSM and Tomahawk”, where did you get that info?

Unicorn

Pure speculation. 48 cells total is a common fit for the AAW vessels coming into service with the Euro navies and the PLAN so it seems like a good number for the primary Area AAW missile, SM-2/3. That leaves 16 cells. The ESSM is being put into service on both the FFGs and ANZACs in single eight cell modules (32 missiles) so that would seem to be a reasonable expectation for the AWDs. That just leaves eight cells. Chances are they’ll be filled with more SM-2s but I suppose VL-ASROC could be a possibility or Tomahawks but neither has ever been mentioned by the government so it remains nothing but speculation 🙂

Daniel

Heard it was just a test example that was put on display by accident. The RAM was supposed to be quite thick, which suggests a rather early development. Considering the threats to Su-25s I think RAM would be a very low priority. Self defence systems to protect from visually aimed heat seekers and artillery would be more productive in my opinion.

Depends on the enemy. The US for instance depends more on the Air Force to secure its ground troops than the troops own AD assets. In this case the RAM might be worth it.

Daniel

Okay just to be clear I’m talking about an interim type ie something in service for 5-10 years only to cover a gap between the F-111 retirement and the arrival of the F-35. If the aircraft was being selected as the long term (20-30years) replacement for the F-111 then the F-15 would be a good choice. But not for a short term thing. The USAF is unlikely to be declaring any Strike Eagle’s surplus anytime soon whereas as you mention Bug’s and Super Bugs will probably be available including early Super Bugs with the APG-73s which would of course have additional commonality with the RAAFs HUG Hornets. The RAAF would not buy new build Eagles for the short term and unless they do chuck the JSF idea completely they won’t buy them for the longterm.

Daniel

However despite all that its seems I am quite wrong.

Otomat ASM

The ship’s long-range sea-skimming missile system is the Otomat Mark 2/Teseo by MBDA (formerly Alenia and Matra BAe Dynamics). Six Otomat Teseo Mark 2 missile launchers, three pointing to port and three pointing starboard, are installed on the stern deck. The missiles are armed with a 210kg high-explosive warhead, fitted with impact and proximity fuses. The speed of the missile is Mach 0.9 and the range is 120km.

YJ-83

The ship’s surface-to-surface missile system is the indigenous YJ-83. The missile system has right box launchers (in two groups, each with 4 launchers). The missile uses active radar homing and is powered by a turbojet (with a solid rocket booster). The anti-ship missile has a range of 120km and approaches the target in sea skimming mode at a speed of 0.9 Mach. The 165kg shaped charge warhead has time delayed impact proximity fuses.

So its quite possible that perhaps the missile was decoyed off target or the proximity fuse activated prematurely it exploded such that a fragment caused the damage concealed by the DC mat.

Daniel

I never found out what the need for proximity fuses are offically. The only use for one I can think of would be to have the missile detonate near the target in the event of a near miss to try and cause some damage, especially to the sensors and weapons systems, so that the missile is not wasted if ECM and/or chaff got the better of the radar seeker. However, this does not seem to fit with the kind of damage on the ship.

Some ASMs can reattack a target. Have a proximity fuse means your missile is just as likely to detonate before hitting the target as after passing beyond. I imagine the idea is not impossible but it does seem to add an extra level of complexity, and new potentional failure points. Whatever happened to KISS.

Daniel