thobbesAgain 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.
thobbesReally, what is going to replace the F-15C’s. Especially, since F-22 Production has ended. Honestly, I am all ears??? Regardless, I remember at least one case of a USAF General in the Pacific Command stating the F-35A was going to replace F-15C. I have no doubt you could easily find it with a simple google search…………
F-15C/D/E will be in service to 2035.
245 C/Ds will be retained roughly up to then. PACAF might lose it’s 2 F-15 squadrons to F-35s but obviously ANG will retain F-15C/D as well as regular force retaining F-15E to that period.
By 2035 something should be in the pipeline.
thobbesWe were talking about 2030+ period – you’re exact words were:
have my doubts the Super Hornet will be in widespread service past 2030
thobbesScooter, that’s not what USAF says.
However any future cutbacks will be to A-10 units, which reduces number of required F-35s. So if USAF wants to acquire same number of F-35s they will probably use them replace F-15 units in USAFE. PACAF and ANG.
thobbesMore than enough capacity as the F-35 will have at least three Assy Plants. (US, Japan, and Italy) Plus, the option is available for more!
Assembly is not manufacture. You also need to build components. And how many subcontractors does that involve and how many have capacity to ramp up production of a non-standard type by 100% (F-35A is standard model).
And do you think the USA will happily assemble F-35s in Japan or Italy for US consumption? Also no-ones going to want Japanese assembled F-35s because of higher cost.
The F/A-XX NGAD is not been funded or a Winner Selected. Why do people keep talking like it’s been approved and it’s in development???
Are you convinced USA will simply stop fighter development at F-35?
F-15C/D was 1 year old when Advanced Tactical Fighter (i.e. program that resulted in F-22) requirement conception started in 1981.
thobbesScooter; you did say:
With the main Strike Force being made up with a mix of F-35C’s and UCLASS.
Nice of you to change your mind and pretend you knew all along. :eagerness:
Most of those early model F-16s were replaced in 1990s when the budgets were far bigger and the replacements were often relics of Cold War orders (you can tell as most have serial number pre-1992).
In fact from 1992 to 2001 USAF only ordered 113 F-16C/Ds as well as taking on 14 embargoed Pakistani F-16A/Bs. This is out of 2,231 F-16s ordered by USAF (6% of total).
F-15E orders were even less post 1992: Only 30 aircraft out of total of 236 were ordered in 1992-2001 period.
So whilst US may have ordered aircraft to keep production chugging, these were very small.
So how many additional F-35Cs do you think USN will be able to afford once bulk of 340 have been ordered, especially if they want F/A-XX and if they’re struggling to maintain funding for 11 strong carrier fleet?
thobbesPersonally, I have my doubts the Super Hornet will be in widespread service past 2030! As it will become more and more expensive to maintain and keep them survivable much past 2025. Plus, as I have often said and many want to ignore. It’s not always just about Capabilities and Threat. As the US Government will face a lot of pressure from several sources to keep F-35 Production Up. Which, in turn keeps the price down and spreads a great deal of work around the world.
So, I expect to see F-35 Production to continue even after all of the Hornets are replaced. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a Composite Squadron of Hornets near the end. Which, could be 8-10 Super Hornets used mainly as Tankers and 4- Growlers. With the main Strike Force being made up with a mix of F-35C’s and UCLASS.
Also even if Navy wanted to keep F-35C in production after aircraft 340 (260 for USN and 80 for USMC), there’s about 500 F/A-18E/Fs planned/in service as well as 114 E/A-18Gs.
So replacing even 300-ish (i.e. reduce carrier wing F/A-18E/F component to 1 sqn out of 4 on a carrier) would require a doubling of F-35C production which would in turn throw USAF/USMC/Export production out of whack as production is estimated on 340 F-35C of which most will be built post 2020!
US would also have to find funding for an additional 300+ F-35Cs!
And that also screws up F/A-XX!
thobbesUCLASS is not meant to be a primary strike vehicle. It’s meant to be an ISR platform with light strike capability (i.e total of 1,000 lbs (454 kg) of munitions).
Hence I expect UCLASS to be fielded in small squadrons of 4-6 UCAV per carrier group and not as a wholesale replacement for current manned strike fighters.
I’d rather an F/A-18F or even an A-4/A-6/A-7 than a UCLASS capable of carrying ****** all ordnance.
thobbesAlso 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.
thobbesGiven 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!
thobbesExcept 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.
thobbesUnless you can some how prove it has been only one shot- one kill, then your statement about lack of dog-fighting is moot.
Nothing ever is 1 shot-1 kill. That’s a ridiculous proposition.
Even in a dog fight it’s never been a guaranteed 1 shot (1 burst of MG/cannon fire) = 1 kill.
Even WVR combat with IR missiles often involved stand off firing barrages of missiles and then a quick scoot away. This is what the Egyptians were doing with their AA-2 equipped MiG-21s in 1960s and 1970s. And then missiles often missed. Lack of gun didn’t help though! 😀
But if it got the other guy to abort of break formation then that might be worth it, especially if there was other assets waiting in the wings to take advantage of the confusion.
Combat in Vietnam often saw ACM but with no kills as one side would withdraw due to lack of fuel etc. But if you manage to delay the MiG-17/-21s long enough for the bombers to get through then it’s mission accomplished even if you don’t shoot any down.
People forget purpose of combat is not to kill. It’s to prevent enemy from achieving their goals whilst you achieve your own.
thobbesC-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.
thobbesC-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.
thobbesI assume you included an obsolete system (SA-5 Gammon) merely as an example?
Sign In
