Yes, but put the same on a F35B and you’d be lucky to get outside of the Ship’s RADAR horizon! :ok:

Also, you then have to think about whether it can VTOL back onto the boat with all that extra stuff on board and also whether it can physically carry 3x ALQ-99 (which is way more capable than the bog standard F35B’s current suite) , 2x HARMs, extra fuel tanks and then some self defence weapons. Also, ALQ-99 is due to be replaced by the ALQ-249 Next Generation Jammer (NGJ - with 2 replacing the legacy 3) within the next couple of years which is more capable and less draggy as I understand it?

Absolutely, that has been my main thrust all along. The USN and the RAAF know this, but why can’t the UK military see this - we have only bought half of the clubs for our 5th Gen golf bag!! The F35B will struggle to do what it wants to do - fly against low frequency RADARs and it will struggle with its short range. The only way to make it more useful is to put drop tanks on it (which shags the LO until they ditch the tanks) and to have an escort jammer like Growler that can suppress the capabilities of low frequency RADARs that can detect aircraft like F117, F22, F35 and B2.


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....d9ba798e0.jpeg

This graphic shows the future for 5th gen Air Power (although the COMPASS CALL should be a bit further back!!).

Low Frequency RADAR vs Stealth references:
https://www.c4isrnet.com/intel-geoin..._medium=social

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...aircraft-59977

https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/11/ar...e-stealth-war/

"The USN and the RAAF know this, but why can’t the UK military see this"

I'm pretty sure they can - but the US has a far greater budget and the Australians aren't spending money on SSBN's and carriers - the money just isn't there for an all singing , all dancing air force any longer - the UK has to make choices

Australia spends 1.9-2% GDP on defence (Australian GDP is roughly half that of the UK). Their 3x Services are roughly half the size of ours by proportion (even the Reserves). They are actively modernising (as are we). Indeed they have bought in the last 20 years 6x COLLINS Class SSG guided missile subs (and plan to buy more ATTACK Class SSGs), they have 2x CANBERRA Class LHD helicopter carriers that are bigger than our old INVINCIBLE Class (and also made tunes to buy F35B for them in their 2004 Maritime Strategy). In recent years they have bought Super Hornets (A/B/F/G models) and F35A, plus nearly twice as many P8s and they already have the Wedgetail. Yes, they don’t have an Independent Nuclear Deterrent, but then again there has never really been a threat to the Australian mainland until recently - hence they are now modernising their defence forces. Looking at their RAAF inventory then they seem to have just about every capability that we have but about half the number - apart from MPAs where they have much more sea to cover than us. The escorting SEAD/DEAD/EW/EA is really this missing piece in the RAF’s jigsaw, which is what this post is really all about - if Australia has 11x Growlers on a Sqn, then why haven’t we got 22 on 2 Sqns?

I wouldn't bring up the Collins programme with any Australian......................

The Australians no longer build their own airframes (same with the Canberra's - built in Spain) - so can shop around for the best deal - the UK still tries to support a national capacity with aircraft and ships (and even tanks) - this is VERY expensive. The latest World Naval Review reckons the RN & Norwegian Navy's latest tankers, built in S Korea, cost approx. 33%- 50% of the cost of equivalent French built vessels and an astounding 90% less than the latest Canadian home built support vessels. It will be very interesting g to see the costs of the costs of the submarines they are buying from France but building in Adelaide - same with the new Type 31's they are planning to build locally.

The SSBN force costs around USD $2.5- 3 Bn a year but replacement will cost s a fortune

Lima Juliet,

Because it is a silly comparison. Australia does not have two SSBN nor three and a half SSN, nor does it have one 65,0000 ton aircraft carrier or 38 Chinooks or 25 Apaches.

The RAF has never operated dedicated SEAD/DEAD/EA aircraft, and even during the Cold War neither did most of NATO, it was just a niche capability provided in small numbers by the US and the Germans. And that niche capability never existed in numbers to enable it to be everywhere at once, so it was never seen as a must have by anybody.

Asturia56,

A national capability in certain defence manufacturing is seen by the UK as an essential national asset and capability, if you buy everything from overseas then you risk your foreign policy inevitably becoming dependent upon those you buy from, not very independent and not a very good example of "taking back control". You would also ruin the second largest defence and aerospace industry in the world with all the implications for employment, GDP and tax take.

Agreed Pr00ne - but that comes that at a significant cost to the UK Armed Services - I was only pointing out that buying off the shelf allows the Aussies to buy more. Their record of building in Australia is pretty dreadful TBH.

If you want to subsidise an industry maybe just subsidise it rather than channel the funds through the RAF and the RN

Lima Juliet,

I'm sure that it is pretty good, but your claim that we should have about double the Australian capability in quantity is nonsense. We are in very different strategic situations and have vastly different needs. Didn't the EF-3 exist at flight level for less than a year? We never had SEAD/DEAD/EA before, so why in a much smaller actual war fighting force should we suddenly demand one now?

The F-35B has a target combat radius of of 450NM but it achieves 510NM. Significantly less than the C but more the F-18

Tornado EF-3 Alarm and war load
 

What was the Tonka EF-3s actual combat range with Alarms and tanks.

Now they are even longer retired and pepsi cans.

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....f60267f4b8.jpg
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....7afb9c4fbc.jpg

Ah yes, the 2250ltr jugs, which imposed even more stringent limits on an already severely limited aircraft. Add the DI of the ALARMs and you'd be in the admiral's barge. On the plus side, however, the RHWR was brilliantly accurate for SEAD.....

That EF-3 has 1500L “Mike” fit tanks on. A little more G, but a little less speed (apparently :E).

In that fit, you should be able to fly for around 2 hours or so from being topped off. So, if you used a pre-push tanker expect to go about 400-500nm into bad lands before needing to come back. Of course, if you had to ditch the tanks at the limit of that range and then fight, you might have to step over the side as you got back to base as the engines go quiet :p. So in reality I would only expect to go a couple of hundred miles ‘sausage side’ to retain some fighting fuel on task before heading back with div fuel.

If you were going that deep it would only be because you were a SEAD escort for a COMAO package - in which case the limiting factor would be the range of the mudmovers loaded with bombs and/or JP233…

Was that role ever operational on the Tornado, or was it just an attempt to prolong the lifespan of the aircraft?