The head of the Royal Australian Air Force’s air combat group says he’s excited by the prospect of Australian pilots flying alongside a ‘loyal wingman’ unmanned aircraft like the one Boeing is developing in Brisbane.

Air Commodore Mike Kitcher says the drone, which will be the first combat-capable aircraft to be designed and built in Australia since the Boomerang in 1942, will present both cultural and technical challenges but the air force will be ready to tackle them.

‘The idea behind the loyal wingman concept is quite a sound one. The practicalities of executing it will prove challenging but are well worth investing in.

‘A loyal wingman that has greater flexibility to aid the defensive or survivability characteristics of a manned platform or indeed augment the lethality of that manned platform by carrying weapons—that’s quite an exciting concept, but it’s early days yet’, he told The Strategist.

And while it might seem intuitive, he says the unmanned plane isn’t likely to lead to an overall reduction in demand for the people the air force needs.

‘I think considering less people would probably be a false economy. I would like to think that those people that are operating the airframe will be far more lethal, survivable and combat capable, enabled by that loyal wingman concept.’

Kitcher told a briefing on the status of the RAAF’s F-35 program at the Australian International Airshow at Avalon that the biggest challenge he faces as head of air combat group is attracting and retaining enough people to run his operation.

‘At the moment, in introducing the F-35 capability the biggest challenges that I see are people. Enough qualified technicians, tradespeople and engineers to actually support the aircraft and its myriad systems, and then people to fly the aircraft.’

The first two RAAF F-35s arrived on Australian soil in December last year, though there are eight more currently being used on training programs in the US. And despite the workforce challenge, Kitcher says he’s happy with the current status of the F-35 project.

‘It would be fair to say it’s very early days’, says Kitcher. ‘I’ll be much more comfortable saying that things are going smoothly in about 12 to 15 months’ time, by mid next year, when we’ve got 12 to 16 aircraft operating in Australia.

‘I think it’d be quite premature to say that everything’s under control’, he says. ‘Things are looking positive at the moment, but there’s a long way to go over the next couple of years to get to IOC.’

The plan to get the F-35 to initial operating capability involves having eight jets in Australia by the end of the year and 30 jets on the ground by the end of 2020.

Kitcher’s biggest priority on that path, though, is making sure the RAAF achieves a ‘sovereign training capability’, meaning it trains all its F-35 pilots and ground crew domestically without the need for them to go to the US, as is currently the case.

‘Being able to conduct sovereign training for Australia is very important, in fact, I think the most important component of our initial operating capability.

‘If we don’t have, if you like, the engine room that is our training capability, then it’s going to be difficult to get to our final operating capability.

That final level of readiness is due in late 2023, by which time the RAAF’s full complement of 72 jets should be in the country.

Understandably, Kitcher doesn’t want to present an opinion on whether the government should acquire an extra squadron of F-35s, as has been mooted, or pursue other options, though among geopolitical and budgetary factors, he mentions that the progress of the ‘loyal wingman’ project may be a factor in that decision.

After coming in for a large amount of criticism over the past several years, the F-35’s aerial performance is now getting more positive reports from exercises like ‘Red Flag’ in the US, which Kitcher flew in last month in a ‘Classic’ Hornet as part of an Australian contingent alongside American and British aircraft.

He says the new jet’s performance was good, but what impressed him more was the way the F-35 integrated with older aircraft like his and enabled them to better do their own jobs.

‘It was actually better than I expected at this stage.

‘Certainly I felt far more empowered and enabled by the fact that that there were F-35s there and, to a certain extent, US Navy Super Hornets as well there making our Classic Hornet capability better than what it would otherwise be.’

During the exercise the ‘blue’ side didn’t have things all its own way, but in some of the missions Kitcher flew in, the F-35 led the way in gaining superiority over the ‘red’ team.

‘They kicked the door down against a fairly determined air adversary. They then retired back towards the strike train while F-22s came over the top and held that door open.

‘The F-35s then, using their sensors and other capabilities, led a combined  strike package that took the Classic Hornet formation that I was flying in, a US Navy Super Hornet formation and a [British] Typhoon formation, supported by US Navy Growlers and US Air Force F-16s, deep into enemy territory against a significant surface-to-air threat to deliver precision-guided weapons on targets, and the F-35s provided sensor awareness that would otherwise have been unavailable to myself flying a Classic Hornet.’

While the RAAF is working to integrate the F-35 with other aircraft and use it to enhance their capabilities, Kitcher says there may be scenarios in which the jet operates on its own because it may be too risky to fly less advanced aircraft on the same missions.

‘The primary focus of our validation and verification activities will be ensuring the F-35 value-adds to the entire ADF capability and improves our entire capability while preserving the option to use the F-35 on its own if the threat environment requires that.’

It’s not just other RAAF aircraft that the F-35 will work with. Kitcher says integration with the navy’s new air warfare destroyers will be key to getting the most out of the jet.

That kind of capability, and the development of ‘sovereign mission data files’ to optimise the F-35 for Australia-specific requirements, go beyond what the RAAF has done in the past.

‘With the F-35, it’s a completely different way of doing business’, he says.

The arrival today of the first two operational joint strike fighters will strengthen the deterrent effect of the whole Australian Defence Force, says Air Marshal Leo Davies.

The Royal Australian Air Force chief tells The Strategist that allies and potential enemies will look at the ADF, with its stealthy fifth-generation multirole F-35A jets as a key element, and what the force is able to do.

‘They’ll think we’d be a tough nut to crack’, says Davies. ‘That to me is the first part of having a defence force—deterrence.’

The RAAF must be able to provide options for the government that are reliable against any potential enemy, no matter how sophisticated, Davies says.

‘In our region and abroad, multiple countries are enhancing their air combat capabilities. So we need to maintain a level of sophistication that allows us to do what we need to do when we need to do it.

‘The F-35 brings that next step which means we are able to confidently send men and women to do a job and have a better than even chance of survival—and of success.’

Davies says Australian pilots who’ve flown earlier jets and since qualified on the F-35 have found the difference dramatic. To explain the increase in situational awareness the F-35’s sensors bring, they’ve compared it to the difference between trying to drive in darkness with no lights and driving with very effective night-vision goggles. ‘It’s that stark in their estimation. Night becomes day so you can drive normally. But to try to drive without night-vision equipment or headlights would be impossible.’

Davies says an F-35 pilot will be able to characterise an adversary’s aircraft, land forces and ships and then choose how to react to them. Sometimes that will mean not reacting and just monitoring the enemy’s movements. Sometimes it will mean ‘cuing’ another asset such as one of the RAAF’s F/A-18 Hornets, or an air warfare destroyer or, in due course, a ground-based air-defence system.

The comparison has been made before, says Davies, but it works well. Ordinary aircraft operated like instruments in a band; the F-35 now becomes the conductor.

‘The F-35 won’t send a package of data and then forget about it. It will orchestrate the operation.’

In doing that it will make aircraft such as the Hornet, Super Hornet and Growler much more capable.

An F-35 deep in enemy territory will be able to send information to a Super Hornet a safe distance from enemy defences to identify a target and provide a mass of information about it. That will allow the Hornet pilot to launch a weapon at very long range with great precision and confidence about the target.

Davies says the F-35 channels enhanced awareness into the cockpits of friendly aircraft and ships and army command vehicles. ‘It enhances their picture. It allows better and faster decision-making.’

The fidelity of the data the F-35 can pass to a commander on the ground is exquisite, he says.

In the battle to drive the Islamic State terror group out of the Iraqi city of Mosul, the RAAF’s Hornets were able to send back a lot of information about what was happening in the streets below, but they weren’t able to bomb while they gathered and dispatched that intelligence.

The F-35 can maintain its air-to-air situational awareness, pass data to, for instance, a Wedgetail command-and-control aircraft and provide data to the ground commander at the same time without reducing its own ability to fight.

The F-35 is not ‘invisible’, Davies says. ‘What the F-35 brings is a reduced signature available to the radars trying to find it and a reduced heat signature.’ That makes it harder to locate using infrared scanners.

‘It also has communication systems with what we call “low probability of intercept”. Information is sent in short bursts using minimal energy and precisely targeted for whomever it’s intended for.’ Davies says the aircraft is able to safely penetrate far deeper into hostile territory than other aircraft.

RAAF squadron leader Edwin ‘Red’ Borrman has been flying the F-35 in the US for three years and training pilots from Australia, the US and other nations.

He flies one of the two new aircraft to Australia today.

A highly trained fighter pilot who has practised, and taught, everything from long-range attack to dogfighting, Borrman says the F-35 is very advanced and can do what other aircraft could not risk doing.

‘The jet is built for the first couple of days of a mega-conflict, to go all the way down-range to a very high-threat environment and be able to find, locate and hit its target—or to hand off targeting to other aircraft—and then get out of there alive.

‘Any kind of fourth-generation aircraft will be shot up before it gets in range to drop its bombs.’

Borrman is often asked if the F-35 is much better than existing strike jets.

The best explanation he’s heard is to compare the earliest model Nokia to the latest mobile phones being produced now. ‘There’s just no comparison.’

Lieutenant Colonel ‘Chip’ Berke is a retired US Marine Corps pilot who has flown many older jets as well as the F-22 Raptor fighter and the F-35. He’s been a ‘top gun’ instructor and, as the first operational pilot to fly the JSF, he’s possibly the most knowledgeable practitioner on fifth-generation capability.

Berke says past combat aircraft tended to operate in some isolation in a predefined airspace with a predefined role. ‘You might come back and pass on information you’d gathered to build up a picture.

‘Fifth-gen airplanes are totally different’, he says.

They provide the pilot with an unmatched amount of information which can be shared immediately with other units in the air and on the ground and the sea.

‘That’s information dominance which allows you to make really smart decisions on what to do and when to do it.’

Berke says the F-35 is extraordinary and still evolving. ‘Ten years from now, it’s going to be so far more capable than we even imagined. There’s nothing like it out there. The potential of that airplane is barely being recognised right now. We’re in the infancy of what it’s going to do.’

Australia’s deteriorating security outlook, and what it means for our strategic relationships and our defence planning, has been a hot topic of late. Two key articles, by Paul Dibb and Peter Jennings, highlight the growing strategic threats in our region, particularly if US security commitments begin to look shaky in coming years.

Even if Australia’s defence alliance with the US remains on firm footing, we must be prepared to assume a greater share of the defence burden. As we consider how our changing strategic outlook might affect future force design, our air and naval forces should take priority given the maritime nature of the Indo-Pacific region.

For the RAAF and, specifically, for the air force’s strike and air combat capability, we have some room for manoeuvre when considering future platforms.

The RAAF’s 24 Super Hornets raise some interesting possibilities for force structure planners. As we’ve explored in past articles (here and here), the F/A-18Fs will be a viable capability for considerably longer than the 2030 replacement date suggested in the 2016 defence white paper. There’s no reason why they can’t be progressively upgraded to Block III standard by the mid-2020s, to become a high-end complement to the F-35.

The upgrade would extend their operational service lives to 9,000 flight hours, and equip them with similar capabilities in avionics, sensors and data systems to F-35s, but with considerably greater payload. Certainly, the Block III Super Hornet isn’t as stealthy as the F-35. What may matter more is the ability to use the F-35 as a stealthy sensor and the Block III Super Hornet as a shooter to maximise their effectiveness. A mixed fleet would be more flexible than an all-F-35 (JSF) force.

The Block III Super Hornet represents a ‘4.5 generation’ capability, in a ‘high/very high’ mix with the F-35. Maintaining this mix also mitigates against the potential risk that adversary ground-based air-defence systems might increasingly incorporate more advanced counter-stealth capabilities that can direct long-range double-digit surface-to-air missiles and advanced multirole combat aircraft. Sensor developments include low-frequency radars and quantum radar that over time could erode the stealth advantage of an all-F-35 force.

An upgrade to the Block III F/A-18F would be considerably cheaper than the unit cost of an entirely new F-35, which is on track for around US$80 million per aircraft. Based on information provided by Boeing in 2016 and 2017, and ASPI research in 2017, it would cost around US$20 million per aircraft to upgrade a Block II F/A-18F to Block III, and US$8 million per aircraft to upgrade the EA-18G Growler to ‘Advanced Growler’. With 24 Super Hornets and 12 EA-18G Growlers, this represents a total cost of US$576 million for a fleet-wide upgrade, versus US$2.24 billion for a new squadron of 28 F-35s (not including their very high lifetime sustainment costs). That’s a big saving which opens up some interesting options for force development.

The US$1.66 billion saved could be invested back into further enhancing the RAAF’s strike and air combat capability, potentially by expanding the overall number of planes it flies. The savings could buy an additional 20 Block III Super Hornets or could be spent as ‘buy in’ to future capability programs, including unmanned combat aerial vehicles that will offer the RAAF the ability to exploit manned–unmanned teaming. Ultimately, the air force needs to think about what will come after the F-35 in the 2040s, and that’s a discussion that should start soon.

In considering the first option of additional aircraft, is there a case for a larger strike and air combat force? One answer can be found in applying Lanchester’s square law, which Andrew Davies explained in a 2014 Strategist piece (he even includes equations for the true geeks). The bottom line is that ‘doubling the force size quadruples its combat weight’. A larger force of 44 Block III Super Hornets would allow for more sorties and higher force concentration for less money than an additional 28 F-35s. Numbers matter, even in an era of stealth and precision weapons, particularly if the F-35’s stealth advantage is eroded.

However, modern air combat is less about a single platform-on-platform contest than it is about a network-versus-network conflict. The F/A-18Fs and F-35s would be part of a system of systems that includes electronic attack, airborne early warning and control, long-range radar, space and even cyber capabilities. Calculating the true value of extra aircraft needs to incorporate the effects generated by this system-of-systems approach.

Next year will mark the beginning of the quadrennial force structure review, and the force design process needs to assess how comparative qualitative balance in a system-of-systems framework is changing over time, and how quantitative factors could affect that change. The process should include a robust debate that tests the assumptions that drive current thinking about the future composition of Australia’s strike and air combat capability.

All of this has a funding dimension, especially if the government decided to acquire the full complement of F-35s as well as expand and upgrade the Super Hornet fleet. Jennings rightly says that Australia must boost defence spending, arguing that ‘we should start to lift defence spending to reach 2.5 or 3% of gross national product in a decade’. That could certainly fund a larger strike and air combat capability force.

A balance must be found and funds must not be spent unless they lead to real capability increases. In the next instalment, I’ll explore the issue of addressing capability gaps, before summarising the prospects offered by next-generation air combat capability programs for Australia.

By early 1918, four Australian Flying Corps units were on active service: No. 1 Squadron in the Middle East, and Nos. 2, 3 and 4 Squadrons on the Western Front.

AFC crews in the Middle East were also attached to a special air unit formed to protect Colonel T.E. Lawrence—the legendary Lawrence of Arabia—and his force of 30,000 Arab irregulars, who were suffering rough treatment from German bombers. Lawrence was thrilled by the nonchalant bravery of Lieutenant Ross Smith, whom he described admiringly as ‘an Australian, of a race delighting in additional risks’.

Allied air power reached its zenith in the Middle East in September 1918 during the Battle of Armageddon, a campaign planned to achieve the final overthrow of the Turks. Having first established air supremacy, the allied airmen attacked the enemy furiously, causing terrible carnage. During one engagement, 10 aircraft from No. 1 Squadron decimated a trapped force of 3,000 troops, 600 camels and 300 horses, repeatedly bombing and strafing terrified men and animals. The battle ultimately resulted in the destruction of three Turkish armies and the capture of Damascus, events which precipitated an armistice on 31 October.

Mention must be made of the theatre’s outstanding AFC personality, Richard ‘Dicky’ Williams. A thin, intense man whose high forehead and penetrating gaze accurately reflected his probing intellect, Williams was strong-minded, confident and an excellent organiser. He was also a courageous pilot, decorated with the DSO and OBE and twice mentioned in dispatches. Williams was promoted to command No. 1 Squadron after only a year in the Middle East, and in June 1918 he was given command of one of the two wings comprising the Royal Air Force’s Palestine Brigade, a considerable achievement for a ‘colonial’. Subsequently the first chief of the Royal Australian Air Force in 1921, Williams remains the greatest figure in Australian military aviation history.

On the Western Front, the most notable event occurred in July 1918, when the AFC participated in the Battle of Hamel, arguably the first genuine application of joint (air and land) warfare, planned by the brilliant General John Monash.

Conclusion: a revolution in military affairs

Popular images of air combat in World War I have been shaped by flickering films and sepia photographs, in which chivalrous amateurs seem to play out an exciting new sport remote from the squalor of the trenches. In reality, the war in the air was ruthless, cruel and, ultimately, professional.

Casualty rates were shocking, reaching 88% in some squadrons for extended periods, and averaging more than 50% for the war. The life expectancy of new pilots on the Western Front was three weeks. At the direction of the British air commander, General Hugh Trenchard, aircrew were not allowed to wear parachutes, a decision which condemned those whose aircraft were shot up to the horrific choice of either burning alive or jumping to their deaths. Contrary to popular notions of chivalry, once the early excitement of the war had been replaced by hard cynicism, it was common for downed airmen to be strafed and killed by enemy pilots.

Nor was there much understanding of the physiology of flying. Sustained flight above 3,000 metres in an open cockpit in winter subjected men to severe stresses, and aircrew frequently died from the bends or in spasms and fits after landing.

Those squalid happenings were offset to some extent by brilliant technical achievements. In August 1914, aircraft performance was abysmal, and it was not uncommon for pilots to experience an engine failure a week. By 1918, fighters could climb to 6,000 metres in 43 minutes and cruise at 7,300 metres, impressive figures which necessitated oxygen systems and heated flying suits. Other innovations included engines that had five times more power than their predecessors and were vastly more reliable, air-to-ground wirelesses, bomb racks, automatic cameras, multi-engine bombers, and illuminated navigation beacons that flashed in Morse code to guide crews at night.

Technical advances were complemented by the rapid development of sophisticated doctrine. Roles such as control of the air, close support, interdiction, reconnaissance, army and fleet cooperation, anti-shipping strikes and, most significantly, strategic bombing, were all familiar to air force commanders by 1918, as were complex tactics for coordinating the activities of very large formations of fighters and bombers.

The rise of air power between 1914 and 1918 represented the 20th century’s first revolution in military affairs. The men who were to lead the RAAF when it was formed in 1921 were exposed to that revolution, and received a severe professional education. In that context, the achievements of the AFC were heroic in their own right, and constituted a precious legacy for the RAAF.

The RAAF’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, closely integrated with the Navy and the Army, will be a game changer for regional stability, says Air Force chief Leo Davies.

In a major speech in Washington DC last night, Air Marshal Davies told the Center for Strategic and International Studies the F-35 would redefine how the ADF carried out ‘joint’ operations. The JSF was reinforcing the relationship between Australia and the US, Davies said. ‘We are technology partners whose capability brings us shared futures.’

Davies described a vision of the RAAF becoming the first ‘fifth generation’ air force able to work intricately with allies in the Asia-Pacific to help perpetuate a rules based order. ‘Freedom of overflight and navigation, for example, symbolise what our regional partners expect of our vision for the future,’ he said.

And he set out the increasing benefits a well-equipped and interoperable RAAF could bring to Australia’s US ally and the major changes in thinking that would require in the RAAF, the Navy and the Army as they geared up for ‘joint warfighting’. Fully integrating the F-35’s capabilities into the ADF would bring tremendous opportunities and complex challenges.

All of the RAAF’s combat force would be able to operate closely with US forces. Australia would have the same ‘A’ model of the JSF as the US Air Force and its Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, Triton unmanned patrol planes, Super Hornet strike aircraft and Growler electronic warfare aircraft would all match those of the US Navy.

‘Our modern Air Force offers the potential to explore how we can operate together in a maritime environment supported by sea and land-based air capabilities,’ Davies said.

JSF pilots from the RAAF, the US Marine Corps, the US Air Force and the US Navy could draw from common intelligence mission data, threat libraries, target-acceptance and validation, he said. They’d be linked to networked, nationally agnostic command-and-control systems, electronic warfare assets, airborne early warning and control systems and air-to-air refuelling elements from a combined force. ‘They have trained together, they have fought together,’ he said.

Software and hardware would combine to make this team one of the most lethal and versatile air combat capabilities available to allied and coalition forces. The ADF would also need to understand how it would function with regional nations which did not possess these advanced capabilities.

The RAAF chief invited the USAF and the USN to join with the ADF in assessing how to get the best from the JSF. ‘Together we can realise the full potential of fifth-generation capability more quickly than alone. We must accelerate meaningful conversations between our armies, air forces and navies on joint-force integration at an alliance level.’

Davies noted that, for the ADF, being smaller could be an advantage. ‘In some respects, our size allows us to turn faster.’

He said the RAAF should be a strategic technological bridge to Australia’s neighbours. With the insight of a permanent resident, Australia could help the US develop its relationships with nations such as India and Indonesia.

The RAAF’s new Poseidons with their sophisticated, integrated sensors would continue to operate from Malaysian bases on their ‘Gateway’ patrols far up over Asia waters and they’d take allied ‘air rider’ observers with them.

‘We in Australia can see parts of the sky that you, in the US cannot,’ Davies said. Australia and the US could work closely with nations such as Japan and Singapore to develop space and cyber systems.

Space and cyber were critical to the air domain. ‘They will be contested and congested, and we, as in the US, Australia and partners, will have to maintain superiority in those areas to prevail.’

Despite the ‘urgency of geography’, relationships matter. Some relationships, in some locations, more than others. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the space and cyber domains.

We in Australia can see parts of the sky that you, in the US cannot. Equally, countries such as Japan and Singapore are defined by geographies which drive their regional choices. We therefore have a confluence of commercial capabilities and geography which, if focused, could be strong assets in a mutual development of space and cyber systems.

Space and cyber are critical to the air domain. They will be contested and congested, and we – in the US, Australia and partners – will have to maintain superiority in those areas to prevail.

It is our unique relationship with other regional players, relationships which the US may not enjoy, that allows us in Australia to play a special role here. We have, if you will, the insight of a permanent resident.

Our relationship with countries like India and Indonesia, to whom you in the US seek greater access, are perhaps a case in point. Both countries are emergent powers, emergent economies, as space and cyber rise to prominence in warfare.

A key alliance objective should therefore be for us to harness regional partners in the development of key technologies like space and cyber – to guarantee increased participation in, and shore up the notion of, the rules-based global order, and to defend it with leading edge capabilities.

Such a future will take brokering. It will require consideration and trust. But it will be necessary in tilting the balance of regional interests in our favour. And it will shape the future of the air domain.

We not only have to pull our weight in the conventional, military, sense. We must also act as ambassadors for the rules-based global order we want our region to foster.

Fifth-generation capabilities, born of a values-based alliance, go beyond that. They are a living example of what strong strategic relationships – founded in history and developed with trust over time – can produce.

Australia and the US are now in a strong position, as fifth-generation technology partners, to shape a discussion about the alignment between capability and values. This may be pivotal for the ongoing development of a rules-based global order.