Defence procurement bungles and wins

[Mav]

UAVs operate in tandem with aircraft. If the other side dominates the air, then drones would be picked off pretty quickly. That's the remarkable thing about the Ukraine war: everybody assumed the Russians would quickly dominate the airspace but Ukraine's fighter pilots and missile defence systems have ensured the Russian fighters are occupied with other threats.

[LP]

I believe one of the main reasons for the F35 being favoured is it's ability to remain stealthy while dynamically acting as a mobile CAP Command Centre for dozens or even hundreds of drones. But these smaller drones still have to be launched within range of a target, in Ukraine that might be OK but keep in mind Ukraine is smaller than NSW. (For those confused by this when looking at a map, keep in mind the normal map projections are neither linear or to scale for some places look smaller while others look bigger.)

I'm very anti-foreign ownership of air fields in WA and NT, simply because just one large air transport can land and launch dozens of hundreds of drones in minutes and cripple air superiority over that area in just minutes.

[DJC]

On The Project, it was claimed that the armed UAV program has been dumped. Bad timing, given that drones have proven very effective in Ukraine against the Russians. In the event of a hostile amphibious invasion taking advantage of remote coastline areas, you'd think UAVs would be very effective in disrupting advances on populated areas. And they'd be a lot cheaper than F35s.

Which armed UAV program?

We have the Triton UAS (based on the Global Hawk) that, with the P-8A Poseidon, replaced the venerable Orions (based on the 1950s Lockheed Electra turbo-prop airliner) in the maritime surveillance and anti-shipping role.

The MQ-28A "Loyal Wingman" (they could have called it David Glascott), now known as Ghost Bat, is the Super-Hornet, F-35 force extender.  Its new name was recently announced at a naming ceremony at RAAF Amberley and the aircraft has now completed three test flights.  I suspect that it would cost us a packet if we were to pull out of the joint design/construction project with Boeing ... but it is defence procurement.

[LP]

The MQ-28A "Loyal Wingman" (they could have called it David Glascott), now known as Ghost Bat, is the Super-Hornet, F-35 force extender.  Its new name was recently announced at a naming ceremony at RAAF Amberley and the aircraft has now completed three test flights.  I suspect that it would cost us a packet if we were to pull out of the joint design/construction project with Boeing ... but it is defence procurement.

Although Loyal Wingman is a drone, it important to highlight it is not what people think of when they talk about drones, it's basically a 2/3rds scale pilotless fighter jet / robotic wingman costing $20M a piece. Cheaper than a fighter jet and no human life is at risk and it is not constrained by human flight limits. It really is what an associate described as the F35's angel.

FYI;
F35 = 15m long
LW = 11m long

Most people think about smaller sized gadgets launched of a tank or some other mobile armament, and these smaller gadgets are the devices having the major impact in Ukraine.

[DJC]

Yes, the unmanned aircraft used by the major powers are a little different to the drones that folk use for aerial photography.  The Australian Army's UAVs are small recce/surveillance aircraft without an offensive capacity but it would be relatively simple to modify  UAVs like that to carry explosives.

The Global Hawk is probably the most famous unmanned aircraft system and it is 14.5m long with a wingspan of 40m.  Even at that size, its payload is limited to 910kg (the Super Hornet's payload is 8,000kg).  The "flyaway" price of a Global Hawk was $130M in 2013.  We have eight Triton UAS and, as they are modified for maritime surveillance, I suspect that they are a little more expensive than your standard Global Hawk.

[LP]

We have eight Triton UAS and, as they are modified for maritime surveillance, I suspect that they are a little more expensive than your standard Global Hawk.

I saw the early version of the Triton at the Melbourne Airshow years back, they are rather impressive and had the Global Hawk on the tarmac next to it. Triton was significantly chunkier build and I gather this reflects it's potential payloads, Wikipedia claims they are dimensionally the same but I doubt that, I suspect they have just used the Global Hawk data for the Trition page.

[ElwoodBlues1]

UAVs operate in tandem with aircraft. If the other side dominates the air, then drones would be picked off pretty quickly. That's the remarkable thing about the Ukraine war: everybody assumed the Russians would quickly dominate the airspace but Ukraine's fighter pilots and missile defence systems have ensured the Russian fighters are occupied with other threats.

Russia havent deployed their best jets/pilots on mass as yet, their commanders dont want to risk them after losing a SU34 early in the conflict to the Ukraine anti-aircraft missile systems which as you described have proven very adequate.
Its the same with their best troops who have been kept back as well, Putin thought his conscripts and armored columns would do the job but they have also failed with the infantry not so keen to engage the Ukranians on the ground and leaving their tanks exposed to very good anti tank weaponry supplied by the British in the main.
Ukraine were hard hit when they split from the USSR and had to give up their nukes and airforce which included a decent air fleet of bombers which would have been very handy today. Lot of their Nukes were in silo's which would have been a major deterrent to Putin as would those bombers which could carry nuclear payloads as well as conventional bombs.

[DJC]

Russia havent deployed their best jets/pilots on mass as yet, their commanders dont want to risk them after losing a SU34 early in the conflict to the Ukraine anti-aircraft missile systems which as you described have proven very adequate.
Its the same with their best troops who have been kept back as well, Putin thought his conscripts and armored columns would do the job but they have also failed with the infantry not so keen to engage the Ukranians on the ground and leaving their tanks exposed to very good anti tank weaponry supplied by the British in the main.
Ukraine were hard hit when they split from the USSR and had to give up their nukes and airforce which included a decent air fleet of bombers which would have been very handy today. Lot of their Nukes were in silo's which would have been a major deterrent to Putin as would those bombers which could carry nuclear payloads as well as conventional bombs.

In fact, the Russian troops Putin sent into Ukraine are volunteers, not conscripts.  Apart from poorly maintained vehicles and logistical problems, Putin's forces have largely failed because Ukraine's air defences have held up very well and, without overwhelming air superiority, the ground forces are vulnerable to well-equipped Ukranian forces fighting on their own territory. 

The tanks deployed by the Russians are primarily 1970s vintage T-72s and T-80s (the latter designed and built in Ukraine) and they have been next to useless in the face of an onslaught of mainly British/Swedish Javelin anti-tank missiles.  The next generation T-90s, a development of the T-72, have fared little better and the Russians' 21st century T-14 Armata MBT is so unreliable that it cannot be deployed.

Czech Republic T-72s are now being sent to Ukraine and Russia's numerical superiority in MBTs is slowly being reversed.

NATO would be pleased in the knowledge that its more sophisticated MBTs and anti-tank weaponry would make mincemeat of the Russian armoured columns.

[ElwoodBlues1]

35% of the Russian army are conscripts 18-27 year olds forced into national service for 1 year, Putin's elite national guard, elite paratroops, navy seals etc have not entered the fray. Putin has even been sending 60 year olds into battle armed with old rifles from WW2.
Don't think you will find too many genuine volunteers given the Spetsnaz and Rosgvardiya commanders don't want to be involved and have told Putin they will be staying home.
My son in law is Ukranian and his family back home say there are Russians fleeing from death squads who are shooting deserters.

[Mav]

I read a while ago that by law in Russia conscripts can't be sent to war outside Russia. They're supposed to be a kind of Home Guard. Yes, I know that's somewhat farcical as whatever Putin says goes therefore the law is just a veneer. But the law exists because it reduces the risk of discontent amongst parents who fear their kids will be sent off to die in some stupid war.

Conscripts were apparently told they were required for manoeuvres and before setting off they were required to sign documents. Those documents "upgraded" them to volunteers. Volunteers are paid more but can lawfully be sent off to fight. There's debate about whether Putin was kept in the dark over this strategy to send conscripts to fight.

It must have been a shock to the conscripts to find themselves in lethal combat with little training. No wonder morale has collapsed.