RAAF Future Air Combat Capability Review [Archive]

Backwards PLT

1st Jan 2008, 06:37

1. The British consistently promise capability and performance that are just ideas they got a sketch artist to draw (vice what they actually have achieved and are achieving). They have nice glossy brochures.
2. Eurofighter 2000, hangon make that 2008. Does it have full air to surface yet? I think the F/A-18 had that in 1980.
3. It's got a mechanically scanned RADAR!!! Wonder if they've got 6 x .50cals in the wings (WWII style). Oh hang on, it doesn't have a gun :ugh:

Bring on "the most potent air defence fighter the world has ever seen":D

I dont fly Typhoon but do get a little bored with ill informed comment. All modern fighters have had issues early in life. F15 was a crock of s**t until the US spent billions on it. The main problem with Typhoon is that it is a multi-nation European aircraft that will never see the level of spending that F22/F35 do.

To address the specific points:

1. By "the British" I assume you mean BAe systems? In which case you are correct - but so does every other company. Have you seen Russian sales literature? Or French? Or American for F35? Their job is to sell stuff.

2. I don't know what the F18 A/G capability was in 1980, but I am sure Typhoon TODAY (well not today, they wont be flying!) exceeds it in most areas, but probably not the range of A/G munitions yet.

3. Agree on the radar. However it derisked everything and an ESA Typhoon would almost certainly not be performing as well as the current Typhoon today. We just don't have the experience and knowledge in Europe (don't believe everything the French tell you!)
Typhoon does have a gun. Keep up.

I hope the final quote isn't from a brochure! Todays Typhoon is far more capable A/A than older types such as F18, but I don't think anyone has ever claimed that it is better than a F22 - not even BAE (but they do claim it is more cost effective, I've seen the graphs in a sales brochure, it must be true!)

Reading through this, it sounds like I am a big Typhoon fan, which I am not, it has some issues and I am not convinced it was the right way for the UK to go, but at least critique it with facts, rather than jump on an ill-informed "Typhoon is crap" band-wagon.

Backwards PLT

1st Jan 2008, 06:55

Despite what I posted above (apologies to the OP) I hope that this thread does not disintegrate into a Typhoon v whatever slag fest - lets try to stay on topic!

The article raises some valid points. The previous ruling party kinda pulled the super hornet buy out of it's ass, so it is not unreasonable for the new government to want to examine it, IMO.

Long term the F35 is probably the way ahead, so the question is what could fill the gap from now until 2020? The problem is that 12 years is a very short time and if the Aussies buy new, ie super hornet, then they will realistically be running it for a long time in parallel with F35. Having such a capable type for just 10 years then selling it would appear to be madness!

But if they don't buy a modern (or updated) aircraft then it won't fulfill the spec of matching these super-duper Russian aircraft they are so worried about. Interestingly the article only seems to focus on A/A, not A/G, so maybe super hornet is the wrong way to go - defining requirement might be useful, the politicians themselves don't seem sure!

I bet the Aussies could get some F15Cs really cheap right now!

Wiley

1st Jan 2008, 07:43

I know we need a top shelf, top of the range aircraft to help insure we'll never need such an aircraft, but I really wish they'd also spend some money on a type we'll probably get to actually use in earnest - and in doing so, maybe avert the need to ever use the subject of this thread, whatever type it turns out to be.

I'm talking about a low tech, long loiter time mud mover, along the lines of an A10 or the Russian equivalent, whose designation I've forgotten, that could provide meaningful support for troops involved in 'peace keeping' operations like Afghanistan and Timor.

Heaven forbid, Australia might actually be able to build such a beast ourselves.

It's also about time the Caribou was put out to pasture.

Gundog01

1st Jan 2008, 08:19

I'm not up with the gouge about Euro Fighter, Rafale, Gripen, but i think you can safely say it wouldn't matter how they stack up with the Super Hornet. The deal was struck because of the delivery schedule that boeing has guaranteed the RAAF. IMO

The problem started 10 years ago when the RAAF/Government continued to stretch the legs of the Pig believing that F-35 would magically be on time.
Some forward (and logical) thinking would have revealed that, like all fighter projects, the F-35 would be late. If the RAAF/Government had been realistic a decade ago, then the options could have been explored and the delivery timetable could have been more flexible.

Wiley.
Don't expect the Caribou to last more than 5 years. Once the yanks have finalised there light transport purchase expect us to follow suit. C-27 is looking like a reality early next decade.

Backwards PLT

1st Jan 2008, 08:40

Wiley - interesting that you introduce another role. I think that at the moment a lot of air forces don't know how to balance the 3 traditional roles of A/A, traditional A/G strike and CAS. If I understand the politicians, they are looking for an aircraft to essentially protect Australia from her neighbours. This would seem to say A/A first, then strike then CAS. The army won't be happy! Given the size of the region, F15E seems to be the logical choice to me. The only really bad point is stealth and if you really need that you are screwed until F35 arrives!

Obviously, at the moment there is only a need for CAS in real world ops (noone counts QRA for some reason), but governments can't just buy aircraft with a life of 20+ years based on todays limited wars (just is an important word there). And before people start getting upset, I am only talking about traditional FJ roles, I am disregarding the helo and heavy side of things as well as all the other ISTAR stuff etc.

In my opinion what most air forces need is a dual role A/A and A/G strike platform (F15E etc) plus a dedicated CAS platform (A10). The current (pre-Typhoon) UK model of dedicated A/A, dedicated strike (bit of CAS) and dedicated CAS (bit of strike) is inefficient madness! Interestingly the bigger European nations (France, Germany, Italy) all did a similar thing. It is only the smaller countries (Belgium, NL, Denmark etc) who went dual role with the F16. I am sure someone once told me that flexibility was the key to airpower. At least the Brits and French have the excuse of supporting national industry.

Of course politicians have an inability to look beyond the next election, which doesn't help.

Happy New Year to everyone (except politicians), btw.

Archimedes

1st Jan 2008, 13:18

2. Eurofighter 2000, hangon make that 2008. Does it have full air to surface yet? I think the F/A-18 had that in 1980.

The F/A-18 wasn't fully cleared in 1980, but that's no surprise, since it didn't join the RAG until November of that year, and didn't complete the fleet acceptance process until 1981. A couple of fairly credible sources suggest that in 1982, VX-5 recommended that the entire Hornet programme be suspended until MDD had sorted out various issues with the aircraft's range and bring-back capabilities (since this would've been terribly embarassing, they were ignored). Hornet didn't have a decent night AG capability until the C-model entered service in 1987.

Oh, and the F/A-18 was cleared for A-G at the outset since its service entry pre-supposed replacement of the A-7 and the F-4 simultaneously. Service entry for Typhoon presupposed replacement of air-air types first, so it is nothing more than (a) logic and (b) funding that delayed the clearances for air-ground.

But don't let little things like the facts or logic get in the way of a good Typhoon bashing, eh?

LowObservable

1st Jan 2008, 17:32

The SH was selected because it provides an insurance policy against JSF delays or overruns (and the consequent hailstorm of "we told you so" from all sides.
If JSF works, SH can be kept as a complementary capability (two seats with baig-screen back cockpit, added weapon choices) or sold back to the USN, which will always take a standard aircraft with no carrier landings. Also, although it is different in many ways from the classic Hornet, it is similar in ways that facilitate conversion. In those respects buying SH was very different from buying EF.
On the other hand, reviewing JSF would be timely.

herkman

1st Jan 2008, 20:46

At the end of the day, the RAAF will do the best that it can, with what is available.

I suspect that the delays with the JSF will continue, but eventually it will come good. The problem is that we are going to run out of airframes, before this will happen.

Whilst the F22 could be a good choice, we also have to face the fact that they may never be released. But the fat lady has not sung yet.

After the Mirage restrictions on use, I doubt if the RAAF would want to visit that area of supply, as it affectively ties one hand behind our back.

The SU family, good aircraft that it maybe, has a unproven track record both in active duty, and also with after delivery support. Could you also understand the cry that would go up from all areas if the purchase was made.

The Super Hornet to some, appeared to be the best solution, and would have allowed the retirement of some of the earlier airframes. The rumour down here prior to the election was the order was to be increased to a quantity of 48.

Whilst the fighter selection is one issue, we are facing bigger problems with our air uplift capacity.

The KC30 at first will not be much help in that area, because at least the first three do not have freight doors or floors.

The C130H is about the standard of the RAF K models, and will have to go, and we will loosing some of that capacity, as airframes are parked.

The Caribou, great airframe that it is, strugles with the engine ages, and now cannot move because of width, much of the army vehicles. Its replacement is some years away, and whilst the C27 is a favourite, no contracts have been let.

The C17 great aircraft that it is, we have not learnt from the RAF experience and do not appear have bought enough. The government fully believing that as one C17 equals three C130J's, as three into 12 goes four. Not however thinking of all the other associated factors that should have been considered.

Timor and other deployments quickly showed that we do not have enough deployment assets, and many feel there should be more C17's. If we do not order soon then the chance will be gone.

In conclusion the RAAF faces many challenges in regard to airframe purchases at this time, let us hope that Kevin Rudd learns to have confidence in his defense chiefs.

Regards

Col

Razor61

1st Jan 2008, 21:14

F22 cant have it
Eurolemon = self explanatory
Rafale in eurolemon category, and please lets not buy french again
F15E best option in my opinion, but havent they stopped producing them?
Grippen tehehe!!

Develop and construct an indigenous type then and you won't have to moan and groan about other aircraft you know nothing about you to$$er!!

Kraziman

1st Jan 2008, 21:31

We have; the Boomerang. All our pilots said it was ****. We acknowledged that and moved on. Something you need to do. Try and separate passion and patriotism from cold hard facts.

Razor61

1st Jan 2008, 21:46

Going from your first post Kraziman, your "cold Hard Facts" that you have cunjured up are a load of tosh.
Maybe read a few more backdated Air Internationals to get up to speed on what the Typhoon does or doesn't have.

2. Eurofighter 2000, hangon make that 2008. Does it have full air to surface yet? I think the F/A-18 had that in 1980.

Well that quote really says it all then... an old F/A-18 getting A/G back in 1980.

Squirrel 41

1st Jan 2008, 22:57

Thanks to all for an interesting discussion. But the stated position seems to be to provide insurance against delays in the F-35 programme to allow for the retirement of the F-111; if so, fair enough, the viable "buy it today" options would appear be dedicated strike platforms - an advanced F-15E or an Su-30MK variant. (Unless RAAF fancied a couple of squadrons of GR4s, one careful owner!)

However, this strike emphasis is somewhat confusing to me in that it seems to assume that the F-35 will be a full swing role platform which is just as good at A-A as CAS with a strike option, and (from my limited perspective) this simply isn't true. Indeed, good though the F-35 will be (buckets of American dollars should ensure that it works at some point), the only people who seem intent on operating it in A-A/CAS/Strike role are those who will not have a an A-A specific platform - e.g. a similar position to the European F-16 operators from the 1980s onwards.

Therefore, my question to the RAAF focusses on whether the need a strike platform that can do A-A (e.g. F-15E+) or whether the smarter route would be to re-role the F-18 force as a predominately strike focussed force with the A-A role taken on by a new platform that would continue in that role after the F-35 is introduced in 2020 or so?

Not getting into a solution for what that A-A platform should be, just a genuine question.

S41

Like-minded

1st Jan 2008, 23:03

Why would anyone choose EF at this point in time? Could EF go much better than an attritional slugfest with Russian SU-30BMs over the Pacific (about to be sold to the Red Horde?) The Hornets would at least have the benefit of being a combat proven system, especially A to G, that the Ozzies would be familiar with. Furthermore, it is unsure that the EF would be much more effective than the SuperHornets to waarant its Super Price Tags (in comparison especially.

Face it, if you want an aircraft to look different and cool, choose an European aircraft, like a Prada bag. But if you want something forged in the heat of war, you choose Amrikan.

Stop trying to foist off the EF on all air forces of the world. It is already obsolescent according to NATO doctrine - leading edge technology and leverage multiplying systems that compensate for fewer numbers.

Like-minded

1st Jan 2008, 23:07

>>However, this strike emphasis is somewhat confusing to me in that it seems to assume that the F-35 will be a full swing role platform which is just as good at A-A as CAS with a strike option, and (from my limited perspective) this simply isn't true. Indeed, good though the F-35 will be (buckets of American dollars should ensure that it works at some point), the only people who seem intent on operating it in A-A/CAS/Strike role are those who will not have a an A-A specific platform - e.g. a similar position to the European F-16 operators from the 1980s onwards.<<

Yeah, and we all know that European aircraft are proven more successful in battle. Everyone knows that the Tornado is a better fighter than F-15 and the Mirage has scored more kills than the F-16!

Wait a minute...

Doubting American aviation is a laugh, especially in the realm of stealth aircraft.

Have you not seen F-117, B-2, Bird of Prey, F-22 and the numerous multigenerational designs in successful stealth, not to mention the vast experience in fighter multirole aircraft?

The only experience the British have with stealth are their stealth taxes/

WannaBeBiggles

2nd Jan 2008, 00:54

It is interesting how many "Monday morning quarterbacks" we have here.

Most people do make some very valid points, but maybe most are missing the big picture in the replacement of the F111.

I have to say from the get go, I worked with the F111 and various other projects for a large defense contractor in Australia and have to say I love the Pig, it's fast, has an awesome range and packs a real punch, but unfortunately she's a bit long in the tooth and getting very expensive to maintain.

If you were to replace just the pig then the European and Russian options would be quite feasible, HOWEVER this is not the only criteria.

With the increased use of UAV's, the bringing online of Wedgetail, the eventual replacement of the PC3's with another MMA type, Australia is looking more at a Network Centric capable aircraft, and more so, one that will be easier to integrate in to, with existing (and upcoming) technologies.

Now the Super Hornet might have it's fault, but we have skills in maintaining and running the F18, as well as have already done many exercises with them. Our Hawk trainers are currently set up to mimic the F18 cockpit, so re-equipping would be cheaper for the training fleet. Any other type would make the money invested in the Hawks (changing of cockpits) a waste.

As far as capability matching goes, what makes the pig so important to our current arsenal is that fact that it is the only type which is capable of carrying the AGM142, our only true standoff weapon, as well as the Harpoon, which is the most effective anti shipping set up to date.
Yes I know the PC3 can carry a harpoon, but isn't capable of delivering it with the same force as the F111, and yes our current F18's have been evaluated to carry an AGM 154, but aren't equipped to do so.

One must also remember some of the criteria for the replacement aircraft are secret, whether they be requirements for matching current capabilities (i.e. capabilities the aircraft has that are classified) and upcoming projects in Australia's defense strategy.

Kraziman

2nd Jan 2008, 03:41

The Government (and the Opposition) was also offered some attractive and highly innovative purchase options, which would have made a 100-plus buy very affordable, at today's prices. At the time, there were more than a few senior players throughout the RAAF and DoD who were convinced that Typhoon might well have offered them a very viable multi-role solution, and in the right timescale. There was also a highly vocal element (mainly the US-centric and Pig fraternity - and how wrong the latter have been proved) that stuck their heads in the sand, and in some notable cases simply refused to listen. This latter group has done the ADF no favours, and I trust their like will be muted in the upcoming review process.
The "latter" wouldn't be the same people who tried to put ALR-2002 in the AF/A-18 would they? That worked well.

The F/A-18 wasn't fully cleared in 1980, but that's no surprise, since it didn't join the RAG until November of that year, and didn't complete the fleet acceptance process until 1981.
I guess it depends on what your definition of "full" is. It had A/G capability in 1980 with multiple weapons. Your beloved Eurofighter was marketed as a multi-role fighter when Pontius what a pilot. This lack of A/G (on time) is why many countries didn't buy it.

A couple of fairly credible sources suggest that in 1982, VX-5 recommended that the entire Hornet programme be suspended until MDD had sorted out various issues with the aircraft's range and bring-back capabilities (since this would've been terribly embarassing, they were ignored).
And your telling me because....The F/A-18 was developed from the YF-17 for carrier ops (it wasn't a carrier jet from the start). What do you expect and what does this have to do with a/g capability?

Oh, and the F/A-18 was cleared for A-G at the outset since its service entry pre-supposed replacement of the A-7 and the F-4 simultaneously. Service entry for Typhoon presupposed replacement of air-air types first, so it is nothing more than (a) logic and (b) funding that delayed the clearances for air-ground.
Other countries don't care about how the RAF plan to introduce it. You told us (possible customers) it would be multirole. It wasn't (block 5 in 07). Fact.

I'm going to stop winding up the Eurofighter fan club (which is fun and terribly easy). I will acknowledge my error on the gun and add some serious comment (I am capable of it).

I don't know why you guys separate the roles of CAS and Land Strike so much. Air to surface is as simple as find a target, ID IAW ROE and drop a bomb on it (fire a missile or gun at it). In land strike, targets are normally larger in size and in CAS (or any OAS mission) the targets are much smaller (tanks, troops, arty etc). As well as the targets sets being different, CAS also has the requirement for detailed integration with friendlies. At the end of the day if an aircraft can engage a target on the ground, it can perform any of the air to surface roles (land not maritime). Some are more efficient at CAS due to improved sensors and datalink but any modern jet we buy will have this. Most of the time (these days) it's the land forces that lack the equipment (they'd rather buy more tanks and arty).

If we get a new fighter in about the 2010 timeframe, I reckon F15E/K/S, Super Hornet or F22.

F35 was designed to own the air to surface roles (land) and hold it's own in A/A. Smaller countries can't afford to have dedicated aircraft types performing different roles (it costs too much). Many F35 operators will operate them as their sole A/A platform.

garudadude

2nd Jan 2008, 04:44

There is some excellent literature out there, written by the man who is arguably Australia's most knowledgable air power strategist, promoting the signficant advantages of the Aardvark over 'the bug'.
I personally think that Kraziman's comments, whilst clearly tongue in cheek, are not principally flawed. The EF is outdated and obsolete - take a quick look at what is coming out of Russia these days and anybody who knows the first thing about 4th and 5th gen fighter A/A tactics can see that the EF with a mech scanned array (and the significant limitations that this has in a multi-role aircraft) is quickly becoming obsolete.
Rafael and Gripen - I'm glad nobody has touted these as serious competitors..... two words - system integration.
Flanker Family - Aren't we trying to buy/build stuff that, in the event of a contingency against our most likely adversaries, will allow us to shoot these clowns down?
F22 - I don't think anybody has ever said that the raptor isn't clearly the best option for when you 'absolutely and positively need to kill every MF in the room...' - but cost/mission requirements/availability to foreign purchasers... the guys who are paid to know, are 'briefed in' and do this work for a living thought the JSF would be a better option 'for Australia.
The only real solution is to extend the life on the F-111, put an ESA in the front of it and load it up with AMRAAMS / Meteors. I'm sure that with some radar absorbent paint and maybe some plasma in the wings, it would be a gun A/A player while still being able to fly a bazillion miles and engage multiple surface targets.:cool:
GD

Dragon79

2nd Jan 2008, 06:32

Monday Morning Quarter Back Checking in Sir.

I pays me taxes so I'll have me say (even if it is complete garbage), isn't that how these democracy thingys work?

I for one hope that the review of the Air Combat Capability includes a serious review of the purchase of F35Bs to operate of the Spanish LHDs that we are buying / building.

ozbiggles

2nd Jan 2008, 10:21

I have to bite
In case those speaking of the death of the Caribou aren't aware.
3 have just returned from PNG where they were needed. They achieved a 100% sortie rate, due in no small part to a fantastic hard working flightline crew.
They have recently been deployed to The Solomons, Timor, far NQ for cyclone relief (and the RWY wouldn't have lasted for many more C130 trips if that had gone on).
Sometimes you do need the old ute in the back yard for the low tech solution.
When the Army have all the MRH 90s and extra Chinooks, then indeed it may be time for the old girl, but until then..
Anyway apparently there is no one around to staff a project office for the replacement until 201X. Don't get me started on why we need a project office when we can just tag onto the end of an American buy of C27J
Anyway back to the high tech world of Air Combat.

Wiley

2nd Jan 2008, 10:50

Sometimes you do need the old ute in the back yard for the low tech solution.Ozbig, I think your comment - which I agree with 101% - can be transposed to the close air support mission. As I said in my earlier post, I can see we need a top shelf fighter as a 'big stick' to give potential adversaries pause, (as much at the political level as the military), I can also see the mission taskers being very averse to risking such valuable assets in close air support missions in a purely tactical environment, particularly since we will have so few of them. (Stand by for a reduction in total numbers of JSF (or whatever we get) as the horse trading for dollars gets really intense between a half dozen equally vital programmes.)

I know the Hawk could provide some semblance (but only a semblance) of what I'm suggesting, but it has some major limitations. I can't help but think we've reached the stage where the RAAF could really use something specifically designed to be able to remain on station with a decent payload for more than a few moments. (I can remember the days at Rocky where the Miracles could only provide a few minutes top cover over Shoalwater Bay and recover to Townsville so long as they didn't have to come down to low level to deal with any Orange Forces hostiles.) Maybe any such aircraft should also be able to operate from unprepared strips or even roadways as well.

I know the purse isn't particularly deep - it never has been for Defence in Australia - but I think it's time th 'bou was replaced. The long-suffering groundies were doing a Herculean job keeping them flying twenty years ago. God only knows how many rolls of speed tape they're going through every day nowadays.

jindabyne

2nd Jan 2008, 11:24

OK - I'll try again, but only for a short while.

In the four years up to 2000, the Australian DoD was provided with almost 100% of Typhoon's classified specification and the potential upgrades which would follow, including all those enhancements which are now starting to emerge. Yes there was much glossy-brochure stuff, but behind the scenes there was serious business. The Government (and the Opposition) was also offered some attractive and highly innovative purchase options, which would have made a 100-plus buy very affordable, at today's prices. At the time, there were more than a few senior players throughout the RAAF and DoD who were convinced that Typhoon might well have offered them a very viable multi-role solution, and in the right timescale. There was also a highly vocal element (mainly the US-centric and Pig fraternity - and how wrong the latter have been proved) that stuck their heads in the sand, and in some notable cases simply refused to listen. This latter group has done the ADF no favours, and I trust their like will be muted in the upcoming review process.

It would be good to see this thread develop into an interesting and well-informed debate with contributions from some articulate and up-to-date participants (not me I'm afraid, I bowed out long ago - but I'm still an RAAF fan). Kraziman and friends take note.

I say again - " It would be good to see this thread develop into an interesting and well-informed debate with contributions from some articulate and up-to-date participants " eg ozbig 'n wiley

control snatch

2nd Jan 2008, 13:09

I cant be bothered going into detail but if you take away the glossy brochures and the impressive airshow performances and look at no **** tactical capability then eurofighter is a lemon. Go deeper than what the gunrunners are saying and look at fair-dinkum in service and combat proven capability. AMRAAM/AESA capability will remain untouched for a while yet. And dont try and tell me that the eurolemon has this capability without a bunch of significant limitations.

jindabyne

2nd Jan 2008, 13:21

As I said in my last ------

Selac66

2nd Jan 2008, 14:19

Who's going to fly them?

L J R

2nd Jan 2008, 14:32

Wiley,
You want a long 'on station' CAS platform??.
Do you know what an MQ-9 is?

Backwards PLT

2nd Jan 2008, 14:46

The Typhoon bashing is a little boring and now happening on several threads - could we maybe keep it to just 1 thread so maybe this one could talk about, say "RAAF Future Air Combat Capability Review"? Radical and hopelessly optimistic I know, but its close to Xmas maybe a miracle could happen? Please?

Anyway, the CAS comment are interesting - as I see it you could go 4 different routes:

1. Conventional fixed wing CAS specialist - A-10 style. Upgraded A-10s have a great capability and definitely combat proven.

2. Conventional fixed wing all rounder - F/A-18 style. Generalists dont tend to be as good as specialists, but with the right kit onboard (don't know what aussie hornets have in the CAS dept) very effective.

3. UCAV - rapidly becoming combat proven. Cheap and great time on station as well as providing lots of Int/recce etc. But atm not great payload.

4. B-52 style. Can carry huge payload and choice, great time on station but a little vulnerable for show of force (but very impressive!!) or non afghan/iraq ops where the oppostion has an A/A or SAM capability. Dale Brown was maybe on to something!

However, I got the impression the big issue was with a defend Australia type aircraft, rather than relevant to current ops type aircraft - or maybe thats the point, you want an aircraft that can do both. For the "capability gap" until JSF, as someone already said the biggest issue is who can deliver this year. 3-5 years from now is way too late.

The Russian A-10 equivalent is the Su-25 frogfoot, btw.

And for Jindabyne - I'm pretty up to date (although not specifically with Oz). Was that ok on the articulate front or should I desist?;)

jindabyne

2nd Jan 2008, 14:58

That'll do nicely for now BPLT - but remember your old school reports: 'always room for improvement' !

Kraziman

2nd Jan 2008, 21:10

Your ideas on CAS are very dated and are probably based on 5-10years ago when sensors (RF & IR) were no where near what they are today. A modern fighter (F18EF, JSF, etc) can perfrom CAS (very effectively) from standoff range and altitude. So CAS is not as risky any more.

You would think that because the air supports the ground, systems on fighters would be driven by the ground forces. Not the case. It's always the fighter with the new technology and the ground forces playing catch up. The key for effective CAS is making sure the dudes on the ground have the correct equipment when the jet arrives.

How's your low tech CAS a/c going to go when you're fighting your ground war under double digit GBAD?

Squirrel 41

2nd Jan 2008, 21:15

C_S: sorry mate, but you've been misinformed. According to those who operate it - both A-A and A-G mates, it's really rather good. And with Tranche 2 / Block 8 and onwards, it's going to get even better in the A-G role.

And as much as I'd love to banter Typhoon mates, but facts are sadly, still facts!

Jindabyne/PBLT:

Very interesting: but what's the RAAF's focus - is it looking for a CAS specialist? If I were an Aussie taxpayer (and I'm not), I'd look for the capability mix to include:

- Maritime strike, as anyone intended to invade Australia will need to come by sea;

- Has a precision long-range strike capability to defeat strategic target sets (sending the appropriate message);

And/Or

- Provides a A-A capability to escort the legacy platform (F-18A+) and can provide the same role for the F-35.

For me, it's this second string that makes more sense, as the F-35 / Dave is not an air superiority fighter, and the low observables will be seriously degraded when the inevitable external stores and tanks are added. On this basis, buying an A-A biased platform that will remain credible now (FLANKER, Rafale, Typhoon, maybe evolved Gripen) would ensure that it retains a role in a future mixed RAAF force.

S41

WannaBeBiggles

2nd Jan 2008, 22:45

- Maritime strike, as anyone intended to invade Australia will need to come by sea;

- Has a precision long-range strike capability to defeat strategic target sets (sending the appropriate message);

As per my last post, this is what a F111 replacement will be required to do, as the F111 currently is the only fighter or strike aircraft we have which can carry a Harpoon and a Stand Off Missile (AGM 142).

Plus it can curise at Mach 2.5 and do over Mach 1 a few feet off the deck ;)

Regardless I cannot think of an aircraft one could directly compare to the Pig, as there isn't really anything barring maybe a B1, so one has to just look at easy of transition, fleet commonality, easier integration with existing systems etc

henry crun

3rd Jan 2008, 00:58

What is the range cruising at Mach 2.5 ?

WannaBeBiggles

3rd Jan 2008, 01:15

Nowhere near the 3,400nm ferry range? :p

Archimedes

3rd Jan 2008, 01:44

Kraziman,
My point was simply that you indulged in a spot of Typhoon bashing using points that weren't providing entirely accurate parallels, a depressingly frequent event on these means. I don't see offering a contrary point of view as equating to being a member of the 'Typhoon Fanclub'.

I'd just point out the following in answer to your response, if I may:
1. You implied that the Hornet had full clearance in 1980 -i.e. , it was cleared to use the full range of A-G weapons then intended to be available to it in 1980. I merely pointed out that it didn't. The point about VX-5 and its recommendations about the possible suspension of the programme was made to point out that in 1982, a full two years after your date, the F/A-18 was still facing some challenges/issues - just like Typhoon.

2. Other countries don't care about how the RAF plan to introduce it. You told us (possible customers) it would be multirole. It wasn't (block 5 in 07). Fact.

First, not just the RAF - the other nations played a key role in this. Second, the key word is possible - frankly, we (the European nations who'd stumped up the money for it) weren't going to spend scarce defence money integrating capabilities ahead of schedule for people who might not buy the thing anyway.

Express a desire to buy it, on condition that the kit is integrated, and you might have found a multi-role airframe in service when required - the question being whether you believed that the company could deliver what you wanted, when you wanted (the Singaporeans, for instance, concluded that they didn't believe what BAE, as Eurofighter's representatives, told them about when certain bits of kit would be integrated). And I'd have been a bit wary on that one...

garudadude

3rd Jan 2008, 04:56

I'd hate to play devil's advocate on myself - but the bug fleet will have JASSM, and can cruise at 1.8 for about as long as an aardvark can cruise at 2.5.
They can also do over Mach 1 on the deck - but it wouldn't need to be there as no true 4.5 gen (that's what the BlkII has been touted as) aircraft needs to be in the weeds to deny Surface threats.
Harpoon is an old weapon, but bugs can carry that too, my understanding is that the geeks just need to work the 1's and Zeroes to get that on board.
That's why we need to heed Dr Kopp's advice and start 'plus-ing up' the F111, am I the only one on this thread that sees this as a viable option? WBB?
The Hornet is a great CAS platform, ask any marine and i'm sure they'll vouch for it - but imagine having a LO F111, with AESA, AMRAAMs and an arsenal of smart iron sitting on station - even in a high threat environment, it would be nearly invincible.

L J R

3rd Jan 2008, 05:18

Garuda, which planet are you on.?
Even I (2000hr F-111) acknowledge that the future is not the F-111 (sobs again).
You cannot modernise (any further) something 40+ years old without selling Tasmania.
I cannot offer a perfect solution, but....(interim) replacement is not another word for modernisation/upgrade.

WannaBeBiggles

3rd Jan 2008, 05:24

You cannot modernise (any further) something 40+ years old without selling Tasmania.

Bwahaha! Love it!

Maybe garudadude will suggest that we go build the TSR2 next? :p

garudadude

3rd Jan 2008, 05:57

LJR, do you know of any buyers for Tassie??
Cause I reckon a missileering Aardvark would be red hot.:ok:

garudadude

3rd Jan 2008, 06:33

If the TSR2 had the political thrust behind it that the Eurofighter has, the RAF wouldn't have had the pleasure of flying such formidable fighters and bombers as the F3 and GR1!:suspect:

Squirrel 41

3rd Jan 2008, 08:42

Ok, Aussies talking about TSR-2 is likely to be about as popular on here as Aussies talking about the last Ashes series. :* Of course, the difference is that the 2009 Ashes will be much more like the 2005 series...! :E

More seriously, LJR and Archimedes are right: further evolving the F-111 is an (extremely) expensive developmental dead-end, made worse by the RAAF's sole operator status (cf RAF and VC-10). But having not seen dump + burn since the early 90s, I hope that the RAAF can be enticed to bring some F-111s to the UK for some final fun and games before they retire. Perhaps at the same time as the cricket next summer!?!

If you want to develop the A-G capability for Typhoon, then make a serious commitment. If not, then those actually purchasing it will make the calls on what comes first. IIRC, the so-called "austere" A-G fit for LGBs (which seems to be pretty good) was brought forward at the customer's (RAF in this case) request from Block 2. Pays your money, takes your choice.

Which is not to excuse BWoS from any of their multitude of project mis-management f:mad:ck-ups.

S41

antipodean alligator

3rd Jan 2008, 10:39

Selemat Pagi/Malam depending upon hemisphere.....

As commented upon by a few of you, it would be a pity if this were to descend into a Typhoo-bashing thread. My aim when starting it was to highlight the possibility of Labor of old pennypinching undermining the modernisation of the ADF (sound familiar to those of you up North in the Motherland??)

I hope and (as much as a non-can-goist can do so) pray that this is not the case and that this announcement along with the whinge about the FFG upgrade (into it's 4th year of faffing) is merely a political exercise in slagging off Nelson as former Defence Minister and now Leader of the Opposition.
If the review is conducted credibly, then I can see no other option than to continue with the Rhino buy despite its somewhat dodgy genesis, as the aggressive timeline required does not allow any other option.

For mine, we should stop wasting money on the HUGgernaut program and save what we can to properly fund other projects. The classic Hornets now have a solid capability that will last them to their projected LoT.
The mighty Pig is retiring at the right time, and will go out at the top of it's game...There were a few options for cheap upgrades that would have made it even better, but the funding isn't there any more as the PWD is fast approaching (Take note for the HUG $$$$ those of you reading from the headshed). All of Carlo's dreams are not worth a moments consideration as the airframes are just too old.

I would hope that the outcome of a credibly run review may be a cut in the number of Daves purchased. It seems very strange to me that we have so many people working on the NACC program (stands for Not Another Calendar Change!) and so few on the introduction of the Rhino. Maybe they'll finally realise the importance of SEAD and buy a few Growlers!

LJR - Copied your lethal scale models point earlier...Hopefully they'll review the need for some of them too...Maybe that's your ticket back here??

Jindabyne - Hope this brings a smile to your face...Not all Pig people belong to the old-school 111 or nothing BOMBOCRASY!!

L J R

3rd Jan 2008, 15:25

Alligator, ...Why do you think I am flying them...(it is not for the view out of the window!)

jindabyne

3rd Jan 2008, 20:21

anti - alligator
Good response. I'll continue to look, but I guess that most, (but not all), other posts will be either inane or ill-considered. I wish the RAAF well - it needs, in my view, a better quality-contribution from it's present top-end leaders in DoD Canberra- nice guys, but lacking.

FoxtrotAlpha18

3rd Jan 2008, 22:27

I'd hate to play devil's advocate on myself - but the bug fleet will have JASSM, and can cruise at 1.8 for about as long as an aardvark can cruise at 2.5.

As much as I love my steed, we won't even bust Mach 1 with JASSM on board, let alone reach 1.8! But then again, a Pig with two AGM-84/142s up can't do 2.5 eaither. It hasn't been decided whether to put JASSM on the Super Hornets yet...maybe JASSM-ER? ;)

They can also do over Mach 1 on the deck...

Wow...I'd like to see that!

Harpoon is an old weapon, but bugs can carry that too, my understanding is that the geeks just need to work the 1's and Zeroes to get that on board.

Not in Block III form it isn't. OK, it's an old airframe and isn't LO, but with the GPS and datalinks, it'll be deadly against both fixed and moving targets in the littorals...

That's why we need to heed Dr Kopp's advice and start 'plus-ing up' the F111, am I the only one on this thread that sees this as a viable option? WBB?

There are many 'plug-ins' going on the Pig as we speak (type?), but few of these will see the light of day because the airframes will soon be knackered. The stuff we pulled out of the desert was sh!t!

The Hornet is a great CAS platform, ask any marine and i'm sure they'll vouch for it...

With HUG 2.2, Lightning AT, JDAM and GBU-24, there's few better!

...- but imagine having a LO F111, with AESA, AMRAAMs and an arsenal of smart iron sitting on station - even in a high threat environment, it would be nearly invincible.

ummmm... pardon the pun, but 'making a silk purse out of a sow's ear' is not the answer...the airframes are 40+ years old NOW...add the five or more years (I say 10 if you're talking AESA and new donks!) such an upgrade would take, and you'll still have an old airframe which is becoming more difficult to support by the day. As antipodean alligator said...

All of Carlo's dreams are not worth a moments consideration as the airframes are just too old.

Bingo!

In short, the Rhino is the right way to go. In fact, I've heard it suggested that we should abandon CBR now (especially in light of the production issues it is facing) and get some more Rhinos, keep the best 40 or so Hornets, buy a couple more tankers, and push the JSF decision back to 2009/10 and IOC to 2016/17.

garudadude

3rd Jan 2008, 23:39

There's speed limits to most weapons - Mach2.5 and 1.8 are the kind of speeds that platforms with external weapon carriage typically use to get out of enemy territory after dropping bombs (A/A weapons have far less restrictive speed limits). Unless you've got an internal weapons bay, then you're going to be speed limited on your way into the target - so M2.5 is one tool to keep you alive - but you'll need others.
The hornet can easily do M1.0 on the deck - you need to push the throttles (both of them) through the detent, don't know if it can with many stores, maybe that's your point.
As far as F18 CAS goes - great point with the new weapons/sensors, but an eagle or even better - F111, could do the same job of at least a pair of hornets, and i've heard stories of FACs emptying 3 of those attack hercs into a tgt area - loadout does matter to the man on the ground, even in a low air threat such as Afghanistan.
There were awesome stories recently on 60 Minutes and 4 Corners..... Pete Kriss and Chris Mills - accomplished fighter pilots - even question the relevance of the bug, JSF etc. Are they on the money? Or ill-informed old farts??
Dr Kopp has some incredible credentials, it's difficult to take blind faith in the words of people on a forum when he has written so many awesome papers and (I'm told) has so many contacts within defence that back his theories. But I do value the advice given on this forum, great food for thought.

Point0Five

4th Jan 2008, 00:12

There were awesome stories recently on 60 Minutes and 4 Corners..... Pete Kriss and Chris Mills - accomplished fighter pilots - even question the relevance of the bug, JSF etc. Are they on the money? Or ill-informed old farts??
Dr Kopp has some incredible credentials, it's difficult to take blind faith in the words of people on a forum when he has written so many awesome papers and (I'm told) has so many contacts within defence that back his theories. But I do value the advice given on this forum, great food for thought.
Best wind up of the New Year :ok:

Archimedes

4th Jan 2008, 00:16

Karlo Copp does, indeed, have credentials, but having impressive credentials is not, sadly, an obstacle to talking tosh. Some might say that 'incredible' in its original usage describes many of his ideas, particularly re: the F-111. :}

Upgrading the F-111, fitting it with F110 engines, etc, etc all looks good on paper, but the practicalities of doing this sort of thing are never as simple as they appear, and rarely costs as little as proponents suggest. It sounds simple, but unless you virtually rebuild the airframes from scratch (see comment about selling Tasmania when thinking about the cost of this), you spend a lot of time and a fair deal of money on an airframe that is getting ancient and which will cost a considerable amount of time and money to maintain. At some point, you have to say 'great aircraft, but better to spend on something else, let's plan a great retirement bash for the old beast' and buy something new.

Captain Sand Dune

4th Jan 2008, 00:26

Karlo Copp does, indeed, have credentials but not including; pilot, military, or military pilot.
IMHO C.K's only credentials are as an over-indugled bullsh!t artist:mad:

Archimedes

4th Jan 2008, 00:30

That ranks as a glowing tribute compared to some of the views I've heard expressed about him, CSD!

L J R

4th Jan 2008, 00:53

Finally Carlo gets a lashing. I have never accepted him as more than an aircraft drawer who puts words to his profiles.

MrDave

4th Jan 2008, 03:24

With Typhoon entering full scale service, there are going to be a fair few Tornados going spare. Some F3s and GR4s Tarted up a bit will fill the capability gap until Dave quite well, will do everything good enough and cheap enough. And if you are going up against well flown, well equipped Sukhoi 30s you may as well get shot down in a Tonka instead of a Superhornet.

Like-minded

4th Jan 2008, 03:45

what are you talking about, the Superhornet kills every version of SU-30 out there, dead.

antipodean alligator

4th Jan 2008, 05:41

Some F3s and GR4s Tarted up a bit will fill the capability gap until Dave quite well, will do everything good enough and cheap enough

Mate,

You've got to be kidding. Not even the Bungling Baron himself would consider offering Tonkas or Fag-chariots as F-111 replacements.....I'd keep the Pig till 2110 if my only replacement option was Tornado

There's clearly a scent of blood in the water....Check out this link from the Australian newspaper website:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23003234-31477,00.html

You might find the cracks, but are you going to have the spares multiply on the shelves in the Loggie hangar or stop the leaks etc???:suspect:

Green Flash

4th Jan 2008, 06:04

what are you talking about, the Superhornet kills every version of SU-30 out there, dead.

Good grief. You are an @rse of the highest order.

Flyingblind

4th Jan 2008, 09:49

Must say, all this talk about modernizing the Pig is a bit reminiscent of the wet dream merchants trying to secure future Congressional funding for the mighty BUFFs continuous operation.

The various models of the B52 are now in their what.......5th decade of service?

L J R

5th Jan 2008, 00:16

The Buff flies at 1.5 (max 2)G.
If you want your bomb truck to last forever, that is all you have to do.
The structural gurus in Perth (or wherever) can monitor this. That is all they do. They do not extend component life.
BUT
They will not give the ageing airframe more available G.
....even the 'boring' (self imposed) 4G (or whatever NzW - he thinks), won't allow an airframe extension. It is time to trade in the 1964 Torana for the 2007 Commodore, while waiting for the 2010 BMW chaps, even if it 'runs'well', unfortunately the rust under the carpet is now getting your feet wet, and soon the drivers seat will fall through the floor. - oh and by the way, the 8 track cannot be serviced anymore - no matter how good the sound used to be.

..oh and whoever even said Tornado, don't even go there!

FoxtrotAlpha18

5th Jan 2008, 03:02

....even the 'boring' (self imposed) 4G (or whatever NzW - he thinks), won't allow an airframe extension. It is time to trade in the 1964 Torana for the 2007 Commodore, while waiting for the 2010 BMW chaps, even if it 'runs'well', unfortunately the rust under the carpet is now getting your feet wet, and soon the drivers seat will fall through the floor. - oh and by the way, the 8 track cannot be serviced anymore - no matter how good the sound used to be.

Someone's been to the Brendan Nelson-Geoff Shepherd school of vehicular analogies! :} At least you didn't mention EH Holden or I would have been REALLY suss...:suspect:

Milt

5th Jan 2008, 04:28

The max approved g for an F-111C at medium weights up to about 72,000 pnds is 6.5g reduced for non combat in the interests of longevity to 4.0g. Other variants having shorter wings were released to 7.33g which is two thirds of ultimate of 11g. All of that was predicated on a Mil8866 g exceedence spectrum to which the fatigue test structures eventually went to 4 lifetimes.
Max F-111C NzW was thus about 470,000 and there continues to be a small insignificant error in the flight manual graph.
Cold (-40 degrees) proof load tests give confidence in airframe structure out to 5,000 hours of normal unrestricted flight loads to which is applied a safety factor of 0.5 = 2,500 hours.
There should be plenty of life in the old girls/pigs yet which is more than one can say for many types which have not been through the same intensive structural investigation.

antipodean alligator

7th Jan 2008, 22:56

Thanks Razor 61 for initially posting this info....Check out what the Melbourne Rag turned it into!

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/super-hornets-crash-at-sea/2008/01/08/1199554610139.html

As if 2 jets pranging is going to remove confidence in a design that's been in service that long!

MDPE

9th Jan 2008, 06:15

Don’t flinch Labor!

Finally I thought the Gov’t was starting to make some decent procurement decisions. The C-17, although driven by an ill-conceived M1A1 purchase was for the most part a great, min-time, off the shelf acquisition.

Now, for once the Govt made a couple of smart decisions in a row. They are faced with a possible scenario in 2012 of the JSF being still 4 years away, the F18A fuselage cracking in half (alla F15C)…I know HUG will prevent this…and the F111 being scattered around various parks in Ipswich on a stick.

They looked ahead. Became concerned about the scenario above and looked for a solution. They wanted one that they could buy right now. Off the shelf. A proven design, with all the bells and whistles to make it effective for at least the next 10 years or so. There is nothing else out there that has AESA, 120s, 9X, link, helmets, J series weapons, advanced pod etc etc etc all in one package. We don’t need to wait for the development of any of this on the Block II hornet. The USN is flying and fighting in this a/c right now. F15E is a great jet, but it doesn’t have all that gear…yet. AESA is still 6-9 years away in the USAF.

This is not a sales pitch…every other suggested platform is still under development in some way. I would hate to see the RAAF (via the new Labor Govt’s post election posturing) piss this away. We have an opportunity to get an aircraft into service in min time that will give us a 10 fold increase in every modern air combat capability you can name. The only thing it won’t do is M1.2 at sea level for half an hour….or at all with any sort of load-out. But who cares? The F18F will bring so much to the table it would make the old and bold's eyes water….and I agree a Su-30 will turn circles around it. It will on an Eagle also btw.

Explaining the Avionics/EW and Weapons caps of the block II hornet to dudes like those clowns on 4-corners would be like explaining to your dad how to set the auto-timer function on your old VCR. They just don’t understand.

Anyway my point is…I hope they don’t piss this 90% solution away looking for the last 5%.

antipodean alligator

14th Jan 2008, 04:00

Here's a quote from the Dec 07 Journal of Elecronic Defense (their spelling!).

It is from a bloke way up in LM and it seems to prove that you need more than just the Sonderwaffe F-35 in your airforce if you want to fight anyone with an IADS:

From Neil Kacena, Lockheed Martin’s Vice President for Advanced Development Programs, on the current limitations of stealth:
“There was a time when stealth was good enough [to allow US aircraft to penetrate an integrated air defense system]. That time is gone. In fact, I would suggest that there’s not a single capability out there today, on its own, that’s going to grant survivable access and mission effectiveness. A marriage of low-observability, airborne electronic attack [AEA] and a net-enabled capability is needed to achieve high levels of survivability.

Sounds to me like an accidental Lock Mart endorsement of the requirement for the B-Word EA-18G...Take note enquiry members!!!

Like-minded

14th Jan 2008, 16:06

Double post due to brain damage. Or dain bramage.

Like-minded

14th Jan 2008, 16:09

Integrated air defence as in Moscow or Beijing. Actually very few countries have it. Even Western Europe doesn't have integrated air defence over most cities. As you can tell, integrated air defence is geographically limited and can be partly overcome by gliding munitions. PS. If you're planning to sortie over Moscow soon with your shiny Typhoons and SCALP, kindly inform here first so I can blow my savings on booze and top hookers in anticipation of world oblivion.

tartare

15th Jan 2008, 00:05

Errrm... isn't everone missing the point.
As long as you have good countermeasures, powerful AESA and a couple of grunty BVR air to air and air to ground missiles... it doesn't really matter what airframe you hang them off.

BentStick

15th Jan 2008, 05:08

Isn't all this talk of SU30 Vs Eurofighter, Superbug, Rafale or Grippen a Moo point (cow's opinion).

Unless you are in an F22, finding yourself alone in the same piece of sky as a SU30 means you have f-:mad:-d up.

tartare

15th Jan 2008, 21:09

Exactly my point.
If you get that close, you deserve to be dead.
As they used to say in Vietnam
F%^&*d up, got ambushed, zipped up.

Boldface

16th Jan 2008, 08:20

Genuine question for you Aussies, not meant to be a wind up.

Why do you want such gucci toys when your nation seems very averse to letting your tac air go on ops?

Your AP-3s do a decent job. Your C-130s likewise. When are we going to see Aussie fast air doing something productive alongside them?:hmm:

Flyingblind

16th Jan 2008, 11:01

Errrrr........very good question and one that does need answering..................................anyone?

ozbiggles

16th Jan 2008, 11:10

Iraq 03. Some very good stuff they did do. Maybe one day someone will write a book.
Diego before that. I think they took the award for furtherest away from a combat zone to be awarded a AASM for that, striping that mantle from the 707 Sqn. Which was great banter material and then they went away to the MEAO and earnt them. Which took away some great banter material bugger them!
Also some involvement in re directing an Antonov full of goodies from PNG to Aus.
On alert for East Timor for awhile to.
That should be enough to justify them.
can't believe I'm standing up for knucks!!!!!!

antipodean alligator

16th Jan 2008, 11:58

Why do you want such gucci toys when your nation seems very averse to letting your tac air go on ops?

I much prefer the buy good kit and use it sparingly plan over the UK Plc plan of buying average kit and frequently sending the boys & girls to use it.....and I'm not saying that frequent use isn't justified.

I tend to agree with flying Blind's question to the headshed.........

Boldface

16th Jan 2008, 12:35

Thanks for the responses guys.

I think it's a moot point as far as the quality of your kit. In terms of fast air in particular, I don't think there's anything we'd swap although your A330s look very nice.

What is evident whenever working with you guys on ex and ops is that your mindset and tactics are increasingly outdated because you're not being 'stimulated' by current ops. That's no hit on the quality of your personnel, but I can't understand why you guys have not offered up your Hornets for ops.:confused:

griffinblack

16th Jan 2008, 21:24

Biggles,

At the risk of being considered a sh1t stirrer, I don’t consider one deployment, out of 5 FJ Sqn’s, on warlike service in the last 15 years to be ‘punching above weight’. We have ships, troops and multi crews constantly deployed. We currently have Dutch F16 and AH64 crews providing CAS. I really think a deployment in spt of our troops on ops would be good for all, and would continue to further the cause of SH/F35. This can be justified as needing the best kit now to provide spt and prevent our troops dying on the battlefield.

Backwards PLT and Kraziman,

I am not sure I agree with either of you, particularly Krazimand at post #33, regarding your thoughts on CAS. Consider danger close missions in complex terrain. Consider minimising, at times, collaterale damage. Consider persistence and flexibility.

Magic Mushroom

16th Jan 2008, 23:24

Out of interest, how much time do your Pigs and Hornets spend practising Air Land Interface? Your Willytown FA-18s in particular just seem to major in sanitised airspace PIs east or west of homeplate.

If we'd used our fast jets at the same rate you guys have on ops, we'd be fighting to justify retaining any fast air, let alone a Raptor or FA-18F buy.

Regards,
MM

ozbiggles

17th Jan 2008, 10:47

G'day GB
I agree with you, what use is a defense force if you don't use it! The problem with ours is that its small and until recently was fitted for but not with. It has changed, starting with Timor that we actually got the kit and the money and the political will to use our ADF in conflicts. I'm sure the FJ boys would love to go on more ops. I fear however we will go back to a 2nd hand, cheapest bidder and 40 year old F111 force very shortly with no political will for its use, time will tell.
Boldface, it was our Hornets that went to Iraq. Not for too long but when you only have 71 minus your trainers, minus the HUG up grade, etc etc, we can't really sustain operations unless the hordes are coming over the motherland.

Naked_recommiting

20th Jan 2008, 00:09

WannaBeBiggles

20th Jan 2008, 06:14

Just because you don't see it on the 5 o'clock news doesn't mean our jets don't see action!
The Iraq deployment got very Little publicity, didn't make it any less real though.

The F111 does not have low survivability, but yes it is expensive to run.

Switzerland has the biggest airforce fleet (per capita) in the world, and they have never even been invaded. But it's still a big stick wave at any would be invaders.
Now think about Australian history, it only around 66 years ago when we DID have an invading force at our doorstep.

I still find it funny how so many people are only looking at the whole issue with blinkers on, a defence strategy involved more than just a single entity (strike platform), hence the criteria is quite specific.

Plus think of some of the logistical advantages;

It takes 2-3 days to convert a rated hornet pilot to the Super Hornet, it would take considerably more time (and money!) to convert any of our other air crew to another platform.
We have engineers who are rated on the F18, and only need a bridging course instead of a whole new rating.
We have existing relationships with Boeing, and Boeing has significant infrastructure in Australia
We already know how to integrate in to Boeing systems.
We deal largely with the US in other conflicts, so borrowing some munitions is possible because of interface commonality. The same cannot be said for our European and Russian counterparts.
We just spent a few billion on Wedgtail (Boeing), so having a fighter/strike platform that has systems ready to integrate with it makes a LOT of sense.
And the list goes on, but I've run out of time! :}

griffinblack

20th Jan 2008, 07:57

Just because you don't see it on the 5 o'clock news doesn't mean our jets don't see action!

Yes it does, because we have no Fast Jets deployed, therefore they see no ‘action’.

The Iraq deployment got very Little publicity, didn't make it any less real though.

Mate, the same goes for every deployment - to the ships that spend half there life in the MEO, to our overstretched troops and our P3 and C130 guys/gals.

You can only live on the glory of one deployment for so long.

Besides, I thought the SH was supposed to replace the F111 and supplement the classics. In this case it would be the F111 crews (pilots only, or back seat as well?) who will require transition. Therefore, the idea that a down and dirty 3 hour conversion will be all that is required is misleading. That is not to say some of the crews won’t be classic qualified in which case there would be efficiencies.

grasssnake

20th Jan 2008, 08:18

I thought the SH was supposed to replace the F111 and supplement the classics.

There in lies the rub. Are you really going to crew a more capable Air to air platform with F-111 guys ? Interesting times ahead.

Really though, if the govt doesn't have the balls to cancel Sea Sprite then the SH deal should have no problem. At least there is some semblance of logic behind it.

grasssnake

20th Jan 2008, 11:39

The only combination is F-111 nav and classic driver. I guess the 111 drivers will go solo on classics. Sorry guys :)

WannaBeBiggles

20th Jan 2008, 11:44

Griffin,

The hawks systems are set to duplicate the F18's, all FJ's start their FJ training on the Hawks, so ALL of them have some knowledge of the systems.

Last time I checked there were no back seat drivers on the F111, unless they've started ductaping a spare nav'y to the fuselage :}

Therefore, the idea that a down and dirty 3 hour conversion will be all that is required is misleading

I couldn't agree with you more mate.... thats why I said 3-4 DAYS :suspect:

Backwards PLT

20th Jan 2008, 11:57

The only combination is F-111 nav and classic driver. I guess the 111 drivers will go solo on classics. Sorry guys

Just wondering what your thinking behind this is. Logically it would be more sensible to have a F-111 driver with classic pilot in the boot! That would be popular! In reality the way ahead would be a mix of F-111 and classic pilots with a mix of F-111 and ab initio* backseaters.

* was going to put abo, but that might mean something else in Oz. Also, are they Navs, WSOs or something else in the RAAF?

griffinblack

20th Jan 2008, 18:55

WBB,

Yes, I know what the Hawk is set up to do. No, you said 2-3 days not 3-4 days. How many sorties do you think you fly in a day? How many flight hours per sortie? Let us be generous and say five hours.

So what you are saying is that because some F111 guy has flown Hawks 5 years ago, he can get away with a 3-4 day (using your revised timings) conversion? I’ll put a six pack on that.

This is not to say I think our 1 and 6 Sqn guys/gals won’t be up to the task. They will handle the SH with aplomb in all roles. But they will have to undergo a full transition, just as if they where transitioning onto the classic. This I suppose would take 4-6 months – I will be happy to stand corrected on those timings.

Furthermore, I stand corrected about the ‘back seat’.

WannaBeBiggles

20th Jan 2008, 19:10

griffin,

not trying to get in to a slinging match here.

I got the 2-3 day figure from an ex F18 driver (now Hawk QFI). Yes the F111 crew will need more time than that, however my point is they have already been exposed to a similar (systems) platform in their training, hence an easier transition.
Flying a jet is easy, learning the systems is a whole other story.

Naked_recommiting

20th Jan 2008, 20:26

The majority of the 'new' SH drivers will come from F-111 circles, requiring a significant conversion (in the order of months, like 6).

It is true the hawk provides a similar cockpit layout etc etc to the hornet, but flight charateristics and the tactical training offered on hornet conversion would certainly be something a F-111 pilot wouldn't have been exposed to.

The lack of F/A-18 (classic) pilots wanting to convert to SH comes down to:
- SH is not that different to flying to the classic (hence the very short converstion)
- SH offers a number of new toys (however the classic upgrades continue to offer this as well, noting not a sweetly intergrated)
- Not wanting to jeopardise a JSF slot

Magic Mushroom

20th Jan 2008, 22:27

I have no doubt that the deployment of Aussie fast jet support would have been a hot topic across many desks at Canberra over the past 12 months.

But I fear the following issues would prevent such a deployment:
- The lead up to the election, and the subsequent incoming Labor 'government'
- The Hornet upgrade program (availability and crews)
- Low F-111 survivability and high operational costs (even in relatively beneign threats)
- The surplus of fast air available in Australia's current area's of operation

Nr,

Okay, so that's the last 12 months explained. What about the 36 months prior to that since your Hornets did their guest appearance in Iraq? Or the 18 prior to that since OEF started? Or even the 10 years of Northern and Southern Iraqi NFZs? I don't wish to be facetious, and I know you have some national ops in ET and PNG, but in the immortal words of Capt Blackadder: 'Where are you, you b**tards?!!':hmm:

I genuinely find it quite incredible that, given the lack of use your fast air is put to, you can conceivably talk about a Raptor purchase. Drag your FA-18s away from their endless Willytown PIs, give them a CAS work up and come and join the party!!!:ugh:

Switzerland has the biggest airforce fleet (per capita) in the world, and they have never even been invaded. But it's still a big stick wave at any would be invaders.

Wbg,

But the Swiss don't have members of their own armed forces getting killed in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq.

We just spent a few billion on Wedgtail (Boeing), so having a fighter/strike platform that has systems ready to integrate with it makes a LOT of sense.

That'll be the Wedgetail that isn't working yet then!:rolleyes: However, your arguments are irrelevant. Wedgetail is deigned to be interoperable on a whole range of C2 protocols with a variety of Western aircraft. Just as NATO, France and ourselves introduced our E-3s in the 80s and 90s and immediately started integrating them with European naval, land and air assets via JTIDS, L11 and L14, Wedgetail could work tomorrow with Typhoon or Rafale just as well as it could with FA-18F.

The Super Hornet probably makes sense for you guys as F-35 is a long way away. But let's be realistic with the claims we make!!

Like the Wallabies, it's about time the RAAF started walking the walk as well as talking the talk!:ok:

Regards,
MM

Naked_recommiting

20th Jan 2008, 23:35

MM,

You're quite right - however some of the inital points I made could well be considered >12 months (ie surplus of fast air in any of our theatres). You'd have to find a Government and Defence force happy to back (to the public) these high value assets being deployed to pick a fight or at least join a very one sided one, when the assets are not in fact needed (I acknowledge that there may well be intergration issues at times).

You'd be hard pressed to find aircrew that didn't want to go on overseas operations, perhaps the answer lies a little deeper in the strategic defence of Australia (something about a large air/sea gap). Strangely enough, I imagine that is what most of the F/A-18 exercises conducted focus on. (Although I am sure that CAS currencies aren't to shabby either).

As far as the Raptor purchase goes - do you think we will always enjoy the air advantage we have now? Have you seen Raptor results?

Magic Mushroom

20th Jan 2008, 23:52

Nr,

You'd have to find a Government and Defence force happy to back (to the public) these high value assets being deployed to pick a fight or at least join a very one sided one, when the assets are not in fact needed (I acknowledge that there may well be intergration issues at times).

Err, do you honestly feel it's a one sided battle or that the assets aren't needed?! Our Harriers are being run ragged in Afghanistan and the GR4s also working hard in Iraq. As for integration issues, one of the reasons your Hornets struggled to integrate in Iraq was their lack of recent op experience.

You'd be hard pressed to find aircrew that didn't want to go on overseas operations...

Granted, and I don't doubt the quality or motivation of your personnel. However, the quality of the RAAF (and it's procurement focus) IS being eroded by a lack of exposure to ops imho. Ops can be painful, but they bring benefits too in some respects.

As far as the Raptor purchase goes - do you think we will always enjoy the air advantage we have now? Have you seen Raptor results?

Absolutely not, and it is a danger in the UK that people are becoming too focused upon current ops at the expense of wider capabilities. That has to be balanced and it's an ongoing battle. But it is disappointing that your fast air has not been commited.

As for Raptor, I've operated with them at Nellis and they are very impressive. My point was that, when you seem reticent to offer your current 'high value assets' to ops, I am amazed that an F-22 purchase is even being talked about.

Regards,
MM

wessex19

21st Jan 2008, 03:31

MTOW

21st Jan 2008, 06:17

Time for an injection of heresey.

Anyone who remembers the Falklands will recall what a real bother a very simple (and cheap) light twin turboprop named Pucara turned out to be for the invading forces. How useful would something like a Pucara be to the RAF in Afghanistan today, where there is no enemy air element?

Should the RAAF (or ADF) not seriously consider a second tier ground attack platform as well as the 'Gucci" top shelf kit? I know the subject of this thread is the fighter replacement, but it's not just the F35 that has a telephone book sized price tag, necessitating small numbers and an understandable reluctance to commit them to situations where they might be lost. I understand that the unit cost of the (yet to be deployed and don't hold your breath waiting) Tiger is astronomical, (I've heard the unbelievable figure of $45 million a copy quoted [for a ***ing helicopter!!!]).

As has been suggested already, shouldn't serious consideration be given to an A10/Su27 type for 'down and dirty' operations (as well as something a lot cheaper than the Tiger in the rotary wing field like the Super Huey)?

They might not be able to be deployed in a major clash with an advesary equipped with a lot of top shelf kit themsleves, but if the Falklands and the Pucara are anyting to go by, a large number of such 'low tech' (and afordable) units, especially if used in conjunction with the 'top shelf' units, could prove to be quite a handful for any enemy - and in the meantime, provide a very cost effective force that could be used in the limited conflicts the West finds itself involved in in places like Afghanistan.

Australia doesn't have bottomless pockets when it comes to Defence. Maybe it's time someone in Canberra acknowledged this and shopped accordingly.

Magic Mushroom

21st Jan 2008, 08:07

Magic mushroom quote ;
"Like the Wallabies, it's about time the RAAF started walking the walk as well as talking the talk!"

The only guys on the world stage that are good at walking are English batsmen!!!

That'll be a bite then!!!!!!:D:D:D:D:D:D

MTOW

Anyone who remembers the Falklands will recall what a real bother a very simple (and cheap) light twin turboprop named Pucara turned out to be for the invading forces.

I'd argue the Pucara caused us very few problems during the Falklands.

Although it was a concern and a Pucara was responsible for the only Argentine air-air kill of the war (a RM Scout), they achieved very little against the ground forces. Of the approx 24 deployed to the Falklands by the Argies, 13 were lost and 11 captured. Several were shot down in air-air or surface-air engagements and the majority of the others were destroyed on the ground in air strikes or SF action. The poor weather was also a factor in their limited success as they were often unable to locate targets in the clag.

It is fair to say however that more intelligently operated Pucaras would have been more of an issue, and there is possibly a role for a small number of turboprop CAS assets in the PC-21, AT-6 or Super Tucano class on modern ops. However, those have specific limitations (such as transit speed and sensors) and they are of little use in a conventional campaign. They could therefore be described as a false economy.

You may wish to read this (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=306952&page=2) thread for more gouge on the issue.

However, you're correct in pointing out that Canberra doesn't have bottomless pockets. By opting so early for the F-35, and having now made a tenuous order for FA-18Fs, it appears that your procurement lacks coherency and is writing cheques your new government may not be willing to cash.

Regards,
MM

FoxtrotAlpha18

21st Jan 2008, 22:10

As for integration issues, one of the reasons your Hornets struggled to integrate in Iraq was their lack of recent op experience.

I think you've been eating too much of your namesake mate. I was there, and the reason we "struggled to integrate" in 03 was because our NiteHawk pod was absolute sh!t and our ROEs were somewhat more restrictive than yours.

Plus, we took only partly upgraded Hornets with APG-73, CIT and ARC-210 with us - we didn't have any of the SA goodies that have since come with Hug 2.2.

I agree we have a lack of Ops experience, but as Nr said, we've got other things going on. I understand the previous govt was considering an FJ deployment to the Stan sometime this year to take over from the Dutch, but this has been quashed by the new govt.

am amazed that an F-22 purchase is even being talked about.

The only people talking about F-22s are the Kopp and Goon squad, plus anyone else with a political axe to grind. Although, as a pilot, I'd love to get my hands on one, it is still too focussed a capability for our requirements.

It's all politics mate, so delete your references to the "RAAF" not willing to come out an fight, and insert "Govt".

Magic Mushroom

21st Jan 2008, 23:04

I think you've been eating too much of your namesake mate. I was there, and the reason we "struggled to integrate" in 03 was because our NiteHawk pod was absolute sh!t and our ROEs were somewhat more restrictive than yours.

I was there also and your equipment was certainly a factor. However, remember that our own Tornado GR4s and Harrier GR7s still had TIALD at the time which was also a big limitation. I would respectfully suggest however that the reason much of your A-G kit was holding you back was because of a lack of ops focus in preceding years. TELIC 1 was a very big ask for you guys to come in cold. Most of our assets had had the experience of Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan over the preceding years to learn from and develop TTPs and urgent operational requirement mods.

Since 03, things have evolved even more quickly.

The only people talking about F-22s are the Kopp and Goon squad, plus anyone else with a political axe to grind. Although, as a pilot, I'd love to get my hands on one, it is still too focussed a capability for our requirements.

Concur re the F-22.

It's all politics mate, so delete your references to the "RAAF" not willing to come out an fight, and insert "Govt".

If I have implied the RAAF don't wish to get stuck in I apologise. I've tried to reinforce throughout the above that I don't doubt the quality of your guys per se. I understand also the political aspect but do find it slightly contradictory that the last Aussie Govt sanctioned an FA-18F buy but seemed very reticent to deploy your FA-18As.

Regards,
MM

TheShadow

12th Sep 2008, 14:07

Joint Strike Fighter:
the latest hotspot in the
US defence meltdown

BY PIERRE M SPREY AND
WINSLOW T WHEELER

Politicians in the US are papering over serious problems in the country’s armed forces. Equating exposure of flaws with failure to “support the troops,” Congress, the presidential candidates and think-tank pundits repeatedly dub the US armed forces “the best in the world”. Behind this vapid rhetoric, a meltdown
- decades in the making – is occurring.

The collapse is occurring in all the armed forces, but it is most obvious in the US Air Force (USAF). There, despite a much needed change in leadership, nothing is being done to reverse the deplorable situation the air force has put
itself into. The USAF’s annual budget is now in excess of USD150 billion: well above what it averaged
during the Cold War. Despite the plentiful dollars, the USAF’s inventory of tactical aircraft is smaller today than it has ever been since the end of the Second World War. At the same time, the shrunken inventory is older, on average, than it
has been ever before. Since George W Bush came to office in 2001, the air force has received a major budget
“plus up,” supposedly to address its problems. In January 2001 a projection of its budgets showed USD850 billion for 2001 to 2009.

It actually received USD1,059 billion – not counting the additional billions (more than USD80 billion) it also received to fund its operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. With the “plus up” of more than USD200 billion, the air force actually made its inventory troubles worse: from 2001 to today, tactical aircraft numbers shrank by about 100 aircraft and
their average age increased from 15 years to 20, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Not to worry, the air force and its politicians assert, the solution is in hand; it is called the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter. It will do all three tactical missions: air-to-ground bombing, air-to-air combat and specialised close air
support for ground troops – and there will be tailored variants for the air force, navy and marines. Most importantly, it will be “affordable” and, thus, the US can buy it in such large numbers that it will resolve all those shrinking and ageing problems.

Baloney. When the first official cost and quantity estimate for the F-35 showed up on Capitol Hill in 2001, the Department of Defense (DoD) predicted 2,866 units for USD226 billion. That is a not inconsiderable USD79 million for each aircraft. The latest official estimate is for a smaller number of aircraft (2,456) to cost more (USD299 billion). That represents a 54 per cent increase in the per-unit cost to USD122 million, and the deliveries will be two years late.
The Government Accountability Office reported in March that the US can expect the costs to increase some more – perhaps by as much as USD38 billion – with deliveries likely to be delayed again, perhaps by another year.
That is just the start of the rest of the bad news.

The price increases and schedule delays cited above are for currently known problems. Unfortunately, the F-35 has barely begun its flight-test programme, which means more problems are likely to be discovered – perhaps even more
serious than the serious engine, flight control, electrical and avionics glitches found thus far.

Take the F-22 experience; it was in a similarly early stage of flight testing in 1998. Its programme unit cost was then USD184 million per aircraft but it climbed to a breathtaking USD355 million by 2008. Considering that the
F-35 is even more complex (19 million lines of computer code compared to 4 million, and three separate service versions compared to one), the horrifying prospect of the F-35ʼs unit cost doubling is not outlandish. The last tri-service, tri-mission “fighter” the US built, the F-111, tripled in cost before being cut back to barely half the number originally contemplated.

The DoD currently plans to spend more than USD10 billion to produce fewer than 100 F-35s per year at peak production. USAF leaders would like to increase the production rate and add in a few more F-22s. That plan is irresponsibly unaffordable (which contributed to the recent departure of the Secretary of the Air Force and the Air Force Chief of Staff). The unaffordability will become even more obvious when the unavoidable F-35 cost
increases emerge. The inevitable reaction, just as in past programmes, will be a slashing of annual production, the opposite of the increase the air force needs to address its inventory problems.

The DoD fix is simple: test the F-35 less and buy more copies before the testing is completed. Two test aircraft and hundreds of flight-test hours have been eliminated from the programme, and there is now a plan to produce
more than 500 copies before the emasculated testing is finished. This approach will not fix the programme but it will help paper over the problems and make the F-35 more cancellation-proof in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill.

It gets even worse. Even without new problems, the F-35 is a “dog.” If one accepts every performance promise the DoD currently makes for the aircraft, the F-35 will be:

● Overweight and underpowered: at 49,500 lb
(22,450kg) air-to-air take-off weight with an
engine rated at 42,000 lb of thrust, it will be
a significant step backward in thrust-to-weight
ratio for a new fighter.

● At that weight and with just 460 sq ft (43 m2)
of wing area for the air force and Marine Corps
variants, it will have a ʻwing-loadingʼ of 108 lb
per square foot. Fighters need large wings relative
to their weight to enable them to manoeuvre
and survive. The F-35 is actually less manoeuvrable
than the appallingly vulnerable F-105
“Lead Sled” that got wiped out over North Vietnam
in the Indochina War.

● With a payload of only two 2,000 lb bombs
in its bomb bay – far less than US Vietnam-era
fighters – the F-35 is hardly a first-class bomber
either. With more bombs carried under its wings,
the F-35 instantly becomes ʻnon-stealthyʼ and
the DoD does not plan to seriously test it in this
configuration for years.

● As a ʻclose air supportʼ attack aircraft to help
US troops engaged in combat, the F-35 is a nonstarter.
It is too fast to see the tactical targets it is
shooting at; too delicate and flammable to withstand
ground fire; and it lacks the payload and
especially the endurance to loiter usefully over
US forces for sustained periods as they manoeuvre
on the ground. Specialised for this role, the
air force’s existing A-10s are far superior.

However, what, the advocates will protest, of the F-35ʼs two most prized features: its “stealth” and its advanced avionics? What the USAF will not tell you is that “stealthy” aircraft are quite detectable by radar; it is simply a question of the type of radar and its angle relative to the aircraft. Ask the pilots of the two “stealthy” F-117s that the Serbs successfully attacked with radar missiles in the 1999 Kosovo air war. As for the highly complex electronics to attack targets in the air, the F-35, like the F-22 before it, has mortgaged its success on a hypothetical vision of ultra-long range, radar-based air-to-air combat that has fallen on its face many times in real air war. The F-35’s air-to-ground electronics promise little more than slicker command and control for the use of existing munitions.

The immediate questions for the F-35 are: how much more will it cost and how many additional problems will compromise its already mediocre performance? We will only know when a complete and rigorous test schedule –
not currently planned – is finished. The F-35 is a bad deal that shows every sign of turning into a disaster as big as the F-111 fiasco of the 1960s.

In January the US will inaugurate a new president. If he is serious about US defences – and courageous enough to ignore the corporate lobbies and their minions in Congress and the think-tanks – he will ask some very tough questions.
These will start with why an increased budget buys a shrinking, ageing force. After that the new president will have to take steps – unavoidably painful ones – to reverse the course the country is now on.

The man who best deserves to be inaugurated next January will actually start asking those questions now. ■

Pierre M Sprey, together with John
Boyd and Everest Riccioni, conceived and
shaped the F-16; Sprey also led the technical
side of the US Air Force’s A-10 design
concept team

Winslow T Wheeler is the Director of the
Straus Military Reform Program of the Center
for Defense Information in Washington