Staying Abreast
Hi Scran; re your #174 of 23Jan09 (P9). Yes, I am somewhat fossilized at 71 which is why I use bigger font. But a few years out of date! - Hmmm.
I have a long military lineage with 3 family lost in WW1 and another survived after being badly gassed. Family members were involved in all Australian active operations ever since to the current day, except Korea. I can remember much about WW2, was involved in Confrontation, Vietnam (3 stints) and appreciable regional archipelago activities. Lived in Kuwait just after the Gulf War, have visited many other battlefields around the world and have always been a bit bent toward researching military history.
Being on the planet for beyond the biblical 3 score years plus 10 inclines you to become more objective than subjective and question many of the actions of governments; which may be the reason I was privileged to be invited in 2007 to joint a group comprising former Air Force pilots, engineers and a scientist addressing air combat capabilities. The group includes mainly 1 and 2 Star rankers with military service spanning from the 1950s until recently (but I did not reach their dizzy heights). We are well across what has been happening in Canberra and through defence industry contacts worldwide are arguably more abreast of aircraft technology and weaponry developments than most, particularly regarding Russian and Chinese hardware.
Re aerial refuelling tankers. Somewhere on the web is a USAF statistical summary for a few months of offensive air support in Iraq and Afghanstan during 2008 indicating about 10,000 hours flown requiring a staggering 4,000 or so hours of tanker support The USAF has near 500(?) mainly re-engined glass cockpit KC-135 as the core of their tanker fleet with airframe life of type potential to about 2040 although maintenance costs will progressively increase (see: KC-135 Stratotanker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).
As for most of the other aircraft types operated by the ADF, the RAAF B707s were not progressively optimized so did not have the capabilities of the KC-135R preceding their premature retirement from Air Force service. Our B707 were pretty low time airframes and had the aircraft been upgraded, operating costs would have been substantially reduced.
Yet again, Australia jumped in as a launch customer for an unproven type in the MRTT and I challenge the wisdom of this decision. 5 x MRTT may arguably only allow 3 available continuously for operations which is really a piddling capacity for activities that might require sustained tankering. While the MRTT can offload more fuel than the KC-135R, I feel it was acquired moreso as a people and freight transporter.
Years back when Qantas was government-owned, provision existed to sequester QF aircraft at short notice for auxiliary transportation of personnel in particular. Defence spending on airlift assets was then more wisely directed toward aircraft that could be utilized to quickly move personnel and equipment (including light armour) into the rudimentary airfields throughout the regional archipelago with C-130 and C-17 being the aircraft most suited for such needs today. Tanker/cargo aircraft are of course limited to airfields that can handle large airliners.
Had the RAAF B707 been upgraded to KC-135R standard, an adequate (albeit token) tanker capability - and a lesser pax/cargo function - could have been maintained pending downstream emergence and proving of a USAF tanker replacement with spending on the MRTT perhaps more sensibly diverted to additional C-17. The USAF tanker replacement project has been controversial and may yet become a US designed aircraft leaving Australia with more European sourced equipment.
Thorough fatigue testing proved the F-111 could have easily been sustained in service until around 2030 utilizing spares availability from stored assets in the US. Its systems could have also been optimized to make it extremely capable as a very long range maritime strike (and electronic warfare) deterrent against interference with Australia's trade routes and offshore assets. Although the airframe is not stealth technology, it has supersonic cruise capability and can deliver stand-off weaponry designed for internal carriage on the F-22 - the RAAF did some of the supersonic small diameter bomb flight testing for the USAF. The Super Hornet does not have comparable airframe performance and would require significant tanker support when laden with external weaponry - see the following link for a January 2008 cost comparison for acquiring the Super Hornet versus keeping the F-111 in service - NOTAMS and Media Releases. The former Chief Defence Scientist and Service Chiefs misinformed the Parliament in this regard which is all recorded in Hansard.
With respect Mate, I think you might be a victim of the 'group think' culture that prevails in Defence. The Minister has already publicly expressed his concern that our defence planners are too obsessed with futuristic notions for conduct of war-fighting rather than maintaining the operational capabilities of the ADF as they have existed. Hitherto, nobody has been held accountable for reckless defence spending but some heads might yet roll at the highest levels if a couple more of the ill-conceived projects fall over.
This link can provide you with months of very interesting reading on topical military issues: Air Power Australia - Home Page
Last edited by Bushranger 71; 25th Jan 2009 at 22:54.