Australian Defence "Boost" - ha!

[Pass-A-Frozo]

Nice to see the Aussie Defence boost basically does nothing to the airforce.

http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/Hilltpl.cfm?CurrentId=3252

The Article makes mention of two projects that have been underway for years (read here - Nothing for the Air Force) , and lays plans to retire the F-111.

So the RAAF's Boost is the loss of an aircraft.

Thanks Robert :\

PAF

[oldpinger]

So you don't think JSF and AEW&C a boost for the airforce????

"What have the romans ever done for us?....."

[Yeller_Gait]

now that joint/combined ops are the way ahead


what about the new AEGIS type destroyers with SM2?

[Pass-A-Frozo]

AEW&C and JSF are old projects. I'd not consider them something new.

[citizen]

What more do you want? What has the RAAF missed out on in the next few decades? The F-111 has to retire sometime, especially at the $500 mil per annum they're costing the government to run for only 34 aircraft, a handful of which work at any one time.

Don't get me wrong, the F-111 is the most capable strike aircraft in the region, but it can't really be justified to run them too far into the future at the price it costs us.

The things scheduled to come in for the Navy and Army are some well overdue projects. The three air warfare destroyers are procured to replace the area air defence gap left when the three DDGs left a few years ago. This is like taking the F-111 out of service and replacing it 15 years later! The introduction of the AWD will remove the need to have the limited air cover the RAAF can provide, freeing up assets.

The Army are finally getting new tanks to replace the 30 year old Leopards still in service.

I hardly think the RAAF has been hard done by in the past few years as far as procurement goes.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

Without listing everything surely you don't believe the Air Force doesn't need anything. Granted some of the Army and Navy stuff is over due.. but there are quiet a lot of Air Force areas needing attention (not just major capital expenditure).

[Argus]

All of what you say is interesting. But, from the point of view of those of us who toil in the vineyard of the self employed workforce, and collect tax on behalf of the Government for no fee, I'd like to think that those to whom I remit my hard earned cash and that of my employees, will spend it wisely.

Your emotive and unsubstantiated rhetoric does little to convince me that, if ever you were to be posted to a position of influence, you would be able to make a meaningful and balanced contribution to the national defence budget – which is financed by the hewers of wood and drawers of water in the Australian workforce.

[citizen]

You could say that for every area of defence, not just the RAAF. Do you want to give some examples?

[Pass-A-Frozo]

Well.. no one enjoys paying tax. I'm a tax payer too thanks. Personally I don't think 1.9% of GDP is all that much to pay for defence for a continent.I don't like seeing my tax money being wasted, it's just a shame to hear other Australians saying that putting money into making defence people safe is a waste of money.

Buying nice sounding equipment is all good and well, but the good old Australian "Fitted for but not with" doesn't cut it.

An example.. try buying "military" aircraft yet not equipping them with any kind of ASE. It's pretty sad when airliners in the world are safer from SAM attacks than RAAF aircraft.

An example using public record figures:

24 Lockheed Hercules C-130H and C-130J transports
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAAF

C-130H Hercules fleet, continuing the recently completed program to install systems including the Elisra radar warning system in four C-130H aircraft.
from http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/Hilltpl.cfm?CurrentId=2880

and given 71 SAMs per aircraft lost during Linebacker II operations in Vietnam (http://www.defence.gov.au/raaf/Aerospace/2000apc/Hallion.html)
then given that was 30 years ago, now adays:
"In regard to their availability, an estimated 500,000 MANPADS are currently in existence, with some of the simpler systems available for as little as $1,000 on the open market. According to Jane's Intelligence Review, 150,000 shoulder-fired missiles are currently in circulation around the world, and another 350,000 in defense stockpiles. It estimates that 27 militia groups and terrorist organizations own shoulder-fired SAMs.
"
from http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/EH16Aa02.html

but hey.. when those of you who toil in the vineyard of the self employed workforce hear of an Aussie Herc (or other non ASE aircraft) being shot down, at least it didn't cost you a few dollars a year.

Gee.. 4 from 24 aircraft we can use in a military environment, and that's ignoring unservicabilities and scheduled maintenance.

I started the thread more with the thought of how it appears they're advertising of "Defence Budget Boost" when the RAAF was not seeing in real terms any additional money from the day before. Was it defence spending as a proportion of tax you actually wanted to address?:confused:

Citizen: I never said the Army or Navy shouldn't be getting what they were getting. Just expressing disappointment at the lack of "boost" for RAAF.

[Runaway Gun]

By the way, how long have you buggars been awaiting for a Caribou replacement?

And as for tankers, AWACS, new trainers etc I think the RAAF could certainly use some more cash. Of course the other forces need the cash too....

[citizen]

You have some valid points, but I wouldn't think that the RAAF is the service most in need for a "boost".

As an aside, the self-protection kit is definitely overdue, but not just for the RAAF. Back when Timor began, the Sea King crews that dropped SAS on the shore at the start of the campaign were told later by intel that they'd been locked up by SAMs. They weren't particularly enthusiastic to hear that to say the least. The Sea Kings aren't even on the schedule for the future self-protection suites.

Anyway, I'm not here to say the RAAF has everything in the works that it needs; but a bit of scope is required for all three services' situations before saying the RAAF has been hard done by in budget boosts.

And 1.9% is fairly economic for tax payers to have to fork out - just think about Israel who has a defence budget of 9.6%!

[Charlie Luncher]

Citizen
Please tell me your not trying to advocate that we should believe Int:8

[griffinblack]

P-A-F. I agree with your general sentiment in respect to long range strike capability. The F111 is a great deterrent, and simply cannot be replaced by F18 even with force multipliers such as AEW&C and AAR. It is of great concern that some regional powers are purchasing SU30’s variants. This type of acft is a significant threat, with a great payload and range (750Nm radius) we must have a viable deterrent.

However, I’ll try to put some context into your statements. Let us look at the RAAF upgrade/procurement programs:

We had the AP-3C upgrade. Was this no recently finished? The RAAF are advertising it as a capability that is unmatched in certain areas.

We purchased the C130J, what 4/5 years ago? Was this not a rushed program that did not go through the full procurement cycle?

We have recently (this year?) received the last Hawk advanced jet trainer.

Is the F18 upgrade program about to start? Or has it commenced?

The BBJs.

JSF was only announced last year wasn’t it? And as I recall the selection program was a little unusual in that we went straight into a partnership program without a thorough selection process or analysis.

When was the AEW&C program announced? Was that not also last Year?

As to the venerable ‘Boo – well it is a tactical transport. A roll that neither the Brit or US army need given the far more flexible medium/heavy rotary types in the inventory. Lets buy 6 more CH47 and be done with it. But that would be more goodies for the army so we can’t have that (sorry I couldn’t resist a tongue in cheek cheep shot!).

With respect to your equipment issues. I totally agree. The Sea Kings were not the only type flying the Timor or other places without adequate/any EW kit. For that matter I wonder how many soldiers deployed with there own stretchers/mossy domes/camel/backs etc etc?

Do you know that we don’t have self propelled artillery? Do you know that our air defence capability is (very) limited? Do you know our infantry Battalions don’t yet have Javelin? Do you know how vulnerable an M113 is – a type unchanged since Vietnam? We do know (now) about our tanks. The Tiger is an aircraft the wider army simply don’t understand – but they will.

Some food for thought.

[Gnadenburg]

I don't understand why there is no replacement of an F111 capability or similar.

If the ADF needs AEGIS warships then surely the long range F111 strike capability neccessary? If our navy will be fighting wars against large numbers of land based fighters that dictate the requirment, surely the offensive counter air capability of F111 more important!

When in the last 30 years, or the next 30 years for that matter, have we found ourselves in a situation where AEGIS is a required capability?

Sounds like an Admiral's Barge to me. And if the Collins Class subs a procurement trend, we will end up with a European hull, American software and missiles and a multi-billion dollar naval gunfire suppport capability.

The shipbuilding unions and Admirals should be well pleased with themselves.

I must add the addition of a stand off land attack weapon for the P3 logical and overdue (as mentioned in the Minister's statement). A cheap and flexible option, coupled with the P3 range and in context of the war on terror.

[smartman]

griffinblack

Some valid points.

But none of it confers a credible, durable, in-theatre strike capability that replaces the still-needed deterrent thus far provided by the F-111.

And at long last the pig-worshippers in the RAAF have conceded that their faithful and once mighty steed is no longer viable in a modern war scenario. And no, neither JSF nor the F18 HUG, either alone or in combination, and with the benefit of the 737 wizard, will meet that requirement. Affordable options are around (no, I don't mean Raptor)and have been offered, but Canberra with its great wisdom chose not to bite the bullet - and in so doing denied its Air Force the long-term and optimum tool for its job. Regrettable civvy and uniformed politics. Even, I think, Dibb would agree.

[ftrplt]

Carlo Kopp must be devastated

[smartman]

ftrplt

Nah - he'll just invent another high tech, network centric story and flog it to Mr Thorn

[citizen]

If the ADF needs AEGIS warships then surely the long range F111 strike capability neccessary? If our navy will be fighting wars against large numbers of land based fighters that dictate the requirment, surely the offensive counter air capability of F111 more important!

When in the last 30 years, or the next 30 years for that matter, have we found ourselves in a situation where AEGIS is a required capability?

Gnadenburg,

Saying the need for an anti-air destroyer is unwarranted is rich to say the least. When have we ever deployed the F-111s in their thirty years of service? How many times have the F/A-18s gone anywhere, apart from the recent Gulf conflict? The last time the RAAF had deployed fighters to a combat theatre was the Korean War!

Buying 51 AGM-142 Popeye stand-off missiles for the F-111 (which aren't fully integrated yet) for a dwindling seven year life span seems a bit token doesn't it?

I don't understand why there is no replacement of an F111 capability or similar.
And what would you propose to replace the F-111's speed, payload and range with? Nothing out there can match all three. Why doesn't Australia just invest in its own aircraft then?!

To deprive the Navy of a dedicated anti-air platform when deploying large numbers of troops overseas would be insane.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

GriffinBlack,

No doubt from the name what side of the coin your on :)

I wasn't attempting to say the RAAF get's no money at all. Just that I hear on the news $10 Billion Boost for the ADF. I have a look at it , and the boost is the retirement of an aircraft.

I think EW is the biggest problem at the moment. Given that they don't wish to send non-EW aircraft into theatre anywhere (understandable) , the RAAF has a transport fleet (using facts on the public record) of 4 aircraft.. so lets say 3 servicable. That's no a lot of stuff that can be moved around. The poms equiped a bunch of J models with ASE in 6 weeks from decision to crews being trained. Why we can't to the same I don't know.

Unfortunately the all great Echidna has ended up with almost no aircraft left :)

As for Bou replacement. The RAAF should get Chinooks. (Not the Army).. I can't see why just because it has a rotor it must be an Army asset.

In fact why the Army has helicopters at all is lost on me ;)

[ftrplt]

And what would you propose to replace the F-111's speed, payload and range with? Nothing out there can match all three. Why doesn't Australia just invest in its own aircraft then?!

Its these statements that show an overall lack of understanding; typical of the 'novice' experts. Its not all about speed, payload and range.

Here are just some quick counters to the speed, range and palyload argument:

Speed - Any strike aircraft will be limited to roughly the same ingress speed to the target, limited by the weapons being carried. Any external weapons will limit the acft to subsonic speeds.

Range - A modern multi-role strike acft such as the F15E will have equivalent range because it can ingress and egress at high level, as it can fight its way in and out

Payload - whilst the books say an F111 can caryy 48 MK82's, it would never be carried in anger. A typical warload would be up to 6, maybe 8 GBU12. The F15E was carrying on average 9 GBU12's in GWII. (as well as 2 x AMRAAM and 2 x AIM9)

Another counter; lack of multi-role capability - F111 has minimal self defence capability, must have Air Supremacy (not likely in a regional scenario) or Air Escort (F18's that cant go as far) and relies on low level ingress (the USAF abandoned low level after GW1, there are just to many low level SAMS out there)

GWII biggest limitation was lack of ramp space - there will never be another acft developed that is not multi-role

There is a more than capable aircraft out there to replace the F111 AND THE F18, its the F15E and it should have been ordered 5 years ago before the F18 upgrade was commenced.

I believe the firepower end of the RAAF is going to be in a world of hurt come 2010'ish when the Pig is dead (I dont think it will make 2010, the RAAF has been trying to kill it for years, its the politicians who keep it alive), the F18 is fatigue life limited (which means ****ty training) and the JSF is still 10 years away.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

must have Air Supremacy (not likely in a regional scenario)

ahh yes.. but you've forgotten. Our fighter community can guarantee us EGO supremacy :E

[10and6]

Pass-a-frozo, cheap shots like that are uncalled for!
I don't know what aircraft community you are from, but I have flown a number of different aircraft types, including fighters, helicopters and trainers, and can assure you that the mix of humble/egotistical/funny/introverted/extroverted etc pilots is similar in each aircraft community.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

:rolleyes:

Some people are so unreceptive to jokes...

[citizen]

"ftrplt" - a somewhat ironic name - thanks for the lesson, I'm obviously out of my league.

Investing in the F-15E at this point of time will find us in the same situation not so far down the track with a 3rd generation airframe coupled with 80s era sensors. The F-15 will not guarantee a greater than unity kill/loss advantage against Su30s (the aircraft currently being procured by China and India), which is a big factor the government is looking for. We can't afford to lose aircraft in a one-for-one situation. We don't have the capability to throw aircraft up and not have them come back.

The F-15 has equivalent range because it can fly high and fight its way in and out? For the regional scenario, there's going to be a lot of sea between us and them (there's more support for the AWDs) so regardless - both aircraft can fly high, and even the F-15 isnt guaranteed a trip back against Su30s. There is only one substitute for fuel load carried by an aircraft, and that's aerial refuelling.

Aircraft are limited to subsonic speeds when carrying stores? That's ****ing brilliant that is! Why didn't they think of that one before they designed it? Why on earth then would they have put a swing wing on it? To say that speed is irrelevant is ridiculous - high speeds get bombs on target quickly, and increases mission rates.

The main problem the government has found for leasing F-15Es as a stop-gap is that there aren't sufficient numbers available. The production line has stopped, and the USAF is itself tight on airframes and are reluctant (for want of a better word) to spare some.

[Gnadenburg]

Citizen

I was referencing an F111 counter air capability-whether that be F15's or "other" platforms.

The justification of Aegis destroyers by the Navy would be the support of an amphibious lodgement. That FFG is an insufficient capability would suggest an area threatened by fighter-bombers in numbers and with a possible stand off anti-shipping capability.

If this is the war the RAN is planning to fight, the loss of an airborne long range strike capability has now unbalanced the ADF.

Sadly, I think the ADF will be forced to make do with P3 land attack missile capability. But in the environment you described to justify AEGIS- enemy air superiority- the P3 capability insufficient.

With joint US op's the catchcry, why double up on expensive and relatively inflexible capabilities?

Why is a shipborne capability of the JSF been so quickly written off considering the "need" for such an expensive shipborne anti-air capability re AEGIS?

Rivalries, Admirals' Barge, Unions and shipbuilding lobbies?

On your last remark- the requirment for an AEGIS and the deployment of large numbers of troops overseas IS insane.

Without a long range RAAF counter-air platform that can survive in the environment that requires AEGIS ( no air superiority) at the top end. Aswell as an inexpensive P3 force multiplier at the bottom end.

[griffinblack]

P-A-F,

You are of course quite right. The RAAF should be running all rotary aviation. I for one, and I am sure I speak for most army pilots, would welcome the 1200 early marks on a Friday:ok:

[ftrplt]

Citizen,

the F15E (actually F15E, S and K and maybe a few others, havent kept track) production line is still open, and I didnt say anything about leasing.

I didnt say speed is irrelevant, I said the weapons carried were the limiting factor (on ingress obviously), ergo the F15E and the F111 will have the same ingress speec +/- a few minutes.

If you believe the F15E is equipped with 80's era sensors then you are proving you dont know much. The only thing that is an old design is the airframe, which just happens to be bloody good.

The F111 struggles above 25000ft (with weapons), it is a low level optimised platform.

I would be happy to go up against an SU-30 in an F15E any day, god help an F111 against it. It would not get anywhere near the target. The updated F18 with AEW&C will struggle against SU-30, but Id bet a RAAF trained pilot against any Asian operator anyday. The F15E is a better A/A platform than the F18, period dot.

You say an F15E is no good now, Im saying the F35 wont be available on time, when the F111 is dead and the F18 operationally restricted. From 2010 the RAAF is going to be wheezing big time when it comes to firepower.

PAF, love ya work.

[mr hanky]

Simply not true that external weapons carriage is limited to subsonic. For example, Mk84 is cleared to M1.3 on the Pig. The GBU-15s launched by USAAF Pigs to stop the Iraqis pumping oil into the sea in GW1 were also released supersonic (and presumably travelled a fair way as a result...).

Agree that the Pig is not flash above 25000 - subsonic. Supersonic is another matter altogether - but there goes your range of course.

Otherwise I reckon ftrplt is pretty much right.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

griffinblack,

Unfortunately it's usually the Admin buildings that empty at 12
:yuk:

But you do know why RAAF pilots stay in 5 star hotels don't you? It's because they don't have 6 star hotels :E

The RAAF has always been between a rock and a hard place though. The Navy and Army can make inroads into the aviation environment, but other than ADGies (which you can have if you want :D ) The RAAF can't make inroads into shipping or infantry / tanks etc.

PAF

[weselfluren]

Not being a military man, but somewhat of a amateur historian, haven't you inherited the "Pom" problem?

That is to say the government sees Australia as a Regional power (rightly or wrongly) and thus feels the need to balance the forces of land, sea and air.
Britain has tried that since the days of the Blenheim/Peninsular onwards, and been pro-active in intervening in European conflicts and the balance of power.

It also has a coastline, which 63 years ago, just survived a sustained assualt by a far superior enemy against it's shores. Why? Due to the strength of the Royal Navy, and the ability of the Air Force to survive against superior numbers over its own soil (and a huge bit of luck and the weather!)

Now I appreciate how big the coastline is (as said, it is a continent, not 160 miles of SE England), but the torres straights are a bit wider than the English Channel - reducing the range of enemy insurgent airforces - unless carrier borne of course.....

Now maintaining a long range strike option is very important (1940's whirlybomber/rhubarb raids) to help reduce threats, but the important fight in any aggressive conflict against Austalia would be to stop any landing and then the destruction of the RAAF. Would that not mean that the best "possible" solution would be a fast, agile mutirole air superiority fighter, able to operate off the highway - and yes, I have travelled on one or two north Austrtalian roads! Something like the Saab Gripen? If attacked at home, the RAAF pilots would have less distance to travel prior to engaging, and hence would be able to manouvere with less regard to fuel consumption?

Even our lot have seen that we actually need an "aircraft" carrier, not a ship just for Harriers and Sea Kings. No AEW almost (as in loosing the war, not just a lt of warships) cost Britain dear in '82 and if the Harrier retires prior to JSF coming into service, then I'm sure there'll be another metal dispute or somelike involving "Las Malvinas". It sounds like the RAAF might have a similar problem on it's hands if the gov. don't act soon - 6 years to obtain, convert and train on a new type, without loss of deterrent/capability?

Maybe the Australian Government and Chiefs of Staff need to look at the budget and then prioritise with Defence (it is the ministry of defence over there, isn't it?) first, then worry about what the US are advocating in terms of war on terror.

Shouldn't the priortiy be RAAF/Navy, then Air Defence, then the Army? Can't see too many tank battles happening in the outback or in the jungle.

Again - not a military person. Just someone who thinks that history needs to be looked at and then put into perspective for the next conflict. The British Army is very good at loosing the first battle, but then goes on to win the war - with huge support from the navy, and the new (in historical terms) important factor of local air superiority.

Should the argument not be what they buy, but the proportion/neccesity of funds going to each service?

Waiting to be enlightened/corrected - very good topic though.

[griffinblack]

Some good points wesel.

However, the aus government through the white paper has decided we will no longer posture our defence force solely on the ‘defence of Australia’. This then obligates us to have a balanced defence force that can operate in a coalition environment.

Much has been written on our use of specialist or niche forces in recent conflict – such as the SAS, navy etc. I think the general conclusion is that this philosophy is counter productive in that by ensuring we are only able to provide certain niche capabilities, we actually sacrifice broader capability. In other words we transfer support and other higher cost functions to our allies. This is counter productive.

I believe your assertion that we are attempting to be a regional power is probably a perception rather than a reality. I am sure the US would like us to be so. But the reality is that many of our neighbours don’t feel that aus is even part of SE Asia and many of them are numerically and in some cases capability wise superior to us.

So, after all that, I believe the aus government and the Chiefs have decided on a ‘balanced’ approach. I tend to agree with this philosophy given the context of my discussion above.

Having said that, as I have stated above – we should never get rid of our long-range strike capability. I don’t care if that remains F111 or a replacement or indeed PGM.

[Charlie Luncher]

For those that are questioning the AEGIS system and associated weapons, you may want to read up on the advanced trials the USA have been doing with it,in Janes of course.
Then apply that to SE Asia and ponder, as for the AP3-C more weapons and some self defence would be good.
Charlie sends

[wessex19]

Heres some food for thought, from what has been brought to my attention, the USN in the year 2005 will be paying off DDG's USS Yorktown CG-48, USS Vincennes CG-49 and USS Valley Forge CG-50. Apparently these ships are the only Ticonderoga Class without Tomahawk!!! Can someone confirm that??
I will believe it when I see it though, especially the Yorktown. Whats bizzare is that the USS Yorketown was the first USN ship in this class to be converted to being a "smart ship".In December 1995 the Smart Ship Project Office was created and USS Yorktown, was chosen as the prototype Smart Ship. The “Smart Ship” Program aims at reducing manning while maintaining readiness through technological installations and philosophy changes. The core technologies installed in Yorktown are a 16 workstation fiber optic Local Area Network (LAN), Integrated Bridge System (IBS), Voyage Management System (VMS), Damage Control System(DCS), Integrated Conditioning and Assessment System (ICAS), HYDRA wireless communication system, and Standard Machinery Control System (SMCS).

Personally, I think they would be great for the RAN. These ships were built with a payoff date of around 2025. Still a few years left in them. Would be a formidable weapons platform, making good use of a combination Sea Hawk and Seasprite.I realise the RAN has been burnt badly in the last 10 years with all the bad press from its Collins Class projects, Seasprites and the worst purchase decision in the last 20 years, those two ( ex-USN) absolute rust buckets HMAS Manoora and Kanimbla. Therefore, the RAN has been treading carefully.
Question, does anyone know if the above DDG's have "evolved Sea Sparrow"?

CG-47 Ticonderoga-class
Specifications
Builders Ingalls Shipbuilding: CG-47-50, CG 52-57, 59,62, 65-66, 68-69, 71-73
Bath Iron Works: CG-51,58,60-61,63-64,67,70
Propulsion 4 General Electric LM-2500 Gas Turbine Engines (80,000 Shaft Horsepower)
2 Controllable-Reversible Pitch Propellers
2 Rudders
Length Overall Length: 567 ft
Waterline Length: 529 ft
Beam Extreme Beam: 55 ft
Waterline Beam: 55 ft
Draft 33 ft Maximum Navigational Draft
24 ft Draft [keel]]
23 ft Draft Limit
Displacement Light Displacement: 7103 tons
Full Displacement: 9957 tons
Dead Weight: 2854 tons
Speed 30 plus knots
Aircraft Two SH-2 Seasprite (LAMPS) in CG 47-48
Two SH-60 Sea Hawk (LAMPS III)
Armament 1 MK 7 AEGIS Weapons System
2 MK26 missile launcher (CG47-51) or
2 MK41 vertical launching system (CG52-73)
0 VLS Cells
127 VLS Cells Standard Missile (MR)
Anti-Submarine Rocket (ASROC)
Tomahawk ASM/LAM
2 Harpoon Missile Quad-Canister Launchers
2 MK 32 MOD 14 Torpedo Tubes - 6 MK-46 torpedoes
2 MK 45 5"/54-Caliber Lightweight Gun Mounts
1 MK 15 MOD 2 Close-in-Weapons Systems (CIWS) (2 Mounts)
1 MK 36 MOD 2 Super Rapid-Blooming Off-Board Chaff System
2 50-Caliber Machine Guns
Combat Systems Earlier Ships
1 AN/SPY-1A Radar (Four Arrays) (CG47-59)
1 AN/SPS-49 Air Search Radar
1 AN/SPS-55 Surface Search Radar
1 AN/SPQ-9 Gun Fire Control Radar

4 AN/SPG-62 Illuminators

1 AN/SQS-53A Hull Mounted SONAR (CG47-55)

1 AN/SLQ-32(V)3 Electronic Warfare Suite Later Ships
1 AN/SPY-1B(V) Multi-Function Radar (CG59-73)
1 AN/SPS-49(V)8 Air Search Radar
1 AN/SPS-55 Surface Search Radar
1 AN/SPS-64(V)9 Navigation Radar
1 AN/SPQ-9 Gun Fire Control Radar
4 AN/SPG-62 Illuminators
1 AN/SQQ-89(V) 6 ASW Combat System
1 AN/SQS-53B Hull Mounted SONAR (CG56-67)
1 AN/SQS-53C Hull Mounted SONAR (CG68-73)
1 AN/SQR-19B Towed Array SONAR (TACTAS)
1 AN/SLQ-32A(V)3 Electronic Warfare Suite

Crew 24 Officers, 340 Enlisted
Unit Operating Cost
Annual Average $28,000,000 [source: [FY1996 VAMOSC]

[griffinblack]

Interesting article in todays Courier Mail. It states that the recently released Defence Capability Review will result in a defence deficit of $1 billion or greater. So the bottom line is that the defence Chiefs have been promised all these lovely toys but no funding has yet been allocated to the purchase of said toys. Will this be an election issue?

This kind of reminds me of Army 21. Sounded great but was never likely or achievable.

[Gnadenburg]

M1 Abrams for the Army and Aegis warships for the Navy.

The maritime and armour threat must be very high. I assume the air threat comparable?

But in 2010 the RAAF will have under 50 operational 20yo fighter-bombers.:confused:

A leased 18-24 Strike Eagles would have made sense. I know they are in short supply but the Americans can be accomodating with allies - the supply of F4s to Israel at a time they were needed in Vietnam etc.

Disband a Hornet squadron, retire F111's, leased F15E's and you have a credible strike-fighter force until 2015/JSF.

[ftrplt]

take it further; buy 75 F15E's (the line is still open), retire the F111's, retire all F18's, wait for the second generation F35 when its mature and actually works.

Stop this insane need for buying the first generation of everything.

The F35 will be late; its just a matter of how long.

[Gnadenburg]

Hmmm!

The plot thickens.

We are now facing a ballistic missile threat and joining the US in son of Star Wars.

A more credible justification for an Aegis capability?

I still don't understand 2010- Army M1 Abrams and Navy Aegis destroyers. But the RAAF will struggle to field 50 F18s.

2010 sounds bleak. A ballistic missile capable enemy countered with Aegis and an MBT threat countered with Abrams. The threat perceived must have an equivalant air power capability. Justifying an interim fighter?

F15E?

[L J R]

Some ignorance and some professional comment, and some combinations of the above.

Who ever really thinks Karlo has much of a clue?

RIP the Pig. - pity it never got AGM-130.

F-15E NOW! Tick - VG!! - Yes it does have state of the art stuff on-board!!

F-35 later. maybe after the turmoil of teething problems during its intro.

....and who asked about why fast aircraft cannot deliver weapons very fast - 'cos the weapons that the fast aircraft were designed to carry are not allowed in Oz!!

Small point of order...... Yes Korea was the [until recent] last fighter operational deployment, BUT Vietnam was the [until recent] last RAAF bomb dropped.



Records will show however, that the RAAF transport ops in warmer climates are statistically doing very well - delivering [with the few ASD models around] larger percentages of cargo per airframe in theatre than other allies by an order of magnitude, and being praised for their flexibility in doing same, and utilising procedures that maximise tactical soundness.

Agree with ftrplt - Oz trained crews can whip 'near neighbour' dudes - even if they fly third and a half generation MiG & Sukois.

PS
Give the RAAF the rotaries back.

[Gnadenburg]

L J R

Like the RAAF Wing Commander waxing his moustache looking over the flightline of Wirraways- " The yellow man and his Zero no threat".

I see the glowing capability loss idnetified in the above comments being addressed in it's cheapest form!

Hornets and cruise missiles.

Interesting times! An escalation of that capability in the region makes Australia's natural defence-distance-less of an advantage and more of a headache.

[ftrplt]

AGM-130 on the F111 - that would have been to easy and it would have worked!

Much better to try for 5 years plus with AGM-142 and spend a few million in the process. It must make a good paperweight for the generals in Amberley!

Just another example of brilliant procurement.

[FishHead]

No need to worry about all this rubbishy fast jet stuff... a lot of people missed the fact that this 'cruise missile' thingy is also going to be hung off the AP-3C. Why bother sending a Hornet on it's 200nm bungy cord to threaten.....ummmm...... PNG out of Scherger? Lord Howe Island out of Williamtown? Oh, hang on, that's too far away...

Sure.... AAR will be the answer to everything....

Still - your AP-3C fleet can strike almost anywhere in the immediate region without needing AAR, and provide it's own surv/recon before the strike. And of course, they can run away bravely once detecting launch of bad guy CAP. Until that CAP lands an hour later, and they go back in again...

;-)

[DRAGWA]

And while we're asking for new and better stuff...

1) Where are the three or four C-17's that we need for some serious heavy lift?

2) Will the light transport needs of the airforce be met by the King Air 350? Or have we leased a one purpose aircraft?

3) How long before we get some decent operations cells at Australian military bases? The New Zealand Airforce leaves us in their wake in this regard! Ever tried getting met and notams without airmovements around (so they can log on for you!)?

4) And as for this weather....


Thanks for letting me get that off my chest.

[L J R]

Fish-Head,
I admire your offer. Yes anything could conceivably launch a cruise missile or other VV long Stand-Off Weapon, but what do they all cost..... and what RoE will allow that??

While I envy your electronic ears and angle of arrival etc..

Until long range missiles are within budgetary cost, your P3 is still vulnerable against GBAD and DCA. Although you can run at a 'moderate' pace, your maneouvrability and true lack of speed will not allow you to get within striking range.

Beside, who wants to have a committee meeting to launch weapons anyway!!


At leasty you do have a future in the RAAF.....

[FishHead]

LJR - Damn, there I was throwing a line out to raise some emotion, and all I got back was a fair and reasonable post!

GBAD defence can be helped with altitude (hence the ability to operate overland IZ even as we speak), and DCA - well, you guys can still look after that for us - anyway, I cant imagine a Hornet is going to do a lot of dogfighting as they run in with two 2000lb missiles underneath (using my extensive knowledge of air to air combat techniques!). Of course, if you want to get picky, our new radar is actually a development of a radar originally based in a F-16, so we can always engage the air to air mode and launch our AMRAAMs off the wing pylons. If the Nimrods can have AIM-9's...

The good thing about the committee weapons launch is that you get more "ace's" for each kill :p

As far as RoE allowing missile firings - there is always terminal guidance

[wessex19]

G'day LJR, with regards to you wanting rotary back in the RAAF, if its any consolation, a few RAAF pilots are flying Squirrels with 723 squadron.