F-15E for RAAF?

[oldm8]

Can someone tell me with escalating cost of JSF why F-15E is not a serious contender for F/A-18 F-111 replacement.

It can perform both roles, better than our current platforms.

Range/Payload

Interoperability

Combat proven

Still in production - ie South Korea and Singapore recent purchase

Great CAS platform (probably the role most likely to find our selves in)

I know out F/A-18 guys were salivating over the beagle in the gulf in 2003, with the amount of ordnance and loiter time it had.

I am just not convinced that JSF is what we need.
Why do we keep persisting with A model kit???
Do we really need stealth???

Why cant we just buy something that just friggin works for a change???

I am entirely open to suggestion here

[Led Zep]

I'd like to see some Russian equipment in Oz colours, myself! :}

[dude65]

Considering our wonderfull neighbours to the North, I'd be buying the good old A10 Thunderbolt.

AKA ,the Warthog.

[Keg]

F15 is same generation technology as the Hornet- albeit with bigger payload and fuel tanks.

JSF and F22 provide a quantum leap in capability- in all of the above plus with a bit of a better stealth. Plus, have a look around at those with whom we could end up in some sort of conflict. Some of them are flying aircraft that are equally as capable as the F15 and in some cases, are modernising to aircraft that out performs.

Then again, what do I know. I just read books. I'd be interested to read the opinions of those who do this sort of stuff for a living- no, I don't mean you Dr Kopp! :rolleyes: Perhaps Pass-A-Frozo could get some of his knuck bretheren to look in and comment. :ok: :E

[Funk]

please lets stop wasting money on old US equipment, keep a few pigs and hornets for flypasts cause that is all they are good for.
We need more battle field mobility (ie transports be it fixed or rotary) and a few medium pace (for want of a better description) attack aircraft to chuck bombs. As far as I can gather high flying US Mach 2 p.o.s' have a checkered history of 'blue on blue' f@#$ ups or collateral civillian deaths in US service and wasting my tax dollars in Australian service. I am sure we could have had a few CN295's or C27's for the $150million plus we have wasted so far on the JSF rather than risking the lives of young soldiers and airmen (and airwomen or is it airpersons?) in antiquated UH1's, UH60's and DHC-4's.

[Fragnasty]

Funk,

Before you can throw transports and attack aircraft in the mix, you need to control the battlespace they are going into. That means fighters that can control the sky.

Keg is bang on with his observations. There are already 4th generation aircraft in the region, and the ADF needs to take a leap beyond this if they want to show some dominance in the sky. Now is the time to do it, so they might as well take the time to invest in the technology and get a good product at the end of it. The F-15E may do as an interim measure, but come the not-too-distant future, if I was going into a fight I'd want either the JSF or a F-22 strapped to my back, and also on the backs of my wingmen.

[Gnadenburg]

What concerns me, is we risk going into the next decade, with a dwindling force of 30 upgraded F18's and a hundred stand off missiles. And the great white hope being 'A' model JSF's.

We aren't gambling with JSF, we are by circumstance and lack of alternatives, totally committed!

An interim, long range fighter bomber still makes sense to me.

[Lodown]

Ahh, a little Catch 22. Despite military pleadings, politicians kept deferring decisions on upgrades. So now we are in a position where we have to replace aircraft or else. RAAFies have fingers crossed that the F111 fleet will still number more than a couple of operational aircraft by the time replacements come through.

Decision:

Purchase a 30 yo design now (F-15), albeit with some upgrades with modded electronics and unable to accept much in the way of further upgrades as electronics and weapons technology advances and have to consider an additional replacement immediately, or

Bank on the very latest technology available in a few years; hope the current fleet is serviceable enough to meet the nation's security needs until then; trust the pollies to keep foreign diplomatic relations calm; get an aircraft that will be serviceable and competitive for another 30 years; and put off having to front up to the pollies cap-in-hand for additional acquisitions for as long as possible.

You make a similar decision when you purchase a computer. Do you get the top of the range model due out in a couple of months for $6K, the 2nd generation model available now at $3K, or the el cheapo model that's been on the market for a few years at $1K? I guess it depends on the state of your current computer and what you want to achieve with the next one.

I'd hate to make that RAAF decision. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

[Captain Sand Dune]

RAAF aircraft aquisition 101.

1. Sit around with a few of your mates and some beers. Decide what aircraft we really want.

2. Spend months (if not years) coming up with a proposal whose specifications are written to almost exactly match the aircraft we really want all along. Include a few other contenders to make it look kosher.

3. Spend sh!t loads of $'s trotting around the world looking at said aircraft. Oh and while we're in (insert applicable country here) we'll have to have a few days off to (insert applicable activity here).

4. Come back to Oz, and allow liver and credit card time to recover by spending a few months writing a report on said "fact finding" tour.

5. Select aircraft as discussed at point 1.

Then comes the "introduction" phase!!:E :E


Cynical?? moi?? :}

[Brian Abraham]

Given the nature of the regional affairs our unappreciated uniformed people are being committed to might not an old A1 (on a boat of course) provide what might be needed. (tongue not necessarily in cheek)

[Funk]

Funk,

Before you can throw transports and attack aircraft in the mix, you need to control the battlespace they are going into. That means fighters that can control the sky.

Keg is bang on with his observations. There are already 4th generation aircraft in the region, and the ADF needs to take a leap beyond this if they want to show some dominance in the sky. Now is the time to do it, so they might as well take the time to invest in the technology and get a good product at the end of it. The F-15E may do as an interim measure, but come the not-too-distant future, if I was going into a fight I'd want either the JSF or a F-22 strapped to my back, and also on the backs of my wingmen.

Great 'Tom Clancy' stuff but Australia needs these less glamorous assets now; as for the fourth gen. stuff in the region ...so what, most of them are either unservicable (Indonesia) or too far away (India, Malaysia or China) and if Australians are operating in a hostile thearte beyond our shores the argument is pointless without buying an aircraft carrier (another bottomless hole into which you throw money) which is why I support an alliance with the Yanks.

The F22 is a nice peice of kit granted, but that kind of money is beyond our budget and lets leave it to the Yanks to iron out the bugs for a few years yet. The knuckle heads can bide there time on Hawks till we really need to spend the cash on something that works.

[404 Titan]

Funk

So do you like walking around in public with you pants down around your ankles exposing all your vulnerabilities and insecurities to the world? If you don’t why do you think Australia should for that is what you are asking it to do?

[Funk]

Funk

So do you like walking around in public with you pants down around your ankles exposing all your vulnerabilities and insecurities to the world? If you don’t why do you think Australia should for that is what you are asking it to do?

Not quite sure what you are getting at pal :confused:

we could all go on about our theories on air asset expenditures...so I will subject you to mine:8
... my concerns are that the current administration in Canberra and Defence Departartment are slavenly following the concept that everybody must have Mach2 semi stealth air superiority fighters (that can throw bombs as well). These aren't our current needs, we need proper transport mobility and close support for our soldeirs and sailors staitoned in Iraq, Afghanistan, East Timor and to a lesser extent the Solomon Islands. These types of missions have been the mainstay of the Australian Armed Forces since the Korean War and for the medium term future will continue to be our type of mission.
So I ask why do we committ so much angst & money pursuing airframes that don't support this type of mission. I hazard to speculate that the most sort after air support in Afghanistan is provided by A10's, RAF & Marine Corp Harriers, C17's, Hercs and CH-47's. On the other hand I don't subscribe to the NZ notion of no air combat capability what so ever. We can easily maintain a cadre of fast jet pilots and instructors through continued service of the Hawks and some of the Hornets (up until the point that the Hornet costs are prohibitive like we currently have with the F111!).
Back to the thread....
....The F15E is an out of date airframe for a mission we dont have and the JSF is just another Collins Class Sub/Seasprite/C130J/F111(circa 1964 delivered 1973)/Manoora & Kinimbla in the making. Australia doesn't have to continue to play sucker to US defence manufactures.

BTW saw the Red Arrows yesterday now that is what a fast(ish) jet should really be used for, PC9's just don't cut it Roulettes :ok:

[Funk]

Funk

So do you like walking around in public with you pants down around your ankles exposing all your vulnerabilities and insecurities to the world? If you don’t why do you think Australia should for that is what you are asking it to do?

only after I've had 20 too many pints and some mind bending Norwegian drain cleaner called Akovit (sic):yuk:

[oldm8]

Funk

I completely agree about the Roulette thing

The PC9 just doesnt cut it, but its cheap, and the RAAF loves cheap.
Our airforce is all about tangible costs and benifits.
The intangible benifits of having a jet display team, ie recruiting!, would be massive. The public just wants to see something make a s%^t tin of noise and go real fast. One jet on its own is a whole lot more impressive than several turboprops. I daresay the macchis would have been awesome for the roulettes in their day.

It is easy to put a dollar cost next to maintaining a Hawk Jet display team, but not so easy to put a dollar figure next to the benifits in terms of recruiting and the public image of the RAAF.

The other organisational barrier to doing this is that roulettes are training wings turf. Not ACGs. And ACG owns the hawk 127.
Hawks are obviously used for fast jet training for junior aircrew, are there hours left over to be used for a display team, deployed away from williamtown constantly? Probably not.
Would the current contract with BAE allow such an endevour?? Probably not.

I would love to see it happen, but alas I dont think it will.

[Gnadenburg]

Funk

The ADF has no funds for specialist close air support aircraft or helicopters. The best chance it had recently, was an Army equiped with Apaches. But the bueracrats wanted a ' scout ' helicopter primarily; with a fire support backup role. So we ended up with the unproven European Tiger. The vulnerability of helicopter platforms in the close support role probably warrants seperate debate- the ambush of 82nd Airborne Apaches in the last Gulf War tif case in point.

In saying that, the RAAF has through it's flexibility, delivered very good army support with non-specialised aircraft over the years- WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq. It seems to have always been up there with advancing technologies in the army support eg: very early introduction of laser guided weapons on aircraft such as the Mirage & F111.

By your own admission, close support is an important role for the ADF. How do they deliver it without specialist platforms? Through the flexibility of fighter bombers and RAAF crews.

Our geography and lack of tankers dictates you need a long range fighter bomber too. F15E seems the logical choice as an 'interim' capability, to maintain the RAAF beyond a handful of Hornets next decade and taking the pressure of being forced into accepting early production run JSF's.

I don't think the F15E is obsolete. Ppruners here have flown it and guys I work with have stated it was the most flexible asset they put together in NATO air packages- in one yarn on a big package mission, the AWACS went U/S and the F15E's were able to provide a mini replacement capability quickly- very good radar and very good range.

So, lease a squadron of F15E's, push the F18's out a bit further by means of a smaller operational fleet, put a missile on the Orions and buy later model JSF's.

How can you pay for it? Drop the ridiculous concept of Air Warfare destroyers for the navy.

[18-Wheeler]

I'd like to see some Russian equipment in Oz colours, myself! :}


Yep.
Go for the Su-37 Super Flanker. A metric ar*eload better than the F-15 and pretty much every other US fighter. Just get the Israeli's to retrofit US avionics so it's all compatible with the rest of our gear.

[Captain Sand Dune]

and the RAAF loves cheap

You mean the government (and the general public for that matter) loves cheap when it comes to defence spending.

The RAAF - indeed the ADF - is given "cheap" by our lords and masters.

[oldm8]

Yep.
Go for the Su-37 Super Flanker. A metric ar*eload better than the F-15 and pretty much every other US fighter. Just get the Israeli's to retrofit US avionics so it's all compatible with the rest of our gear.

Cant believe I didnt think of that myself!

It all sounds so simple doesnt it!

The Su looks much better than anything else in Carlo's bar graphs in Aussie Av, why wouldnt we get it???

While we're at it we should fit an AESA and AMRAAM to the pig!

[Gnadenburg]

Just get the Israeli's to retrofit US avionics so it's all compatible with the rest of our gear.


Defence should become more corporate like. So here's one, in business, beware of a Jew bearing gifts. Didn't we have a shed full of incompatible Israeli missiles until recently?

[Brian Abraham]

Call me dumb but I'm a bit hard pressed to think of a scenario where the RAAF would be called upon to establish air superiority. If we were to be party to such it would merely be a bit part in the main game. In my original post I was navel gazing and thinking how would the poor old grunts source air support of the shooting, bombing sort if our regional brush fires we are currently engaged in get really out of control. And it could be argued a few others in the region dont look too good. As has been mooted there are no votes in defence but plenty in the welfare sector when it comes to allocation of funds. With the few capital assets the country has the military has been very careful in husbanding its resources in combat operations. It just cant afford to jump in and lose something the likes of an F-18. Think back to Vietnam. Had the RAAF had an aircraft capable of tripping to downtown Hanoi do you really think the government would commit a squadron to that role? As much as the drivers might have liked to participate the loss rate would have been intolerable. As it was the government would not permit Oz aviators to operate over Nth. Vietnam because of the political fall out that would ensue from a guy being captured alive.

[Gnadenburg]

Brian

What is a sound army support alternative to RAAF fighter bombers dropping weapons from altitudes out of harms way?

Helicopters? 95% of Western aviator casualties in post-Vietnam skirmishes have been helicopter crews. So if casualties make you squeemish, helicopter gunships are risky.

The old fashioned, Flying Leathernecks battelfield support role? Low level is where the Western air forces have suffered the highest proportion of fast jet losses post Vietnam. So if losing an expensive fighter makes government squeemish, this role should ( and has ) fast been relinquished.

Army support from the RAAF will probably mirror the Americans. Fighter bombers dropping accurate weapons out of the reach of small calibre weapons and SAM's.

Will a force of 30ish F18's at the end of the decade be sufficient for this and other roles- maritime, air defence, long range strike etc.

No. It's an absolute gamble. We need another squadron of fighter bombers minimun. And the Yanks should be doing a deal with us too.

[Led Zep]

Yep.
Go for the Su-37 Super Flanker. A metric ar*eload better than the F-15 and pretty much every other US fighter. Just get the Israeli's to retrofit US avionics so it's all compatible with the rest of our gear.
I might be misinformed, but I think the Russians are now offering their fighters (and indeed, other aircraft) with a factory choice of western engines and avionics. I'm sure Sukhoi or MiG would bend over backwards for the ADF in fitting western electronics/engines - all that invaluable foreign currency! Add in the favourable exchange rate and the ADF could have the most potent fighters in the world for nix.

Either way, we're thinking along the same lines. ;) The Ruskies' designs and ability is completely underestimated by the West and has been since, oh, at least 1945? Not to mention we'd know a hell of a lot more of what we might be up against should we be "invaded" by the usual northern suspects. :suspect:

[Ozgrade3]

Wasnt there an article in one of the Sydney papers recently that said the F-22 Raptor was comming in cheaper than expected whilst the F-35 costs were blowing out dramatically to the point where they will be roughly the same price.

[Lord Snot]

Wasnt there an article in one of the Sydney papers recently that said the F-22 Raptor was comming in cheaper than expected whilst the F-35 costs were blowing out dramatically to the point where they will be roughly the same price."Defence Death Spiral", as they call it, means ever-increasing costs leading to ever-lower production runs. Read about it....

Can't see the F-22 cost EVER coming down and anyway, the machine is so high-tech it has not been approved for sale despite Rubber Johnny establishing us as Number One Ar$e Lickers to the US - or should that be Bush Lickers???

[Fragnasty]

The Ruskies' designs and ability is completely underestimated by the West and has been since, oh, at least 1945?

No they haven't. Seen 'em, fought against 'em, shot 'em. Haven't been shot back yet.

The boffins in the west know what they're doing lads.

Choice bro'!!!

[Fragnasty]

Call me dumb.....

Brian, you are dumb.

[Lodown]

With the few capital assets the country has, the military has been very careful in husbanding its resources in combat operations. It just can't afford to jump in and lose something the likes of an F-18. Think back to Vietnam. Had the RAAF had an aircraft capable of tripping to downtown Hanoi do you really think the government would commit a squadron to that role?

If command had deemed that the benefits outweighed the risks, then yes, aircraft would have been going to downtown Hanoi. Every military commander is careful in "husbanding resources". It's the nature of the job. Your statement doesn't make sense because there will be times when it is considered appropriate to apply a greater risk to something of the likes of an F-18 and its pilot.

Led Zep, I may be wrong, but I don't think it is so easy to convert a Russian aircraft. I don't doubt that you are correct in asserting that they can be converted. What I doubt is the usefulness and cost of that conversion to make them "the most potent fighters in the world." (There's no doubt they are standout airshow performers, but in a fighting role...?) Russian aircraft are designed for Russian equipment. Even if you can convert them to handle western equipment, they'll have to be converted again and again at huge expense to handle the upgrades to remain competitive. I think you might be applying a civilian, commercial viewpoint to a military application in thinking that like civilian aircraft, military fighters have some vacant space behind the instrument panel and the specially designed nosecone, fuselage panels, trailing edges, etc., aren't used as aerials and other purposes specific to particular avionics and equipment.

Oldm8, The PC9 just doesn't cut it, but it's cheap, and the RAAF loves cheap.


Doesn't cut it for what? Airshows? Recruiting? Or the training purposes for which it was purchased? I think it might be more appropriate to say the RAAF loves value for money. "Form follows function."

It appears the most persuasive responses to the original posting aren't whether the JSF is the preferred aircraft, but rather hinge around whether an interim fighter is needed or not.

In discussing the JSF and the F-22 (which appears to be losing the fight for political survival to the JSF), I think it is also interesting to note that not only are these aircraft making a radical change in air combat, they're also creating some interesting problems in human factors. They have enormous amounts of information presented to pilots and sorting through cockpit presentation and application issues is an interesting exercise for the relevant engineers.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

OH well, according to this bloke in another thread we have no hope of successfully procuring or doing anything right.
CASA is a dysfunctional organisation populated with EX military egos who do not have a working knowledge of the real world let alone the real world of aviation.
Incapable of solving the smallest problems, they usually resort to creating them.
Like the scum sucking bottom dwellers they tend to be, once they have had enough of the public service life they usually through dubious means, find their way into various organisations around the country in some form of management roles in a final attempt to prove to the world once and for all, that they are competent, they rarely succee. They do not have the ability to listen or solve small problems.
It is difficult to be rid of them due to their ilk following them in the same vane.

[Brian Abraham]

Pass-A-Frozo - he 's probably talking about me, not that I ever got to work for CASA.

[Cloud Basher]

As someone who has been invloved in the upgrading of western military aircraft with western avionics, to say you could simply upgrade Eastern aircraft with western avionics is extremely naive in the same vein as CK says a small "sheetmetal change" is all you need to make the F-111 capable of carrying a variety of Stand-off weapons.

People go on about how cheap Russian/Chinese aircraft are. There is a reason for this, the cost is still subsidised by the governments to try and attract foreign dollars and labour is extremely cheap. Whilst their airframes may be "Generation IV" their avionics are lacking somewhat and it is avionics that cause the cost of the aircraft to blow out not the airframe (unless it is overweight which invariably they usually are...). You might pay only a couple of $M for a Russian fighter, but the cost of the avionics, intergration of said avionics with aircraft and weapons system will mean that the cost of the fighter we end up with would undoubtably be at least as much as the JSF and we end up with a fighter that perhaps more importantly than anything else is unique in the world. Ie the cost of the upgrades cannot be amortised across numerous airframes and users and thus the individual cost to firstly aquire, then upgrade, then maintain ends up being much much more than an integrated product to start with.

As for F-15E's integral they would be very cool as they have two seats so I might get to go for a jolly. JSF only have one so no jolly's for anyone except pilots:{

Cheers
CB

[Gnadenburg]

Amazes me the amount of Russian gear I've noted over the years, laying about airfields all over the world- Yemen, Sudan, Cambodia etc - in an un-flyable state and generally just a few years off a production line. A Cold War legacy where the Russians would sell Migs cheap, but without a spares pool and support infrastrcture. This logistics line - critical when engine life ran in the hundreds of hours- was only maintained if political leanings to the 'dark side' kept up. Things have changed- but not Mig servicability rates.

If we ever had a need to protect a remote static facility 24/7, then think Russian SAM's. They are good and you can get their crews as mercenaries for less than you pay an ADF cook. Keep friendly fighters away; friend or foe may be as reliable as American Patriot!

[Ex Douglas Driver]

... and to highlight the pitfalls of trying to integrate modern, digital avionics into a legacy airframe:
http://www.navy.gov.au/gallery/images/ALB100967-26.jpg

[Point0Five]

Nice photo though :)

[YesTAM]

Wot cloudbasher said. There is also no way, ever, that the Russians are ever going to get to see the stuff fitted to our aircraft, let alone how it is integrated.

I suspect that the even the F15 would require a huge amount of work to meet our "requirements".

Translation: Because of the multitude of "options" available, it appears that no two countries military airframes are ever the same - and they don't just bolt on either, as the poor old Seasprite demonstrates.

[Brian Abraham]

Fragnasty, thanks, I needed that, have been incredibly lucky too (being so dumb and lasting this long). :p

Lodown, Steve Eather (RAAF historian) writing of the RAAF's 9 Sqdn Vietnam involvement "the unit deployed to the war zone with specific (and admittedly quite ridiculous) instructions from RAAF Headquarters in Canberra not to unduly risk its few aircraft which could only be replaced at high cost."

Not much chance there of tripping to downtown Hanoi with an aircraft that might cost a few dollars more than a Huey.

Gnadenburg, coms with people who have a bit of a grip on the subject suggest that the helo loss rate has a lot to do with the tactics employed and not the inherant vulnerabilities of the helo.