RAAF to get the F-22 and/or F-18E/F?

[Lord Snot]

THE Defence Minister, Brendan Nelson, has ordered a new proposal for an alternative to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter amid concerns the $15 billion project cannot be delivered as promised.

Dr Nelson also acknowledged the high risks in the Government's strategy for a new air combat capability that maintains Australia's long-held, and strategically vital, air dominance in the region.

He was impressed by the fighter's potential and believed, if delivered on time and for the promised price, it would be "the correct aircraft for us".

"I have said to Defence that I want a well-developed alternative. We don't have to finally commit to the Joint Strike Force by 2008 but I want to make sure we have a well-developed alternative well in advance of that."

He said he would not move the program to cabinet until alternatives were analysed and at least one selected. He would not identify what those alternatives might be. But Defence analysts have said the potent F-22 Raptor, the F-16 fighter jet and the Super Hornet, or a combination of them, were the likely candidates.

The fighter is not only the most expensive Defence project ever, it's the biggest investment by the Commonwealth since Federation. About 100 of the high-tech stealth fighters has been earmarked to replace the F-111s and the F/A-18 Hornets from 2010.

The Hornets will be upgraded, for $3 billion, to fill the gap if the Joint Strike Fighter is late. But major problems have hit the upgrade, notably its new electronic warfare self-protection system cannot be integrated. The Australian system, which alerts pilots to threats, had "technical difficulties" and may be abandoned in favour of another model.

The Joint Strike Fighter is in development, but there are concerns its price will skyrocket and delivery time fall back years. Congress is threatening to cut the program's budget.

If the US military, whose budget has blown out due to the Iraq war, cuts its production order, the price will go up substantially. Britain has already cut its order and others may follow


Would be great to see the RAAF get a mixed fleet of F-22s and FA-18Es.....

Give the new gen of knucks something to beat the meat over and keep the bros to the north in their place for a few more decades. :ok:

[Lodown]

If the F-35 price is going up as a result of less orders, what does that mean for the price of the F-22?

[Sunfish]

I wonder if the "operational sovereignty" issues have been sorted out? I'd hate to have a Lockheed technician disable the aircraft on company orders because AMerica oesn't want us to use them for some political reason.

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

How many F-22's and related support would 15bill buy I wonder? Even if it was only half the JSF numbers you'd be getting more than twice the capability, twice the peace time survivability (two eng v one), twice the shock and awe factor from anyone considering causing trouble.

Sounds like a bargain to me.

[gaunty]

Time to upgrade all the pigs and make those "spares" operational methinks.

Waaaay cheaper, more effective in our area of operations and no "operational sovereignty" problems.

The idea that you buy a weapons platform from another country who retains the ability to deny its use whenever they think fit, is real loony tunes only a "captive" partner would contemplate.:{

[ftrplt]

Gaunty,

the fact that the current CAF would probably qualify as one of the most avid Pig supporters, but is supporting its replacement should tell you something.

The Pig is on its last breath(s).

[Buster Hyman]

I Googled "RAAF F22" and look at what I found!:ok:

www.xfig.org/xfigcarlo/xfig-carlo.html (http://www.xfig.org/xfigcarlo/xfig-carlo.html)

[DutchRoll]

Sure, if you had a blank cheque to keep the pigs operational they might get a few more years, but you can't just keep riveting repairs onto it forever (unless you're happy to have them as cool hangar ornaments of course). With the pig out of production for a long time now and its spares inventory drying up, its use-by date has come - JSF or no JSF.

[Dragon79]

Is that $15bill US?

Is that $15bill US?

I also second the call for the F22 and F18E/F, maybe even keep the F111 around and let the boffins at the DSTO work some magic.

A quick Google and I came up with the following prices;

30 x F22 = US$187 mil per unit
70 x F18E/F = US$84 mil per unit
12 x EF18G = US$95 mil per unit

Working on a these prices it adds up to US$12,637,000,000.

I also think we should also look into getting backing into the floating air field business, perhaps team up with the French and British on the CVF. Could operate the Rhinos from them, and if we stayed away from "pimpin" our own rides, we might be able to afford it.

[Croppyking]

Why an F18E/F when the F15K/T costs about the same?

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

I reiterate my feelings on the F-111. Great aeroplane but with many of the regional air forces having a look-down/shoot down all weather capability, it's day is probably done.

I believe the reason it wasn't sent to the Gulf has a lot to do with the above.

[Chimbu chuckles]

In GW 2 the only only pilots airborne with those capabilities were the Yanks...Oh yes I see your point now:E

[Wiley]

I see there’s a thread on the same subject on the Military Pilots Forum. gaunty, I spoke only last week to a multi-starred man who should know, and he tells me that despite all the best wishes in the world, the TrippleWun is on its last legs, with technical shortcomings appearing that simply can’t be ignored.

I suspect that recent events might have helped convince a few of the suits in Canberra that what those boring men in blue uniforms have been telling them all along just might be true - the JSF simply will not and can never replace the F111 as a credible deterrent.

I forget who it was who originally coined the ‘speak softly and carry a big stick’ phrase (one of the Roosevelts or Harry Truman?), but in an increasingly uncertain world, the JSF simply isn’t a big enough stick (or to be more accurate, doesn’t have nearly long enough legs) to provide Australia with a credible deterrent force, and it might only now be occurring to a few of the civilian mandarins in Canberra that the day might actually come – and in the not so distant future - when we have (to hopefully only threaten) to use it.

[4Greens]

Why an F18E/F when the F15K/T costs about the same?

1. It has a greater multi role capability.
2. It has got a hook.
3. There is some commonality with our present F18's

[Wizofoz]

I believe the Eurofighter Typhoon is turning into a kick-arse air superiority fighter, with good multi-role capability. Worth a thought?

[Wiley]

I'd say that would be about as clever as buying Tiger helicopters.

[Buster Hyman]

2. It has got a hook.

Well...ummm...as much as we have that capability now...is anyone rated to use it in anger?

[Dragon79]

OK, so I'll expand on this topic a little bit, tell me to pull my head in if you think its warranted. With Dr Nelson looking at defence spending and capabilities. In aviation assets here is what I would like to see come 2015.

Air Force
30 x F22
70 x FA18E/F* or 70 x F15K/T
12 x EF18G*
4 x C17
10 x A330
12 x C130J
3 x AC130 Spectra
3 x MC130 Combat Talon
8 x APC-3 Orion
12 x Global Hawk
+ Trainers + BBJ + Challengers

Rotary Assets for the Navy and Army
Army
12 x Chinook - Small number dedicated to Special forces
40 x MRH90
22 x Tiger
30 x UH145
26 x A/MH6 - lead in trainer & Special Operations

Navy
20 x MRH90 - for use as Utility and for the LHD's
20 x MRH90 - to replace sea sprites and sea hawks
20 x UH145 - utility
6 x Hawkeye
6 x Greyhounds / embarked refuelers

Advantages for the rotary force, 5 types, 3 common for both the Navy and Army. UH145 and MRH90 should be in service with other countries in large numbers by the time we deploy them.

*As in my previous post, if we were to buy into CVF or similar.

Welcome your constructive thoughts.

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

You left out the Caribou...:}

[Dragon79]

Sorry

What about 12 x C27 Spartans to replace the Caribou? Any good as a replacement?

[Taildragger67]

Time to upgrade all the pigs and make those "spares" operational methinks.
Waaaay cheaper, more effective in our area of operations and no "operational sovereignty" problems.
The idea that you buy a weapons platform from another country who retains the ability to deny its use whenever they think fit, is real loony tunes only a "captive" partner would contemplate.:{

Yup. Sweden did it decades back with Bofors and Carl Gustav guns. One reason the Viggen was quickly ruled out in the Mirage replacement competition.

And NOTHING can replace the pissaphone-equipped bou-bou.

[Buster Hyman]

6 x Greyhounds
For the Navy? I hope they can dog paddle!:}:ouch::suspect:

[Dragon79]

Boom Tish.....

[Peter Fanelli]

Any takers for some slightly used B-1's, we'll throw in the roundels free.

[Dragon79]

What about the F117, the USAF are looking at retiring these are they not?

Is this a cost issue? Or are they becoming obsolete?

[Dragon79]

Currently we have,

16 x Sea Hawks
11 x Sea Sprites
6 x Sea Kings
38 x Black Hawks (minus those written off)
25 x UH1
(Please correct my Army numbers, as the only refernce on the net I could find was a bit old)


80 may well be dreaming. Without the UH1's, my count is up to 65, and the number Army birds could well be off.

I know its not a straight one for one replacement, but we have 69 Sea Kings, Blawk Hawks and UH1's being replaced by 46 MRH90s. (Also should mention the suggested 50 UH145 order, I listed above, as well)

80 may well be ambitious, but are we not looking at least 60-65. 46 have already been order and there would need to be at least 20 to replace the Sea Hawks and Sea Sprites.

Should we be thinking about an increase in numbers? (as aposed to capacity, which the 90 may offer an improvement on) Heaven forbid we need to deploy 12 on each LHD at the same time. Would leave only 22 for other Ops.

One question I have is will MRH90 fit on an ANZAC frigate?

[oldm8]

Originally Posted by gaunty
Time to upgrade all the pigs and make those "spares" operational methinks.
Waaaay cheaper, more effective in our area of operations and no "operational sovereignty" problems.


Yes! Finally someone agrees with me!

F-111 would piss all over F22 if we could just devote some cash to making it stealthy and slap on an AESA. With a vectored thrust kit fitted it would be unstoppable

[Chimbu chuckles]

ROFLMAO:}

I think the F111 is a mighty beast...but aint nothing mighty enough to best the F22:ok:

[bob55]

I think we should get two squadrons of F-22s to replace the F-111s ASAP, and then hopefully get 3 squardrons of F-35s to replace the F/A-18s later on.

I personally don't like the idea of putting all of our eggs in one basket.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Bet that would make your average Mig pilot think twice about sliding in astern for a cheap guns kill:uhoh: :E :E

[Lord Snot]

F-111 would piss all over F22 if we could just devote some cash to making it stealthy and slap on an AESA. With a vectored thrust kit fitted it would be unstoppable

Why stop there, there's no reason why you couldn't mate the V-STOL technology of the F-35 to the existing engines.

An upgraded single donk could easily make the pig lift off vertically.

With today's engine technology and a V-STOL kit, the upgraded VTOL pig could lift a full warload vertically out of hidden, unprepared surfaces all over the NT and deliver it to the bros :uhoh: to the north.

Get some, get some....

[OhForSure]

I wonder if the yanks would let us build our F-22s locally or whether they'd prefer the technology be kept "in house"???

I agree with Bob... although putting all our eggs in one basket cuts costs... all it would take is a couple of hickups (eg. seasprite; ok more than hickups in that case!), and you could potentially have your air defence force of 100+ aircraft grounded! Perhaps an F-22/F-35 buy is the go.

I've heard pretty nasty things about the Typhoon's progress into operational status, but what about the very cheap, lightweight and capable Grippen??? We could even con NZ into a group buy on that one!

[Like This - Do That]

You left out the Caribou...:}

They should be approaching their mid-life refit in a couple of years .....:p

[4Greens]

Well...ummm...as much as we have that capability now...is anyone rated to use it in anger?


The current RAAF F 18s do not have all the gear for carrier ops. It is useful to have the ability to stage through a US carrier if nothing else. See the last big war for examples - Malta, Norway etc. It is in any case a relatively easy aircraft to fly on and off the deck.

[Buster Hyman]

How much time is dedicated to carrier landings in the RAAF F18 pilot group? If any...

[DutchRoll]

Holy snappin' dooly! There are some serious wish-lists there. 2nd & 3rd mortages forthcoming on the house?

Hmmm, PAF. AC-130J? :eek: LMAS, being the ever-reliable military contractor that they are :rolleyes: would of course thoroughly test and integrate it before selling it to us! :yuk:

[ZK-NSJ]

you have more chance of nz building a nuclear power station than getting new gripens while comrad helens still there

[TineeTim]

Are we talking about the same RAAF that just spent $2billion to buy 4 C-17s? Now they're going to get a few SQUADRONS of F-22s and F/A18E/Fs for $15billion? Not a chance. I've also seen in print recently that the F-22 is not for export. That may change but we won't be on the list of approved buyers if we pull out of JSF.
The current RAAF F 18s do not have all the gear for carrier ops. It is useful to have the ability to stage through a US carrier if nothing else. See the last big war for examples - Malta, Norway etc. It is in any case a relatively easy aircraft to fly on and off the deck.

Have many carrier landings in the F/A18? Any understanding of how the US Navy operates their carriers, other than from watching Discovery?

[Wiley]

Yes, I have to admit that there has been a lot of pipe dreaming here. Even if Brendan and his mates in Canberra have at last recognised that we might actually need some credible hardware in the near future that might actually get used, they still want to be re-elected, and the price tag on some of the wish lists we've seen here is well beyond what the Oz Great Unwashed is willing to pay.

It's a pity that in Oz, it has always seemed impossible to get the message across to some - quite a few, actually, especially the 'educated' elites - that the best social welfare system in the world won't be of much use to you if you no longer own the country that's providing it.

The current unpleasantness in Lebanon should, (but you can guarantee it won't), be a sobering wakeup call to many that if you don't possess a credible deterrent, (Mr Rooseveldt's 'big stick'), any near neighbour can do whatever he likes with and on your territory if he chooses to.

...and if push ever comes to shove in our part of the world, don't expect any of our near neighbours to simply bomb the bejeezus out of us and then go away, as the Israelis are promising to do in Lebanon.

[oldm8]

How much time is dedicated to carrier landings in the RAAF F18 pilot group? If any...

I have heard that it is now part of the conversion at 2OCU.

Some of you might not know that the mighty Pig has a hook too, and I have it on good authority that they are writing deck landings into the syllabus at 6Sqn.

Soon our hornets will be able to "stage" through carrier groups on their way to overseas destinations. There is so much room on those carrier decks it is no problem to park a RAAF squadron and refuel before pressing on.

[bob55]

I have heard that it is now part of the conversion at 2OCU.

Some of you might not know that the mighty Pig has a hook too, and I have it on good authority that they are writing deck landings into the syllabus at 6Sqn.

Soon our hornets will be able to "stage" through carrier groups on their way to overseas destinations. There is so much room on those carrier decks it is no problem to park a RAAF squadron and refuel before pressing on.

I find that hard to believe - please give more details.

The F-111 never served with the USN, only the USAF and the hook is for the ground based BAK 12/14 system which is used by most Air Force fighters.

Given that the F-111s will only be operation for 5 or so years - and that they will never be deployed - I find it hard to believe they would start new training for which the aircaft was never designed.

Are you sure you have a good source on this? Are you sure it's not just - nothing???!!!??

[bob55]

The initial certification for carrier ops in the USN is in the order of 6 months. You then have to requal at intervals, not to mention maintain a "grading" in all carrier landings (ie - fall below the grading and get de-certified). More than their fair share of US knucks kill themselves in qualifying. Even more kill themselves on operational tours. Its not a part time hobby. I think the concept of Ronnie RAAF rocking up and shooting a few bolters on USS Ronnie Reagan (even with a one week classroom course at 2OCU) is a bit far fetched :hmm:

And people are forgetting one vital fact.... we don't have any aircraft carriers! We can't build capabilities based on other defence forces. The F-111 refueling is one example - it's great when we can get it but we can't plan for it.

[Dragon79]

I think Oldm8 may have some bites.

I don't think anyone can seriously believe that our FA18s & F111 can fly of a carrier, about as much chance as me laying a golden egg I would think.


A$2 Billion for the C17, I believe it was US$220mil per copy. Even at 75c in the US$ that would be around $1.1 Billion.



However we are spending a shed load on equipment over the next ten years around A$51 billion I believe. Spent wisely (insert smart arse remark here) is it not beyond the realms of feasibility that we could purchase the raptor and some rhinos or advanced eagles?

The pipe dream would be to see the super hornets fly off a CVF. Either that or if we go down the JSF path, buy STVOL for LHD ops? We've been very lucky that all of our recent deployments have been in "friendly" countries, Sol & ET, or from staging bases in friendly countries Afg & Iraq.

JET OK, are you saying the if were to purchase a carrier, the men and women of the ADF would not be able to develop the skills, process and procedures to operate a carrier. Although its been along break between drinks, I am sure our friends in the USN would welcome an additional carrier in the south pacific / south asian region, and would give us a hand to get it up and running.

Defense spending on specialist equipment, next 5 years.
2006/2007 A$3,969,944,000
2007/2008 A$4,370,480,000
2008/2009 A$4,409,902,000
2009/2010 A$4,769,820,000


http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/06-07/pbs/2006-2007_Defence_PBS_08_s1_ch7.pdf

[Buster Hyman]

Personally, I'd love a carrier. Not sure whether I want it for security, prestige, or to just stick it up the Kiwis! ;) However, I doubt we could afford multiple units & therefore, should we put all our Naval assets into a single carrier group? Nice, stand out target don't you think...a bit like the Belgrano (?)

As highly unlikely as it sounds for the RAAF, I do believe the F111 was also designed for carrier ops, but was deemed too heavy for that role & the USN dropped all interest. Wouldn't they love us if we put one through their deck!:rolleyes:

Well, if we aren't trustworthy to operate F22's ourselves, lets give the Yanks some land up North & tell them they can defend us then!:*

;)

[maralinga]

One slight catch, we dont have enough personnel to operate it all

[Dragon79]

Two valid points against the carrier.

Personnel
Agree this is an issue, but I think this is going to be an issue regardless of purchaing a carrier, going forward.
We are purchasing 3 xAWD and 2 x LHD. This is surely going to require an increase in number for the Navy. Do we have excess personnel sitting around waiting for these to come along? We are retiring another FFG, but correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe the Manoora and Kanimbla are being retired before the LHD, they are going to be replaced by something else.

The other thing with the carrier is that a squadron of maintainers would need to be raised. Even though I could see RAAF pilots being willing to operate jets off a carrier, it would be a bit rough to expect RAAF maintainers to go to sea, unless the signed up for it.

Out to 2015 I think we need to up our serving numbers to 75k severing 35K Army, 25k Navy, 20k RAAF. The problem is going to be recruiting this many. National service, don't think that will fly. But I think Dr Nelson is on the right path with reducing some of the stupid rules, tattoos, previous drug user (so long as they agree to a drug test and pass).

I think the introduction of something like the GI bill in the US, could be introduced. Sign up and at the end of your commitment, will give you a slot in a Uni or TAFE and pay the fees. Would much prefer to see my tax dollars being used to put a former service person through a Uni or TAFE, then some 18 year old arts student who'll stay at uni, or nick off OS, for 30 years and never pay back there HECS

One Carrier - all the eggs in one basket.
Didn't seem to stop us with the Sydney and then the Melbourne. There are also a number of other countries out there think it’s valid to operate only one carrier.
If not one large carrier, what a about a few smaller carriers?
http://www.aviationnews.com.au/Current_Issue/0602_PDFs/P7(0206).pdf (http://www.aviationnews.com.au/Current_Issue/0602_PDFs/P7(0206).pdf)

The Belgrano was a cruiser, the Argies also had a carrier, only problem was they couldn't take off, lack of wind, to find the British fleet.

I would like to see the RAN operate 4 major surface groups. 1 x Carrier strike (CVF 36 F18E/F/G, 3 E2C, 3 C2, AWD, FFH, FFG, Supply Ship + a Collins) 2 x Anphib (LHD, AWD 12 MRH90 2 x Tiger, FFH, FGG, Supply + Collins) and another surface group (AWD, FFH ,FFG, + Collins). With 2 in overlapping in states of deployment or exercises, 1 in maintenance and 1 on training. At a pinch we would be able deploy 2, with a third to follow at short notice.

As I said before, our recent deployments have been unopposed and we have been very lucky, with the Solomons a bloke in a JCB could have dug up the tarmac, and trapped our initial deployment.

Even F22 is going to be limited to tanking assets or the need to operate from a friendly country. With a carrier or embarked fast jet of some sort, we could provide on the spot air cover, and possibly fleet defence to support a landing. As an island nation, unless we are invaded, anything we do military wise in anger or support is going to be

So we should either pull up stumps like our friends across the ditch, and release that the chances of invasion are slim, and worry about border security a shed load more, or if we want to play with the big boys, then we spend our money wisely, and make sure that we do deploy, no matter where, we can support our own.

Rant over

[Lord Snot]

A lot of people are missing the point here - the F22 is not on the table as an option. Uncle Sam doesn't want to share.Yes they do, that's why I posted the story. There was at least two other threads mentioning the fact they are about to open the F-22 to export.
The initial certification for carrier ops in the USN is in the order of 6 monthsYes, that's because these young turks are still qualifying as up-and-coming knuckleheads. They koalify on the Buckeye first which takes ages, because no one trusts them not to get people killed. Then they have to start all over again on their FA-18, F-14, C-2, S-3, A-6, F-8, A-7, EA-6B, F4U4 or whatever including the conversion.

As for RAFF pilots landing on carriers, this is something they teach in the simulator and regularly refresh on to maintain the USN Day/Night Carr. Qual.

The Hornet sim at Willyworld is a ZFT sim including for for carrier ops and the yanks have acknowledged the RAFF standards meet their carrier qual needs.

This is what comes from having such a small ACG, you can train those few pilots to a much higher standard than the large AFs like the USAF or USN can.

A little-known part of the US doctrine is to allow canuck and aussie hornets to operate off their flat-tops in time of World War to make up for attrition and for political "team" purposes.

This is why the HMAS Melbourne was turned into frying pans a few years back. It was expensive to run and they knew we'd have a de-facto carrier force of much more capable ships.

I have some video footage of a RAFF carrier op but I don't know how to post a link to it.

[Buster Hyman]

Yes, the Belgrano was a cruiser...the point was that it became a focal point for the British & was targeted outside of the exclusion zone. A carrier would be as big a focal point as the Belgrano was &, once it was sunk, you didn't really here from the Argentine Navy again.

Melbourne & Sydney were part of a single carrier fleet, granted, but there is always a risk when those eggs are floating in a single fighting force. If we had lost those carriers in a military conflict, we could only hope that any agressors would come within A4 range of Nowra! ;)

However, if we did have a single carrier group, I would assume that we would have an adequate fall back position should it be lost...as we must have when operating the previous carriers...?:confused:

[Dragon79]

Comes down to risk analysis. What is the risk of not having a carrier, against what is the risk of having one carrier.

Once the carrier was sunk, that would be it, we need to call for HELP, but I don't think the NRMA would be called.

Against not having a carrier, true this has been the case since the early 80's, but we've been very lucky on deployments since then, mostly thanks to the professionalism of the men and women in the armed forces, no real thanks to any long term planning or policy decisions.

I'd like to think of a carrier like private health insurance, bloody expensive, and not needed most of the time. But on some occasions it can come in bloody useful, and you thanks heavens you have it. OK pretty crap comparison, I know.

If what the good lord is saying is true than the process for training up our current Hornet pilots to fly of a carrier wouldn't be as big an effort as starting from scratch.

[Lord Snot]

What is the risk of not having a carrier..........Once the carrier was sunk, that would be it, we need to call for HELPWhat are you talking about, we already don't have a carrier. Does that mean as soon as the show kicks off we need to call for help?

Might as well hand over the keys to the bros up north now, then.... :rolleyes:

[bob55]

Yes they do, that's why I posted the story. There was at least two other threads mentioning the fact they are about to open the F-22 to export.
Yes, that's because these young turks are still qualifying as up-and-coming knuckleheads. They koalify on the Buckeye first which takes ages, because no one trusts them not to get people killed. Then they have to start all over again on their FA-18, F-14, C-2, S-3, A-6, F-8, A-7, EA-6B, F4U4 or whatever including the conversion.

As for RAFF pilots landing on carriers, this is something they teach in the simulator and regularly refresh on to maintain the USN Day/Night Carr. Qual.

The Hornet sim at Willyworld is a ZFT sim including for for carrier ops and the yanks have acknowledged the RAFF standards meet their carrier qual needs.

This is what comes from having such a small ACG, you can train those few pilots to a much higher standard than the large AFs like the USAF or USN can.

A little-known part of the US doctrine is to allow canuck and aussie hornets to operate off their flat-tops in time of World War to make up for attrition and for political "team" purposes.

This is why the HMAS Melbourne was turned into frying pans a few years back. It was expensive to run and they knew we'd have a de-facto carrier force of much more capable ships.

I have some video footage of a RAFF carrier op but I don't know how to post a link to it.

I don't normally do this - but it's RAAF, not RAFF.

[Dragon79]

Snot

Believe I have been talking about about supporting deployed forces, with a carrier, through out my posts.

Would also help if you quote me fully.

"What is the risk of not having a carrier, against what is the risk of having one carrier."

We currently accept the risk of not having a carrier. We also accept the risk of not having a space shuttle, but a carrier is what we have been talking about.

Simply because we don't have one at the moment, shouldn't mean we don't explore the option of introducting this capability?

On previous operations, that lack of heavy airlift and anphimbious platforms has been idenified, hence the C17 and the LHD.

I believe that on previous deployments and operations we have been lucky, and having a carrier to provide support, could only be a good thing. I don't think for a minute, given the current state of play in the world, that in years to come, the ADF is going to be busier than it currently is.

[Lodown]

Lord Snot, Uncle Sam may be keen to export the F-22, but I would bet most of the silicon compounds, contoured microscopic surfaces and stealth electronics will have been removed. Still a nice platform.

[Buster Hyman]

most of the silicon compounds, contoured microscopic surfaces and stealth electronics will have been removed
No problem. We'll get the Collins & Seasprite boys on the job!:ok:

[Dragon79]

Got to agree about the sea sprite (not the fact that we bought the lemons), it was before the DMO brought in their changes, but since then have been some recent examples of projects being managed, not all that well. Finding out so late about the wedge tail dealy doesn't smell of good project management to me.

The under lying problem I see with the DMO, is that it run like a government department, not run like a business, which I'll argue is the only part of defence that should be running like a business.

From personal experience, I applied for a job back in June 2003, Had an interview in Jan 04 and I am still waiting to hear back from them. Not bitter at all, got a much better job in the private sector, and I am more than happy where I am, although I would have enjoyed working for them.

Although credit where credit is due, the C17 has been expidited and is on its way. Saw a photo the other day of the first one on the assembly line.

[Taildragger67]

I suggest the bit about calling for help was meant to mean that, having put all our eggs in the carrier basket, we'd be left with sod-all other than the carrier, so if that got deep-6ed, we'd have nought left, so would need to skweem for help. Not having gone for a carroer, we have other assets, and losing a frigate doesn't leave the same hole in overall capability as would losing a carrier.

Buster has a good point - once the Belgrano was lost, the 25 May never went to sea as the risk was too high. It may as well have been frying pans. In fact if it had been frying pans, the Argentine forces' overall resources in other areas may have been rather higher. Best advertisement ever that a small power shouldn't get caught in pi55ing contests re carriers.

Numerous RAAF knucks have done USN carrier service as part of exchange rotations so there would be some knowledge in the force. Whether that could be used as a basis for qual'ing the rest of the RAAF knuck pilot body, I can't comment on.

Not really much need for staging via a carrier, anyway - NW Cape, Cocos, Diego, your friendly Gulf base - maybe a few in-flight top-ups to keep you awake and you're there. And if said Gulf base was unavailable, we'd probably want every asset close to home because by then, they'd be needed at home. That said, maybe knowledge of carrier landings might be useful in case of emergency where a flat-top might be the nearest friendly asset.

Old M8, I think recent events at AMB reminded us about the Pig's hook. But I'd be interested to see a Pig doing deck landings. The F111-B (intended for USN - Buster) had shorter wings than the -C and strengthened undercarriage; USN did indeed lose int (wing carry-through strengthening probs?) and went for the Tomcat/Phoenix combo. Dunno that the -C has a cat strop, either... so it might be able to get down, but the u/c would be cactus and you wouldn't be able to shoot it back off the front again.

Dragon, Mate I think the reason we ended up with the old Sydney and Melbourne was that they were pretty cheap, being surplus to the RN's needs after WW2; it was also in the Brits' interests to have us, having them (before but more especially after the pull-back from East of Aden). They were also relatively much cheaper to operate than a modern carrier (given the required size of carrier, fuel, etc. and especially the equipment you throw off the front). When the costs did start to bite, one was converted into a troop-ship. Then, note that the Melb operated only 6-8 A4s - not really much bite for all that expense and risk.

The other side of the coin is that no-one likely to threaten us is able to delpoy forces such as would need a carrier to see them off. If Indonesia tried to take Heard Island (eg. for resource purposes) - could they project their forces that far? Could we not see off their support vessels with Collinses? Even China is carrier-less. And if they turned up at Heard, even if we had a small carrier, we'd probably be better off just saying giving them the keys :ouch: .

By the way, my Snotty friend, it's RAAF - Royal Australian Air Force. Not sure what RAFF would stand for??

[Dragon79]

Business like, OK so maybe not the best term, or maybe there is no correct term, or its to late and the footys about to start and I can't be bother thinking of it. As you have pointed our they are a special case.

What I was trying to get at, was comparing it to a "business" that delivers the right product to customer, on time on budget and to the requirements, the end result. In this case the customers are the 3 services and that would make all of us the sharholders.

I release as a share holder of this particular "company", I am not likely to see a return. I accept that as the price for the freedoms I enjoy, and I make sure I thank those good people who are providing this. What I do expect though, is that the company provides the right equipment, so things where ever to go tits up, the customers won't be requesting a large sum of compensation.

The continual impression I get as an observer (thats all I am now thanks for nothing DMO) is thats its a continual cycle of cock up, then implement a quick fix or new methodology, change some managers and start all over again. (****e sounds just like where I work now) And I guess that comes back to the underlying culture within the organisation. In the DMO's case thats run like a government department, with that government mentality.

I know it isn't all the DMOs fault, what can they do is some fool comes a long and says, hey I've got a great idea, we know of these air frames lying around, and if we stuff in all these fancy switches and lights in, it would be great. Either that, or we've heard of this great new proposal for new platform, "has it every been used before", well no but it sounds great. But then again if there fool enough to say, sure no probs I know a mate who can knock it up, no probs.

Thats why I personally think the A330, the current option I've preferred option I've seen for the AWD, wedgetail and to a certain extent JSF, are all risks to be taking, un-proven platforms, the old tiger is bit of an exceptiona as the frogs were surposed to be up and running now. I honestly hope I am proven wrong, but I did manage to pick the swans to win at the start of last year.

[Dragon79]

Taildragger67

Agree that there is no one to threaten us, as I said in an earlier post. So do we pull up stumps, buy a token air force, rent out some land to our US friends, and plow the left over money into border security and tax cuts?

I think that the current policy of both major parties isn't this and therefore we should be asking, if we are going to deploy our troops OS, what do we need to make sure we can get the job done.

And the worse case is we have to gone alone, and we have to go into a hostile environment, what do we therefore need to get the job done.

[Lord Snot]

So do we pull up stumps, buy a token air force, rent out some land to our US friends, and plow the left over money into border security and tax cutsNo. They might not be threatening but they're all clamouring away trying to gain the upper economic hand in the region. Miitary power still has an influence on economics. We don't need any of the bros to the north keeping the initiative.

The above-posted proposed equipment purchase will help ensure that for Aust.

[Dragon79]

I'd love to go shopping, just let me have the credit card!

[Andu]

Numerous RAAF knucks have done USN carrier service as part of exchange rotations so there would be some knowledge in the force.Really? Can someone confirm this?

[Jetsbest]

Historically & typically the RAAF has an 'exchange posting' for fast jet pilots to several places in the interest of learning how others do things, sharing our perspectives with other friendlies and bringing their experience and techniques 'home'; Canada F18, USN F18, USMC F18, USAF F15, USAF F15E, UK Tornado/Typhoon, and maybe more these days.

RAAF pilots doing the USN and USMC postings usually get a Carrier Qual. but it doesn't amount to 'carrier service'...just a quick course and proficiency test to 'tick the box' and is more in deference to their often instructional roles while on service with the USN or Marines (also, it's very challenging & FUN). But there's just too much USA-secret (nukes, EW etc) stuff out on the ships, and also the chance of rapid deployment to some USA-hotspot where Aust has no complaint make it impractical for foreign nationals of even the friendliest persuasion to serve on a full US carrier deployment.

But to answer your question, yes, there are numerous RAAF pilots who have qualified for carrier operations over the years and all agree it was a major buzz!

[Andu]

Thanks for the reply, Jetsbest. I know one RAN driver who operated off USN carriers a very long time ago while he was doing an USN LSO course (but I suspect always in the back seat), but I seriously doubted the USN would have allowed any foreign Air Force (!) pilots to fly operationally off their carriers, whether on exchange of not - in fixed wing, at least. However, I know RAAF choppers (when the RAAF operated choppers) have flown off USN carriers, but that's a very different matter to flying fixed wing onto a carrier.

For those dreaming about RAAF F18's staging via USN carriers on some far flung deployment, dreaming is the operative word. As others have said before me, maintaining currency in carrier qualifications, particularly in fast jets, is about as demanding as it gets in military aviation, and even USN drivers on an operational cruise occasionally fail to maintain the high standards demanded to maintain the qualification and are taken off the flying roster until they re-qualify. Every deck landing is videoed and graded, and the gradings, down to which wire was captured, are displayed on a board in the squadron ops room (or whatever they're called on ship).

Imagine you were the captain of a USN CVN watching a gaggle of "furrin" (gasp!) Air Force F18's approaching your ship in mid ocean to carry out each pilot's first ever carrier landing. As for F111's doing the same thing... it ain't ever gonna happen, even if the drivers were USN pilots and all the sons or grandsons of Chuck Yeager (or whoever the USN equivalent of Chuck Yeager is). I just don't think it would be physically possible, if not to land, then to be launched, in a bog-standard F111.

[Taildragger67]

Jetsbest,

Thanks - that's what I meant - I couldn't confirm actual Ronnie attachment to USN line squadrons but was aware of trap training as part of exchange postings.

[Lodown]

Off subject, but...

A Commander's Moon is a reference to a clear night with a full moon when many USN Commanders in the past reportedly have chosen to undertake carrier night ops recency checks.

...just a little information of no consequence.

[Andu]

A bit like the old Air Force Blue Card instrument rating? - (When the colour of the sky matched the colour of te card, such holders did their instrument renewals.) Beloved of senior officers who didn't fly very often.

[Buster Hyman]

but I seriously doubted the USN would have allowed any foreign Air Force (!) pilots to fly operationally off their carriers
Considering they let Bush land on one, then perhaps they have lowered their standards?:hmm::ouch::suspect:

[Gnadenburg]

Let's move off the carrier debate. People are taking the piss. Snot predicably and oldm8, you should be ashamed of yourself discouraging public enthusiasm for a well equiped defence force. Plenty of RAAF pilots have been killed on active service over the generations, in unsuitable or unsuitably equiped aircraft- Vietnam, Korea etc.

The F22 has serious political and military ramifications for the region; and I imagine that is part of the reason why a small, silver bullet force is not being entertained. Remembering we were politically averse to providing our own tanking support for the F111 fleet, aswell as ruling out cruise missile technology in the 90's to avoid regional proliferation of these weapons.

A RAAF equiped with F22's, say original F111 numbers ( 24 ), and another multi-role type ( F18's, JSF or whatever ), would make the regional air forces forever obsolete. They would label Australia, America's deputy sherrif now with a big six shooter, and invest in asymetric capabilities no air campaign can ever defeat.

[bob55]

They would label Australia, America's deputy sherrif now with a big six shooter, and invest in asymetric capabilities no air campaign can ever defeat.

And they don't label us that already?

[Wiley]

Some time ago, I posted on Jetblast recommending John Birmingham's sci-fi yarn "Weapons of Choice - World War 2.1". I'm almost at the end of his second offering of what I suspect will be a trilogy (towards the end of Book 2.2, 'Designated Targets', we're still in 1942 and the Battle of Bundaberg).

For those not familiar with the books, they are a rather clever (and far superior) spin on the Michael Douglas(?) movie of some years ago where present day forces are thown back in time to WW2. (Don't let that put you off - Birmingham handles the premise very well IMHO, and Birmingham's troops are from 2130, which cleverly avoids any of the time travelling characters meeting themselves back in 1942.)

Birmingham's rather fantastical premise and the way he sees our immediate future has more than a little bearing on this debate in that the 2130 troops have been at war non-stop for 20 years against 'the Caliphate Forces'). I fear he might be a little closer to the mark in some of his predictions than many people today would be comfortable with. One is that in 2130, the full on war was nowhere near being resolved. Another that comes to mind is the way the 2130 troops summarily execute any enemy they consider to have committed a war crime. (We won't go into the war crime many would consider they are committing in doling out this punishment.) This, along with many other things about the people from the future, deeply shocks virtually everyone from 1942. I find myself wondering if something similar won't happen to us over the next few years in the real world, as we realise we will simply have to put aside some of our sensitivities if we are to prevail - and survive - against an enemny who has no such sensitivities.

As I said of the first book - a good read, if perhaps a little too much like Jules Verne for comfort (in the way so much of Verne's 19th century science fiction has become 21st century science fact).

[Lord Snot]

you should be ashamed of yourself discouraging public enthusiasm for a well equiped defence force.


A RAAF equiped with F22's, say original F111 numbers ( 24 )

I never discouraged anything. I'm all for a well-equipped ADF, despite the cost. The gov't can spend my tax dollars on that instead of, for example, chartering boats and airliners to go to far-flung places to repatriate "Australians" who suddenly need help even though they haven't set foot in this country for 15 years.

I posted the article out of enthusiasm for such a purchase.

As for the second quote, people seem to be reckoning on the F-22 as a replacement for the F-111. Maybe in numbers, yes, due to cost, but not in ROLE. It might move mud but it's not a pig-replacement.

[Dragon79]

Wiley

Nice post and I'll look out for the book, sounds like an interesting read.

But unless I am a bit slow, what the friggin hell does that have to do with the decision on which new jet the RAAF should buy? Unless your the author and your trying to move a few units?

I took this thread of on a bit of a trip about the carrier, becuase I think it would be a handy addition to ADF. With the purchase of the 30 x F22 and 82 x F18 E/FG, the carrier would have given us an airbase to operate off, if a friendly country couldn't be found, or was out of reach.

Or the other suggestion that I agreed with, that as we are unlikely to get a carrier, the new model F15's would provide extcellent backup to the 22's.

I simple can't accept that we are going to seriously think about replacing the capability of the F111 with the limited capability of the JSF. Its a loser on range, payload, single engine etc etc.

My preference in all honesty would be to scrap the current hornet upgrade, that seems to be another winner, and replace both the f111 & the F18 around 2010, with the F22 & F18E/F/G or F15. And purchase 5 more A330's for support.

I'll stop now before I repeat my shopping list.

[Lord Snot]

Naw, go on, do it. It was a good shopping list. Do it.

DO it.

But I'd like to see some MH-60s in there for the lads with refueling booms and some MC-130s to refuel from. Those -60s will need mini-guns too.

Apparently they're looking at some kind of Little Bird now, too. Not the AH-6, I think. Something else.

Just when you thought they were going to reduce the number of ADF rotary types....



Back to the F-22s. A quick show of hands on who's happy to cut spending on hospitals, orphanages, old people and dole-bludgers to fund the new jets???






PS Can we stay off the carrier pud-knocking??? Never have so many dicks been pulled so hard as when RAN carrier talk came up... :rolleyes:

[Dragon79]

Hospitals No, Old people No, orphanages do we still have these, sounds like something from the past, like unions, free education and the dragons winning a premiership.

Cut Foriegn aid, most of it ends up in foriegn pollies back pockets, cut imigration from NZ, thats were most of our dole is going (Ducking), and cut one layer of government. How a country of 20 million people are governed, or should that be mis-manged, by 3 levels of government I don't know.

Oh yeah cut out spending billions of dollars on defence projects that wind up being lemons. Buy proven technologies, once they've been proven, by some one else.

I think I posted it earlier, were goning spend $15 billion on on the JSF, out of a budget of $51 billion to equipment the ADf over the next 10 years.

I think we could propably spring for 30 22s along with 80 F18E/F or F15s.

Can the MRH90 be fitted with a boom for refuelling?

[Point0Five]

There won't be any need to worry about fitting the MRH90 with a refuelling boom once our V-22s arrive. I reckon we should buy about 40 of them.

[Dragon79]

Oh God no!

I might have been banging on about a carrier, but I realise that boat most propably ain't goin to float.

First person to seriously raise the idea of the ADF getting V-22s, has to pay for them.

40, that'd end up being our entire defence force, then.

Good Lord.

I listed my helo types before: Chook & Tiger for the Army and common between the army and the RAN the MRH90, UH145 and AH-6. 5 types, 3 common across the two. M/AH-6 could double as the trainer. Aren't they developing an updated A/MH-6, improved engines, increase in weapons, I recall also seeing it operating as test bed for a UAV.

[Wiley]

Nice post and I'll look out for the book, sounds like an interesting read.

But unless I am a bit slow, what the friggin hell does that have to do with the decision on which new jet the RAAF should buyDragon, the connection (if very tenuous) to this debate is that Birmingham does a bit of Tom Clancy in the books and gives all sorts of tech details as to what sort of kit the 2130 forces are using. A couple of good twists like a female captain of the RAN submarine that finds itself back in 1942 (and of course, single-handedly holds off the Yellow Hordes with its high tech kit). make it an interesting read.

And no, I'm not the author. If I had the bloke's imagination and writing ability, I wouldn't be in this mug's game. For those not familiar with the writer, he's the same bloke who wrote the classic (and very funny) "He Died with a Falafel in His Hand."

[Dragon79]

Wiley

Does he say if we are going to get JSF, F22, F18E/F, what about the V-22 as predicted below? Or if the sea sprite will ever work as intended?

[Buster Hyman]

Wiley...not being a smartarse but I looked up the book & the "future" carrier group was from 2021 & were fighting the war on terror still. They were aboard the USS Hillary Clinton!!!!

I might go out & get a copy !:ok:

[gassed budgie]

It was Kirk Douglas and 2.3 is in the book shops.

[Magoodotcom]

Really? Can someone confirm this?

I wouldn't say "numerous", but there's one at NAS Lemoore at any one time on a two-year rotation.

Magoo

[Magoodotcom]

Some time ago, I posted on Jetblast recommending John Birmingham's sci-fi yarn "Weapons of Choice - World War 2.1". I'm almost at the end of his second offering of what I suspect will be a trilogy (towards the end of Book 2.2, 'Designated Targets', we're still in 1942 and the Battle of Bundaberg).
For those not familiar with the books, they are a rather clever (and far superior) spin on the Michael Douglas(?) movie of some years ago where present day forces are thown back in time to WW2. (Don't let that put you off - Birmingham handles the premise very well IMHO, and Birmingham's troops are from 2130, which cleverly avoids any of the time travelling characters meeting themselves back in 1942.)
Birmingham's rather fantastical premise and the way he sees our immediate future has more than a little bearing on this debate in that the 2130 troops have been at war non-stop for 20 years against 'the Caliphate Forces'). I fear he might be a little closer to the mark in some of his predictions than many people today would be comfortable with. One is that in 2130, the full on war was nowhere near being resolved. Another that comes to mind is the way the 2130 troops summarily execute any enemy they consider to have committed a war crime. (We won't go into the war crime many would consider they are committing in doling out this punishment.) This, along with many other things about the people from the future, deeply shocks virtually everyone from 1942. I find myself wondering if something similar won't happen to us over the next few years in the real world, as we realise we will simply have to put aside some of our sensitivities if we are to prevail - and survive - against an enemny who has no such sensitivities.
As I said of the first book - a good read, if perhaps a little too much like Jules Verne for comfort (in the way so much of Verne's 19th century science fiction has become 21st century science fact).

You're right, they're very good reads that way beyond just the technical challenges but well into the social differences of the time. I just got 2.3 and will be reading it on the plane to LA next week.

I think you'll find, however, that they're from 2021, not 2130. It's at the start of 2.1.

Magoo

[Magoodotcom]

For an RAAF/ADF circa 2016, how bout...

COMBAT
64 x F-35A
36 x F/A-18F

ISR
12 x AP-3C (re-winged)
6 x RQ-4B
8 x MQ-9B (Mariner variant)
6 x I-View systems (3 air vehicles per system)
6 x Scan Eagle systems (4 per)

TRANSPORT
4 x C-17
8 x A400M
8 x A330MRTT (with A330F conversion)
18 x C-130J (6 with tanker hose/drogue pods, and only if LockMart can get its $hit together re spares)
18 x C-27J

ROTARY
12 x CH-47F
48 x MRH-90 TTH
16 x MRH-90 NFH
22 x Tiger
48 x UH-72A (UH-145)

TRAINING/LIAISON
33 x Hawk 127 (MLU'ed)
64 x PC-21 or T-6B
12 x B350
2 x BBJ
3 x B604

A bit more realistic from a manning and budgetry point of view???

Magoo

[Magoodotcom]

Can the MRH90 be fitted with a boom for refuelling?

Yes, ours will have the internal plumbing supplied, and the boom which is being developed for the Germans will add about 100kg to the equation. However, we'd need C-130 tankers then, and no-one has certified a long-fuselaged C-130J tanker yet.

Magoo

[Dragon79]

Magoodotcom

Only two things I could questions

8 x A400M - would introducing another type be best? I would have thought increasing the C17 & C130J numbers would be preferred.

64 x F-35A
36 x F/A-18F

Swap the 35 for the 22, so as not to see that massive a drop in capability.

[Magoodotcom]

8 x A400M - would introducing another type be best? I would have thought increasing the C17 & C130J numbers would be preferred.

Too big a gap between C-17 and C-130. A400M should slot in nicely, perhaps to replace original batch of C-130Js leaving C-17, A400M & C-27J backed up by half a dozen short-fuselaged KC-130Js.

64 x F-35A
36 x F/A-18F
Swap the 35 for the 22, so as not to see that massive a drop in capability.

As sexy as it is, I'd actually call the F-22 a massive drop over the F-35 in many ways.

Speed and stealth apart, the F-22 has older gen avionics, FCS, and weapons system, all of which will need significant hardware and software upgrades in next few years; is only baselined with three weapon types (AIM-9m, AIM-120C & GBU-35); doesn't have a targeting pod/designator; and does not have 2-way datalinks (receive only). None of these are currently budgeted to be addressed, and doing so will only raise the aircraft's cost.

Besides, Nelson and co have already ruled it out, so F-22 is a non-starter. Let's stick with what we know will fly (literally and politically).

Magoo

[Gnadenburg]

Air Dominance is Nelson's new catch-cry!

Air dominance in the region numerically? Or air dominance in the region technologically?

Introducing a current generation fighter ( operational in a few years ), in numbers, to obtain numerical air dominance an oxy moron. Similar technology is available to regional air forces already, aswell as the fact we are to operate a fleet ( or partial fleet ) of these tactical fighters for the next 25 years. Super Hornets in 2035?

Air Dominance for the RAAF, could only be a hi-hi mix of F22's & eventually F35's, with their bureaucratically unfavoured overlapping capabilites, in small numbers- say a fleet totalling 75 max but more likely just above 60- 24 F22's and 40 plus F35's. Punch this structure into a RAND computer, and it is the only structure that provides unmatched superiority for the next 20 plus years.

Any other talk of air dominance, just political spin.

[Dragon79]

Magoo & Gnadenburg

Can't fault either of your logic, the issue I have with the JSF is at the moment it is un-proven, a given considering its still in development.

Do you think the cock ups with the F18 upgrade combined with the push to retire the F111, require an interim solution?

As you have said, other countries currently have the technology that is superior to the hornet, the people is another matter.

Introducing leading edge technologies + Australia = generally a cockup F111 (Initially),Collins, Sea Sprite.

Given the cost of the JSF does this not justify an interim platform until the JSF proves itself, hence the F18E/F or F15.

[Lord Snot]

How can you say that Lord Snot. Absolutely disgraceful!! You really are an aweful man. I'm a product of my upbringing and nothing less.... respect for orphanages was taught to me during the mass brief on EFATO training. As well as the ability to pick them out of the clutter during a glide.:p

Air Dominance is Nelson's new catch-cryWell it's a start, at least....

[Magoodotcom]

Magoo & Gnadenburg

Can't fault either of your logic, the issue I have with the JSF is at the moment it is un-proven, a given considering its still in development.

Do you think the cock ups with the F18 upgrade combined with the push to retire the F111, require an interim solution?

Given the cost of the JSF does this not justify an interim platform until the JSF proves itself, hence the F18E/F or F15.

Cockups with the F/A-18 upgrade? Can you please site sources OTHER than the Sydney Morning Herald???

The HUG has gone swimmingly up to now, with the only potential glitch being Phase 2.3 which is currently under review. If ALR-2002B is canned, then we have ALR-67(v)2 as a fallback option which should not significantly impact the program's schedule.

Phases 1, 2.1 and 3.1 were delivered on time and under budget, and 2.2 is already ahead of schedule just three months into the rollout phase. 2.4 is also going well (don't believe the pod report in the SMH last week) and will deliver ahead of schedule and ahead of budget. Phase 3.2 is the biggest risk, but the Canuckdians have already done 13 centre-barrels and these have all gone well, and the US is cranking up to 40 jets a year from next year.

I believe the interim aircraft window has closed, and the next jet we get needs to be around for the next 20+ years. Whether that is F-35, F/A-18F, F-15T or whatever I don't know. I personally believe a split fleet of Super Hornets and F-35s is the way to go.

Cheers

Magoo

[W800i]

I agree with Magoo that a split fleet is the way to go. My proviso to the RAAF is to slow down on the F-35. They are talking about buying it very very early on in its production schedule. This is my main concern. If the F-35 runs into any number of technical problems which are normal and understandable considering the complexity of modern fighters than the RAAF have a sizeable headache. I believe it is far better to wait until the yanks and the poms have it in squadron service and are working through fixes for all of the usual hiccups that occur before we purchase it. The F-35 has a lot of hard yards ahead of it.
For the sake of argument a combined F-22 & F-18 E/F/G or F-22 & F15E/SG/T is worth condiering I believe. A article in Air and Space October/November 2005 "The raptor arrives- debriefing the pilots who got the first crack at the FA-22 by Carl Hoffman" is interesting. Interview in part with Major Robert Garland FA-22 divisional commander......F-15's and F-16's fly in close visual formation because theyre not stealthy, they must work together to scan the airspace in front of them."In an F-15 you live and die by putting your radar in the irght piece of sky to find threats and ID them" says Cabral. But looking from the ground to 60,000 feet - 120 degrees of sky - takes the F-15C's radar 14 seconds. Flying within visual formation, the flight lead takes the low half and the wingman takes the high half. A sensor called the radar warning receiver indicates if an airplane or a SAM is looking at you. Flying at 500 knots (575mph), Cabral says he alternates between the RWR and radar, while using "my eyeballs and moving my head to look for stuff. If the radars pick something up- bandits are merely green blips,and you dont know if a blip is one airplane or two together- I have to ask; Do I need to defend myself? Is it a threat? Or do I need to call an AWACS and give them the information?"
Flying anf fighting in the F-15 is "task prioritization" Cabral continues. "You have to generate a mental picture of the airpsace and battlefield in your mind. Sometimes I even literally sketch a picture on my kneepad, all while talking on my comms and cross checking the system."
In the raptor , on the other hand the radar sweeps 120 degrees of sky instantly and computers synthesize the incoming data and display the results on a single eight inch square color display. Bandits are red triangles , their flight path , altitude and relative speed are apparent at a glance. Friendlies are green circles. Unknown aircraft are yelow squares, other FA-22's are blue, SAM sites are depicted as yellow pentagons , the sizes varying relative to the distance at which the radars can pick up the stealthy raptors. The raptors radar range is classified but Stapleton says he has "seen targets beyond 320 miles". Attack and defensive displays respectively on the right and left of the main display can show tactical information in even more detail. The attack display for instance can show all tracked aircraft "tracks" in the current shoot list, which tracks you've deployed missiles against and what the status of those missiles is.
Says Dave "shotgun" Lopez a pilot in the 43rd " The airplane is just a huge sponge in the sky soaking up information."
Raptors talk to one another over a secure digital data link, so every raptor in a formation knows about the others; how much fuel a wingman has, which weapons have been fired, even which enemy aircraft have been targeted, "everything he sees, I see and vice versa", Cabral says.
Because of the aircrafts stealth and its knowledge of what others are doing, Raptor formations can be much more widely spaced than F-15 formations, the aircraft can stay beyond visual range of one another - whats known as "detached mutual support" "typically were outside of five miles from each other in different chunks of the sky"
I aplogise for the length of this post however I found the above interesting and hope others do as well. If as magoo suggests that a split fleet is possible than considering the above wouldnt it be prudent to have an aircraft that guarantees air superiority and can target an opponents air defence system backed up with modern second tirer non stealthy types to do all of the heavy hauling.
Thanks

[Magoodotcom]

I agree with Magoo that a split fleet is the way to go. My proviso to the RAAF is to slow down on the F-35. They are talking about buying it very very early on in its production schedule. This is my main concern. If the F-35 runs into any number of technical problems which are normal and understandable considering the complexity of modern fighters than the RAAF have a sizeable headache. I believe it is far better to wait until the yanks and the poms have it in squadron service and are working through fixes for all of the usual hiccups that occur before we purchase it. The F-35 has a lot of hard yards ahead of it.
For the sake of argument a combined F-22 & F-18 E/F/G or F-22 & F15E/SG/T is worth condiering I believe. A article in Air and Space October/November 2005 "The raptor arrives- debriefing the pilots who got the first crack at the FA-22 by Carl Hoffman" is interesting. Interview in part with Major Robert Garland FA-22 divisional commander......F-15's and F-16's fly in close visual formation because theyre not stealthy, they must work together to scan the airspace in front of them."In an F-15 you live and die by putting your radar in the irght piece of sky to find threats and ID them" says Cabral. But looking from the ground to 60,000 feet - 120 degrees of sky - takes the F-15C's radar 14 seconds. Flying within visual formation, the flight lead takes the low half and the wingman takes the high half. A sensor called the radar warning receiver indicates if an airplane or a SAM is looking at you. Flying at 500 knots (575mph), Cabral says he alternates between the RWR and radar, while using "my eyeballs and moving my head to look for stuff. If the radars pick something up- bandits are merely green blips,and you dont know if a blip is one airplane or two together- I have to ask; Do I need to defend myself? Is it a threat? Or do I need to call an AWACS and give them the information?"
Flying anf fighting in the F-15 is "task prioritization" Cabral continues. "You have to generate a mental picture of the airpsace and battlefield in your mind. Sometimes I even literally sketch a picture on my kneepad, all while talking on my comms and cross checking the system."
In the raptor , on the other hand the radar sweeps 120 degrees of sky instantly and computers synthesize the incoming data and display the results on a single eight inch square color display. Bandits are red triangles , their flight path , altitude and relative speed are apparent at a glance. Friendlies are green circles. Unknown aircraft are yelow squares, other FA-22's are blue, SAM sites are depicted as yellow pentagons , the sizes varying relative to the distance at which the radars can pick up the stealthy raptors. The raptors radar range is classified but Stapleton says he has "seen targets beyond 320 miles". Attack and defensive displays respectively on the right and left of the main display can show tactical information in even more detail. The attack display for instance can show all tracked aircraft "tracks" in the current shoot list, which tracks you've deployed missiles against and what the status of those missiles is.
Says Dave "shotgun" Lopez a pilot in the 43rd " The airplane is just a huge sponge in the sky soaking up information."
Raptors talk to one another over a secure digital data link, so every raptor in a formation knows about the others; how much fuel a wingman has, which weapons have been fired, even which enemy aircraft have been targeted, "everything he sees, I see and vice versa", Cabral says.
Because of the aircrafts stealth and its knowledge of what others are doing, Raptor formations can be much more widely spaced than F-15 formations, the aircraft can stay beyond visual range of one another - whats known as "detached mutual support" "typically were outside of five miles from each other in different chunks of the sky"
I aplogise for the length of this post however I found the above interesting and hope others do as well. If as magoo suggests that a split fleet is possible than considering the above wouldnt it be prudent to have an aircraft that guarantees air superiority and can target an opponents air defence system backed up with modern second tirer non stealthy types to do all of the heavy hauling.
Thanks

Nelson has already said we wont be getting the F-22 because of cost, availability, and because “based on its complete capability, (it) is not the correct aircraft for us.” So, F-22 is probably not a contender for the life of this government.

As for F/A-18E/F or F-15T, I would lean towards the Super Hornet. Ok, so it doesn't have the speed or the grunt of an F-15, but it does have alot of growth left in it, is already (or about to be) fully networked, has a higher performance AESA radar with more improvements coming (electronic attack etc), is already baselined with all our current and projected weapons systems (except AGM-142), and we can easily plug in to the US Navy's production and support system (as we did with the classic Hornets). Another plus is Boeing already has substantial support facilities already established in-country at Amberley and W'Town.

Others may advocate the Typhoon, but this is going to be an expensive and still immature airplane with many infrastructure and support issues to be resolved. Rafale is the same, except probably worse!

That pretty much leaves Gripen and F-16C/D/E/F. I wouldn't discount the Gripen - there's alot of capability there for the money, especially in its planned DK form, although whether we could count on spares support from Sweden if we took them to a war they didn't agree with may be a deal-breaker. F-16 isn't likely to be enough of an airplane in any role.

Let's order 48 Super Hornets now for 1, 6 and 77 SQNs, take delivery in a few years, and park the Pigs in 2010. Meanwhile, do 32 centre-barrels and slowly run the rest of the classic fleet down with 3 & 75 SQNs as they run out of fatigue life. 2OCU can run a mixed fleet of classics and Supers.

Then get 48 F-35s in about 2017 when the first 'facelift' comes out! It'll give us a two-pronged 'day one' and 'day two' fleet, and a staggered obsolescence schedule. 8-10 of each type can be rotated in and out of service as R3s fall due to extend fleet fatigue life, giving us 60-64 active jets at any one time, about the same as now, with 16-20 in reserve.

The Super Hornets can be replaced from 2030 onwards by UCAVs or whatever you-beaut jets they have flying by then.

Cheers

Magoo

[Buster Hyman]

The Super Hornets can be replaced from 2030
That's about the time we will have finished this thread if you keep quoting entire posts!!!:} :ouch: :suspect:

:p

[Magoodotcom]

That's about the time we will have finished this thread if you keep quoting entire posts!!!:} :ouch: :suspect:

Yeah, sorry. I meant to hit the 'post reply' button not the 'quote' button. :\

Magoo

[Buster Hyman]

:p :ok: ..........................

[Croppyking]

As for F/A-18E/F or F-15T, I would lean towards the Super Hornet. Ok, so it doesn't have the speed or the grunt of an F-15, but it does have alot of growth left in it, is already (or about to be) fully networked, has a higher performance AESA radar with more improvements coming (electronic attack etc), is already baselined with all our current and projected weapons systems (except AGM-142), and we can easily plug in to the US Navy's production and support system (as we did with the classic Hornets). Another plus is Boeing already has substantial support facilities already established in-country at Amberley and W'Town.

The biggest advantage to the F15T/SG/E is that apart from the AESA radar, everything else (EP,EA, Networked, weapon commonality) are current, proven and operationally successful systems. To plug into US Navy's production and support should be just as easy as plugging into the USAF's (probably easier as any base down range that the RAAF may find themselves in will have a greater probability of having a USAF unit rather than a USN unit stationed there). Other advantages include the greater range and larger radar dish offered. (not to mention the fact that AGM-142 is also not supported...)

Boeing also makes the F15 so the support facilities already established are just as much as a plus as for the super hornet.

The only disadvantage to selecting an F15 over a Super Hornet is that the aircrew will need complete re-training and a new OCU would need to be stood up, otherwise, bring on the strike eagle!

[Magoodotcom]

The biggest advantage to the F15T/SG/E is that apart from the AESA radar, everything else (EP,EA, Networked, weapon commonality) are current, proven and operationally successful systems.

Not necessarily. Alot of what Boeing was offering on the F-15SG for Singapore is quite advanced from what the USAF currently runs in their F-15Es and is likely to plug in to them down the track.

To plug into US Navy's production and support should be just as easy as plugging into the USAF's (probably easier as any base down range that the RAAF may find themselves in will have a greater probability of having a USAF unit rather than a USN unit stationed there).

The support I spoke of isn't necesarily in a deployed environment, rather in that we would tie in with any block upgrades that the US Navy is doing. This is something we've been doing for 21 years with the classics and is a system with which we're already very familiar and comfortable.

Other advantages include the greater range and larger radar dish offered. (not to mention the fact that AGM-142 is also not supported...)

Range differences between F-15SG and Super Hornet are almost negligible (830nm combat radius vs 780 respectively). Also, don't believe everyting you read about bigger radar dishes meaning more grunt (AESA doesn't have a "dish" anyway) - it's the back end that gives the radar most its power. The latest APG-63(v)3 just being introduced to ANG F-15Cs now uses technology handed down from the Super's latest APG-79 and the APG-63(v)3 is about as far as you can take the F-15's radar, whereas APG-79 has much growth and development potential left in it.

Other advantages of the Super; it has networkable systems already integrated in at baseline level, has almost a cubic foot (which is a lot I'm told) of spare space for growth capability, and has a much lower RCS than an F-15E (about 1/3 in the front quarter I'm told anecdotally).

The only disadvantage to selecting an F15 over a Super Hornet is that the aircrew will need complete re-training and a new OCU would need to be stood up, otherwise, bring on the strike eagle!

Aircrew will still need to be trained and an OCU will still need to be set up. There is virtually no commonality between classic and Super Hornet.

Magoo

[W800i]

http://81.144.183.107/Articles/2006/08/03/208267/Pictures+Boeing+rolls+out+EA-18G+Growler+FA-18+electronic+attack.html[/IMG]

[Buster Hyman]

Wow! Some serious wing upgrades have gone on there! Don't think I like the red tail though...

[Croppyking]

Magoo,

Some good gouge you have re: AESA radars.

I'd be interested to see the realities of the combat ranges you have quoted with similiarly configured aircraft (does this include loading stores on the outboard supers pylon?)

My understanding of the super vs classic for front seaters is that they are almost identical aircraft to fly - ie one or two mission checkouts is all that is required on the super.....?

[Magoodotcom]

I'd be interested to see the realities of the combat ranges you have quoted with similiarly configured aircraft (does this include loading stores on the outboard supers pylon?)

A bit outside my field of knowledge here I'm afraid. The figures I've given were MTOW hi-lo-hi combat radii.

My understanding of the super vs classic for front seaters is that they are almost identical aircraft to fly - ie one or two mission checkouts is all that is required on the super.....?

From a basic flight point of view, perhaps. The cockpit layouts of Super and late build/upgraded classics, and the basic handling qualities are quite similar. However, in order to take the Super (which is almost 30% heavier than the classic) to war, I'd imagine there would be quite alot more conversion training required.

Magoo

[control snatch]

There is virtually no commonality between classic and Super Hornet.


I understood for USN guys it was a 4 ride conversion??

[Lord Snot]

Wow! Some serious wing upgrades have gone on there! Don't think I like the red tail though...Don't worry Buster, it comes in mauve, pink, lime green and blue too. :ok:

[Buster Hyman]

I think pink would be fine....on the condition that the gorgeous little red Kangaroo is returned...I can't abide that hideous grey one!

[Gnadenburg]

Let's order 48 Super Hornets now for 1, 6 and 77 SQNs............Then get 48 F-35s in about 2017

Too many jets Magoo. And would you want to go to war in a Super Hornet in 2030?

Labor/Beazley wants the F22 aswell. 24 F22's then your number of F35's. What balance! What structure! And we have the people resources to fix & fly those numbers.

And a missile on the Orion. To put all the villages of Asia within RAAF range.

[Dragon79]

http://www.defence.gov.au/news/raafnews/editions/4814/topstories/story01.htm

Will Nelsons call for options produce anything of substance? Or are we too far down the JSF path?

[Cloud Basher]

Will Nelsons call for options produce anything of substance? Or are we too far down the JSF path?

Well if it is anything like the white wash that the investigation into Combat Clothing was then I would say no, the decision is already made.

Cheers
CB

[Gnadenburg]

No.. Labor want to be different. Nothing strategic in their thinking.

I doubt if Labor would follow through on F22. In saying that, this government has left us considerably exposed. Forgoing opportunities to replace the F111 early, failing this obtaining an interim fighter. And now, commiting RAAF to risky delays in an unproven programme that will see our air capabilities significantly diminished early next decade.

All this with context to an agressive foreign policy and over commitment of defence resources abroad. A deterent force makes as much sense now, as it did in the 70's & 80's.

But you were just taking a political swipe anyway!

[Gnadenburg]

I read the article too. Quite a concern if a directive from the Brass. A pretty clear JSF agenda.

I would have liked them to address serious alternatives too: a hi-hi mixed fleet of 5th generation aircraft. F22's to replace F111 in a strategic deterrent role, Hornets soldier on in reduced numbers until F35 replaces them.

Also, how can the RAAF maintain and crew a 100 aircraft fleet of 5th generation fighters? We will need more pilots than we have now.

Will having such a large fleet of fighters, without an adequete number of tankers, create an 'airborne Maginot Line'?

If the RAAF deems it neccessary to have a 100 fleet of JSF's in a decade to meet emerging threats, how will a fleet of under 40 Hornets be satisfactory for the next ten years?

20 F22's now. 50 F35's when the aircraft ready. No lapse in capability, deterrence from conventional threats for the forseable future, solid alliance committment and capability, and in numbers the RAAF can crew

[Gnadenburg]

JSF delay may weaken defences
Cameron Stewart
August 25, 2006

THE nation's largest defence project, the $16 billion purchase of Joint Strike Fighters, could be delayed by a year at the request of the US Navy.

The move, if approved by the US Office of the Secretary of Defence, would add millions of dollars to the cost of the new planes for Australia, which plans to purchase up to 100 of them.
A year-long delay in the arrival of the JSF to Australia would also complicate plans to retire the ageing F-111 bombers from 2010.
The US Navy and Marine Corps have this month requested a 14-month delay in their initial purchases of the yet-to-fly JSF, preferring instead to spend the money on other naval priorities.
Such a move, if accepted by the US Defence Secretary, would have a ripple-like effect on the entire JSF production schedule, which aims to build more than 2000 of the planes for the US Navy and US Air Force and for nine other countries including Australia.
The RAAF hopes to receive its first JSF in 2013, but this now looks highly unlikely.
The US Navy's proposal, if approved, would be the second serious schedule change for the JSF in the past two years. In 2004, the program was delayed when designers of the yet-to-be-built plane struggled to reduce its weight.
The delays and production problems have so far pushed the expected fly-away cost of the plane for Australia from about $45 million to more than $60million.
Defence Minister Brendan Nelson has remained a staunch supporter of the JSF, but concedes that it will be the most challenging defence project in Australia's history.
Australia has paid $155 million to jointhe design of the JSF but it does nothave to commit to buying the plane until 2008.
In addition to its weight problems, which have since been solved, the JSF has been beset by serious software problems, which have prevented its hi-tech warfare systems from being properly integrated.
Defence experts in Canberra say these technical issues, production delays and cost overruns are inevitable in such a massive and ambitious project.
They cite the teething problems experienced by the F-111 strike bomber, pointing out that it became an excellent aircraft for the RAAF.
But critics say Australia should choose a tried and tested aircraft such as a version of the F-16 fighter jet or the potent but expensive F-22 Raptor.
The timing of the JSF's arrival in Australia is politically sensitive because it will almost certainly not arrive until after the F-111 strike bombers have been withdrawn from service.
Critics say this leaves Australia without a frontline strike bomber between the retirement of the F-111 from 2010 and the arrival of the JSF some time from 2013.
To partially offset this, the RAAF has ordered long-range cruise missiles - the first of their kind in Southeast Asia - to attach to its ageing F/A-18 fighters in an attempt to increase their potency.
Dr Nelson says the biggest threat to the JSF is the US political system, with Congress consistently threatening to cut the budget of the JSF program.
If this occurred, the price of the plane would skyrocket, forcing Canberra to consider alternative aircraft.
The first test flight of the JSF is scheduled to take place in Texas this spring.

[Dragon79]

Concur with the mixed fleet, 22/35, 22/18E/F/G, 22/111, 22/15 or the 35/???.

Lets have a look at the last time we signed up to a next generation unproven air frame with our American Friends, the 111 required the F4 in the interim, ended up great, but the process took a lot longer then we expected.

Then have a look at our recent procurement experiences, Wedge tail delayed, sea sprite, well you all know the story, tiger, getting there but slowly.

Theres a song about this kind of thing, 'history repeats' would be a good fit I think.

The longer we keep our head in the sand, the bigger an issue it will become later.

[Point0Five]

What a great article:
But critics say Australia should choose a tried and tested aircraft such as a version of the F-16 fighter jet or the potent but expensive F-22 Raptor.

Didn't we consider buying the F-16, oh I don't know, 25 years ago?

"The first test flight of the JSF is scheduled to take place in Texas this spring", which is quite an achievement for a "yet-to-be-built plane".

I also like the obvious bias towards the "potent but expensive F-22 Raptor" as opposed to the purchase of cruise missiles merely being an attempt to increase the potenecy of the ageing F/A-18... clearly we should be buying a version of the F-16 instead.

[control snatch]

How the hell did the F-16 get into this discussion?
I cant think of a fighter less suited to our needs!!!

[Gnadenburg]

The cost of any RAAF F22 project would include additional costs of US 1 billion plus; to tweak the technology down a few levels to make the aircraft 'exportable'. :sad: Noted from a recent AW&ST article.

[Dragon79]

Any truth in the rumor (from the Australian) that the wedgetail is delayed even further and won't be delivered until August 08?

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20286445-31477,00.html

Don't know why anyone would think that the 16 would be a viable option, even as an interim replacement.

[scran]

Dragon 79:

Don't worry about any late delivery of Wedgetail - it's not a capability gap......:eek:


Because we have never had that capabilty......:ugh: :ugh:



I still remember sitting through a brief by Grumman (it was then from memory) explaining the capability of the E2 at Williamtown in 1976 or 77!!!!

They had a trailer parked on the base with a radar head (SSR only IIRC) on top and E2 displays inside the trailer, and we were watching traffic into and out of Sydney.