F-111G's retired.
I doubt that has anything to do with it Pyro, itīs just a matter of the F111 getting retired, not just because they are getting a little long in the tooth but because Australia is shifting towards an Integrated Defence system and the Super Hornet is cheaper (easier?) to equip than the F111.
I am really sad to see the pigs getting phased out, they are a beautiful and VERY capable aircraft.
Used to love looking out the window of hangar 410 and watch them do what they do best
I am really sad to see the pigs getting phased out, they are a beautiful and VERY capable aircraft.
Used to love looking out the window of hangar 410 and watch them do what they do best
OK, so we are getting Super Hornets.
What's the betting we will bastardise them with an "Australianisation Program" so they are totally incompatible with any US ground-handling equipment, avionics test-rigs and other associated items of hardware infrastructure, as we seem to do with every defence acquisition. (Swapping the warshot torpedo on the Collins-class subs being a very cogent example).
Let's see, now...remove the tailhook because out Air Force don't land on carriers and we have long runways so they'll not need ground-based arrestor-systems (save money by getting rid of them too); put all-Australian avionics in...say a couple of Microair VHFs, a Microair transponder and a non-TSOd encoder. Instead of the expensive Honeywell or Litton glass displays, just fit Dynon EFIS and EMS units and re-write the software right here in Australia...got to create jobs, you know. That little project ought to keep a defence contractor going for just about the entire service life of the asset, if the beauracracy organises it properly. Need HF? Well, the good old Flying Doctor radio sets work well enough in the outback, adapt one of them. Another fine piece of Australian equipment, rugged and reliable. Got to "Australianise" those Super Hornets, haven't we?
Additionally, since the pilot is now the cheapest part of the aircraft, automate the systems to eject him as soon as he makes a mistake, allowing the aircraft to recover from the dangerous situation on its own. Remove the parachute and barostats from the ejector-seat, it costs too much money for SAR and there is always a danger you might actually find who you are looking for...and then there tend to be awkward questions asked. Far easier to have a huge search and find nothing, it keeps the paperwork all neat and tidy. Eject the pilot and lose him quick to save bureacrats and senior defence personnell any further embarrasment. You can always blame "pilot error" as long as the pilot is dead or missing presumed killed.
I have the distinct feeling the Defence Procurement Organisation (an organisation well-overdue for a complete gutting, IMHO) will so mis-manage the Super Hornet project we will end up spending billions for second-rate units with almost no capabilities other than impressing the public at air displays.
Why? Simple. All government departments are now role-playing organisations hell-bent on survival and propagation of their own bureaucracies. They long ago ceased being what they are supposed to be, task-achievers, because we are not really in a "hot war" of any kind. Government departments make decision on defence acquisitions, government employees administer those acquisitons and they are accountable to no-one except their own internal auditing sections and the occasional Senate Estimates hearing, at which competent mid-level bureaucrats can baffle even the most inquisitive investigator.
Roll on the Super Hornets and yet another acquisition disaster - the taxpayers will fund it anyway, irrespective of the costs.
Farewell to the Pigs, they served us well...in spite of the farcical acquisiton program that saw us leasing Phantoms until our Pigs were well and truly tested and airworthy. (Does anyone remember that?)
What's the betting we will bastardise them with an "Australianisation Program" so they are totally incompatible with any US ground-handling equipment, avionics test-rigs and other associated items of hardware infrastructure, as we seem to do with every defence acquisition. (Swapping the warshot torpedo on the Collins-class subs being a very cogent example).
Let's see, now...remove the tailhook because out Air Force don't land on carriers and we have long runways so they'll not need ground-based arrestor-systems (save money by getting rid of them too); put all-Australian avionics in...say a couple of Microair VHFs, a Microair transponder and a non-TSOd encoder. Instead of the expensive Honeywell or Litton glass displays, just fit Dynon EFIS and EMS units and re-write the software right here in Australia...got to create jobs, you know. That little project ought to keep a defence contractor going for just about the entire service life of the asset, if the beauracracy organises it properly. Need HF? Well, the good old Flying Doctor radio sets work well enough in the outback, adapt one of them. Another fine piece of Australian equipment, rugged and reliable. Got to "Australianise" those Super Hornets, haven't we?
Additionally, since the pilot is now the cheapest part of the aircraft, automate the systems to eject him as soon as he makes a mistake, allowing the aircraft to recover from the dangerous situation on its own. Remove the parachute and barostats from the ejector-seat, it costs too much money for SAR and there is always a danger you might actually find who you are looking for...and then there tend to be awkward questions asked. Far easier to have a huge search and find nothing, it keeps the paperwork all neat and tidy. Eject the pilot and lose him quick to save bureacrats and senior defence personnell any further embarrasment. You can always blame "pilot error" as long as the pilot is dead or missing presumed killed.
I have the distinct feeling the Defence Procurement Organisation (an organisation well-overdue for a complete gutting, IMHO) will so mis-manage the Super Hornet project we will end up spending billions for second-rate units with almost no capabilities other than impressing the public at air displays.
Why? Simple. All government departments are now role-playing organisations hell-bent on survival and propagation of their own bureaucracies. They long ago ceased being what they are supposed to be, task-achievers, because we are not really in a "hot war" of any kind. Government departments make decision on defence acquisitions, government employees administer those acquisitons and they are accountable to no-one except their own internal auditing sections and the occasional Senate Estimates hearing, at which competent mid-level bureaucrats can baffle even the most inquisitive investigator.
Roll on the Super Hornets and yet another acquisition disaster - the taxpayers will fund it anyway, irrespective of the costs.
Farewell to the Pigs, they served us well...in spite of the farcical acquisiton program that saw us leasing Phantoms until our Pigs were well and truly tested and airworthy. (Does anyone remember that?)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: ...
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(Does anyone remember that?)
Nice rant, though....
PS They didn't remove the hook from the classic or the pig, why remove it from the super-Hornet....??
Last edited by ScottyDoo; 10th Oct 2007 at 13:23.
If they didnt even remove the arrestor hook from the F111 why do you think they would remove it from the super hornet?
Our guys and girls do go play with the American`s and their equipment, including carriers!
If your going to go off on a rant, try and make it an informed one, otherwise your just going to look like a tool...
!
Our guys and girls do go play with the American`s and their equipment, including carriers!
If your going to go off on a rant, try and make it an informed one, otherwise your just going to look like a tool...
!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Townsville
Age: 50
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I remember watching an arrestor landing at Amberley when I was at 6SQN a few years ago - funny the arrestor system was working fine on the aircraft I have worked on.....
As for aquisition of recent aircraft - the only aircraft that remotely comes close to the dribble/rant by criticalmass would be the Seasprite and even then its a software issue and not much else.
Currently I am involved with the Tiger and MRH projects and havent seen any deviation from the OEM build....again get your facts straight before posting off on a wild tangent...oh and the organisation you are referring to would be DMO.....
As for aquisition of recent aircraft - the only aircraft that remotely comes close to the dribble/rant by criticalmass would be the Seasprite and even then its a software issue and not much else.
Currently I am involved with the Tiger and MRH projects and havent seen any deviation from the OEM build....again get your facts straight before posting off on a wild tangent...oh and the organisation you are referring to would be DMO.....
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you know that with the C-17 purchase the only thing different between the USAF and RAAF aircraft is the paint?
As for the F-111Gs, they were parked as they came up for heavy maintenance - no big conspiracy there, sorry Carlo.
There are 21 C models remaining on fleet, of which we can put about half in the carports on any one day. Yeah, they're reliable, but we haven't got the manpower to fly them as much as we'd like, and they tend to go u/s after a few days of sitting still...
All conversion work will be done on C models at 6SQN now. The C models are pooled by 82WG and are now allocated to 1 or 6 as required, rather than being 'owned' by the units.
Farewell to the Pigs, they served us well...in spite of the farcical acquisiton program that saw us leasing Phantoms until our Pigs were well and truly tested and airworthy. (Does anyone remember that?)
48 F4E Phantoms
12 KC135 tankers.
One Mirage squadron disbanded.
24 F111's ended up being considerable bang for buck.
100% USN will be excellent...if it happens.
I have lost all confidence in those charged with defence acquisition projects, especially after the Collins and the Seasprite.
I will be delighted to be proved wrong in the case of the Super Hornet...if we ever get them.
(Would those wishing to throw fruit please ensure it is actually edible! I may have to have it with humble pie or my hat, whichever comes first!)
I have lost all confidence in those charged with defence acquisition projects, especially after the Collins and the Seasprite.
I will be delighted to be proved wrong in the case of the Super Hornet...if we ever get them.
(Would those wishing to throw fruit please ensure it is actually edible! I may have to have it with humble pie or my hat, whichever comes first!)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canberra Australia
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We must soon ensure that there are plans to have at least three F-111Cs make their last flights to Point Cook, Temora and Albion Park.
These flights to their last resting places will save the trauma of reinserting those super cooled/shrunken 11 inch pins when reattaching the wings. And there may be some fine print in the contract with FMS/USDOD to renegotiate regarding final dispositions.
The F-111Cs were a bargain at close to US$6.5M flyaway. The original cost of US$5.95M went up by Oz selected ECPs - Engineering Change Proposals.
These flights to their last resting places will save the trauma of reinserting those super cooled/shrunken 11 inch pins when reattaching the wings. And there may be some fine print in the contract with FMS/USDOD to renegotiate regarding final dispositions.
The F-111Cs were a bargain at close to US$6.5M flyaway. The original cost of US$5.95M went up by Oz selected ECPs - Engineering Change Proposals.
Nunc est bibendum
I have lost all confidence in those charged with defence acquisition projects, especially after the Collins and the Seasprite.
Yes a match made in heaven Keg.
The C17 flies an Abrams to a Pacific staging base where the Abrams drives up and down the taxiways looking menacing. Because it's too heavy- except for the airport to town road. And can't venture far from the airport fuel farm due it's aircraft like capacity to guzzle fuel.
The C17 flies an Abrams to a Pacific staging base where the Abrams drives up and down the taxiways looking menacing. Because it's too heavy- except for the airport to town road. And can't venture far from the airport fuel farm due it's aircraft like capacity to guzzle fuel.
I would like to make a few comments regarding past defence procurement projects, especially Collins and SeaSprite.
As far as Collins goes there was certainly many problems in the initial planning and acquisition phases.
Australia was meant to purchase a submarine design that was already in service not a brand new design.
The engineering achievements in the Collins design are in fact quite remarkable. Designing and building a new submarine is the equivalent of building a stealthy and highly sophisticated platform such as the B-2 bomber.
These submarines have now matured into one of the world's most sophisticated vessels and are more than a match for many of the latest nuclear hunter killer types.
The LAMESTREAM media as usual has failed to mention any of this to the Australian public who are under the impression to this day that we got some giant lemons and the whole project is a disaster.
As far as the problems with the Sea Sprite go, it is my understanding most of it has been software integration issues that stem from the fact that Australia has made some very large demands on what the crew of two has to do.
A similar problem occurred years ago with the acquisition of the Sea Hawks due to the fact the three-man crew, or I should say the two men manning the tactical systems could in fact actually achieve 80 per cent of the capability of an Orion with a crew of 8-10 down the back of the aircraft !!
The U.S. Navy has the anti submarine and anti-surface warfare helicopters basically gather information and transmit it back to their ships where most of the processing in order to prosecute an attack etc is done and orders relayed back to the helicopter.
Australia instead decided to have it all down on board the helicopter with the resulting staggering software development and integration issues that cause massive cost overruns and time delays.
Once again it is the same old story mentioned in posts above where Australia has unique requirements, or at least we think we do, that nobody else in the world has and as a result we end up b*stardizing the platform and the systems, whether it be an aeroplane or helicopter or whatever and we then end up paying far too much for far too few platforms.
In other words we, the taxpayer do not get real value for money.
Thankfully with the C-17s the only difference was the paint job.
Another example is that for the relatively small production runs of say aircraft or helicopters that Australia has had over the past decades we would have been far better off as far as being able to afford more platforms for a given cost if we did not insist on setting up local production lines to actually build the aircraft at massive cost all to create a few hundred local jobs that end out being lost when the line closes in a few years anyway.
The politicians and defence bureaucrats never learn from the mistakes of the past. We certainly did not need to build 33 Hawk trainers here in Australia, these were also b*stardised in many unnecessary ways in order to have them emulate more closely the FA 18s in ways that were not required from a tactical training viewpoint.
What we DO NEED in this country is the ability to fully maintain all these aircraft and upgrade their avionics systems and weapons systems as and when necessary with little or no foreign assistance.
We do not build airliners in this country, for example Boeing 737s just because the local airlines need say a 100 of them and yet we insist on doing this with virtually every helicopter and aircraft type the military acquires.
I know many defence analysts who are far more in the know than I am agree completely with the above statements. Several of them have discussed them with me.
As far as Collins goes there was certainly many problems in the initial planning and acquisition phases.
Australia was meant to purchase a submarine design that was already in service not a brand new design.
The engineering achievements in the Collins design are in fact quite remarkable. Designing and building a new submarine is the equivalent of building a stealthy and highly sophisticated platform such as the B-2 bomber.
These submarines have now matured into one of the world's most sophisticated vessels and are more than a match for many of the latest nuclear hunter killer types.
The LAMESTREAM media as usual has failed to mention any of this to the Australian public who are under the impression to this day that we got some giant lemons and the whole project is a disaster.
As far as the problems with the Sea Sprite go, it is my understanding most of it has been software integration issues that stem from the fact that Australia has made some very large demands on what the crew of two has to do.
A similar problem occurred years ago with the acquisition of the Sea Hawks due to the fact the three-man crew, or I should say the two men manning the tactical systems could in fact actually achieve 80 per cent of the capability of an Orion with a crew of 8-10 down the back of the aircraft !!
The U.S. Navy has the anti submarine and anti-surface warfare helicopters basically gather information and transmit it back to their ships where most of the processing in order to prosecute an attack etc is done and orders relayed back to the helicopter.
Australia instead decided to have it all down on board the helicopter with the resulting staggering software development and integration issues that cause massive cost overruns and time delays.
Once again it is the same old story mentioned in posts above where Australia has unique requirements, or at least we think we do, that nobody else in the world has and as a result we end up b*stardizing the platform and the systems, whether it be an aeroplane or helicopter or whatever and we then end up paying far too much for far too few platforms.
In other words we, the taxpayer do not get real value for money.
Thankfully with the C-17s the only difference was the paint job.
Another example is that for the relatively small production runs of say aircraft or helicopters that Australia has had over the past decades we would have been far better off as far as being able to afford more platforms for a given cost if we did not insist on setting up local production lines to actually build the aircraft at massive cost all to create a few hundred local jobs that end out being lost when the line closes in a few years anyway.
The politicians and defence bureaucrats never learn from the mistakes of the past. We certainly did not need to build 33 Hawk trainers here in Australia, these were also b*stardised in many unnecessary ways in order to have them emulate more closely the FA 18s in ways that were not required from a tactical training viewpoint.
What we DO NEED in this country is the ability to fully maintain all these aircraft and upgrade their avionics systems and weapons systems as and when necessary with little or no foreign assistance.
We do not build airliners in this country, for example Boeing 737s just because the local airlines need say a 100 of them and yet we insist on doing this with virtually every helicopter and aircraft type the military acquires.
I know many defence analysts who are far more in the know than I am agree completely with the above statements. Several of them have discussed them with me.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: ...
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So are you saying we can't believe everything we read in the newspaper???? Bizarre....!!
Well there you go,nads. I was going to say something similar ref. the Collins on one of which a mate of mine is is an ewo or a pwo or something squidlike but I couldn't be arsed.
Well there you go,nads. I was going to say something similar ref. the Collins on one of which a mate of mine is is an ewo or a pwo or something squidlike but I couldn't be arsed.
Aussie you are 100% correct
As for the tanks, I think Dr Nelson summed it up when he said (Quoted in The Bulletin "...it (the aquisition) would not have happened on my watch..."
As for the tanks, I think Dr Nelson summed it up when he said (Quoted in The Bulletin "...it (the aquisition) would not have happened on my watch..."
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in my opinion the difference with todays military and the past is the hardware available to the diggers. When I was in the navy, every ship and aircraft was almost certainly fitted for but not with!!! I remember when my helo was embarked on HMAS Stalwart for the first time, we had a meeting on the Ikara deck, I remember asking the CO, "where is the Ikara Sir" response "fitted for but not with son!!! He told me that next to the Seacat platform, "what about the Seacat sir???" This is getting boring subby!!! No Seacat either!! I remember when doing my nav ticket on HMAS Gawler (Freemantle class patrol boat) looking at the original weaponry design specs, looked nothing like the boat I was driving!!! I think times have changed for the better