Australian Defence "Boost" - ha!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Australian Defence "Boost" - ha!
Nice to see the Aussie Defence boost basically does nothing to the airforce.
http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/H...CurrentId=3252
The Article makes mention of two projects that have been underway for years (read here - Nothing for the Air Force) , and lays plans to retire the F-111.
So the RAAF's Boost is the loss of an aircraft.
Thanks Robert
PAF
http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/H...CurrentId=3252
The Article makes mention of two projects that have been underway for years (read here - Nothing for the Air Force) , and lays plans to retire the F-111.
So the RAAF's Boost is the loss of an aircraft.
Thanks Robert
PAF
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What more do you want? What has the RAAF missed out on in the next few decades? The F-111 has to retire sometime, especially at the $500 mil per annum they're costing the government to run for only 34 aircraft, a handful of which work at any one time.
Don't get me wrong, the F-111 is the most capable strike aircraft in the region, but it can't really be justified to run them too far into the future at the price it costs us.
The things scheduled to come in for the Navy and Army are some well overdue projects. The three air warfare destroyers are procured to replace the area air defence gap left when the three DDGs left a few years ago. This is like taking the F-111 out of service and replacing it 15 years later! The introduction of the AWD will remove the need to have the limited air cover the RAAF can provide, freeing up assets.
The Army are finally getting new tanks to replace the 30 year old Leopards still in service.
I hardly think the RAAF has been hard done by in the past few years as far as procurement goes.
Don't get me wrong, the F-111 is the most capable strike aircraft in the region, but it can't really be justified to run them too far into the future at the price it costs us.
The things scheduled to come in for the Navy and Army are some well overdue projects. The three air warfare destroyers are procured to replace the area air defence gap left when the three DDGs left a few years ago. This is like taking the F-111 out of service and replacing it 15 years later! The introduction of the AWD will remove the need to have the limited air cover the RAAF can provide, freeing up assets.
The Army are finally getting new tanks to replace the 30 year old Leopards still in service.
I hardly think the RAAF has been hard done by in the past few years as far as procurement goes.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without listing everything surely you don't believe the Air Force doesn't need anything. Granted some of the Army and Navy stuff is over due.. but there are quiet a lot of Air Force areas needing attention (not just major capital expenditure).
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pass a Frozo
All of what you say is interesting. But, from the point of view of those of us who toil in the vineyard of the self employed workforce, and collect tax on behalf of the Government for no fee, I'd like to think that those to whom I remit my hard earned cash and that of my employees, will spend it wisely.
Your emotive and unsubstantiated rhetoric does little to convince me that, if ever you were to be posted to a position of influence, you would be able to make a meaningful and balanced contribution to the national defence budget – which is financed by the hewers of wood and drawers of water in the Australian workforce.
Your emotive and unsubstantiated rhetoric does little to convince me that, if ever you were to be posted to a position of influence, you would be able to make a meaningful and balanced contribution to the national defence budget – which is financed by the hewers of wood and drawers of water in the Australian workforce.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well.. no one enjoys paying tax. I'm a tax payer too thanks. Personally I don't think 1.9% of GDP is all that much to pay for defence for a continent.I don't like seeing my tax money being wasted, it's just a shame to hear other Australians saying that putting money into making defence people safe is a waste of money.
Buying nice sounding equipment is all good and well, but the good old Australian "Fitted for but not with" doesn't cut it.
An example.. try buying "military" aircraft yet not equipping them with any kind of ASE. It's pretty sad when airliners in the world are safer from SAM attacks than RAAF aircraft.
An example using public record figures:
24 Lockheed Hercules C-130H and C-130J transports
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAAF
C-130H Hercules fleet, continuing the recently completed program to install systems including the Elisra radar warning system in four C-130H aircraft.
from http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/H...CurrentId=2880
and given 71 SAMs per aircraft lost during Linebacker II operations in Vietnam (http://www.defence.gov.au/raaf/Aeros...c/Hallion.html)
then given that was 30 years ago, now adays:
"In regard to their availability, an estimated 500,000 MANPADS are currently in existence, with some of the simpler systems available for as little as $1,000 on the open market. According to Jane's Intelligence Review, 150,000 shoulder-fired missiles are currently in circulation around the world, and another 350,000 in defense stockpiles. It estimates that 27 militia groups and terrorist organizations own shoulder-fired SAMs.
"
from http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/EH16Aa02.html
but hey.. when
hear of an Aussie Herc (or other non ASE aircraft) being shot down, at least it didn't cost you a few dollars a year.
Gee.. 4 from 24 aircraft we can use in a military environment, and that's ignoring unservicabilities and scheduled maintenance.
I started the thread more with the thought of how it appears they're advertising of "Defence Budget Boost" when the RAAF was not seeing in real terms any additional money from the day before. Was it defence spending as a proportion of tax you actually wanted to address?
Citizen: I never said the Army or Navy shouldn't be getting what they were getting. Just expressing disappointment at the lack of "boost" for RAAF.
Buying nice sounding equipment is all good and well, but the good old Australian "Fitted for but not with" doesn't cut it.
An example.. try buying "military" aircraft yet not equipping them with any kind of ASE. It's pretty sad when airliners in the world are safer from SAM attacks than RAAF aircraft.
An example using public record figures:
24 Lockheed Hercules C-130H and C-130J transports
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAAF
C-130H Hercules fleet, continuing the recently completed program to install systems including the Elisra radar warning system in four C-130H aircraft.
from http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/H...CurrentId=2880
and given 71 SAMs per aircraft lost during Linebacker II operations in Vietnam (http://www.defence.gov.au/raaf/Aeros...c/Hallion.html)
then given that was 30 years ago, now adays:
"In regard to their availability, an estimated 500,000 MANPADS are currently in existence, with some of the simpler systems available for as little as $1,000 on the open market. According to Jane's Intelligence Review, 150,000 shoulder-fired missiles are currently in circulation around the world, and another 350,000 in defense stockpiles. It estimates that 27 militia groups and terrorist organizations own shoulder-fired SAMs.
"
from http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/EH16Aa02.html
but hey.. when
those of you who toil in the vineyard of the self employed workforce
Gee.. 4 from 24 aircraft we can use in a military environment, and that's ignoring unservicabilities and scheduled maintenance.
I started the thread more with the thought of how it appears they're advertising of "Defence Budget Boost" when the RAAF was not seeing in real terms any additional money from the day before. Was it defence spending as a proportion of tax you actually wanted to address?
Citizen: I never said the Army or Navy shouldn't be getting what they were getting. Just expressing disappointment at the lack of "boost" for RAAF.
Last edited by Pass-A-Frozo; 11th Nov 2003 at 00:55.
I'd run the country different !!
By the way, how long have you buggars been awaiting for a Caribou replacement?
And as for tankers, AWACS, new trainers etc I think the RAAF could certainly use some more cash. Of course the other forces need the cash too....
And as for tankers, AWACS, new trainers etc I think the RAAF could certainly use some more cash. Of course the other forces need the cash too....
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have some valid points, but I wouldn't think that the RAAF is the service most in need for a "boost".
As an aside, the self-protection kit is definitely overdue, but not just for the RAAF. Back when Timor began, the Sea King crews that dropped SAS on the shore at the start of the campaign were told later by intel that they'd been locked up by SAMs. They weren't particularly enthusiastic to hear that to say the least. The Sea Kings aren't even on the schedule for the future self-protection suites.
Anyway, I'm not here to say the RAAF has everything in the works that it needs; but a bit of scope is required for all three services' situations before saying the RAAF has been hard done by in budget boosts.
And 1.9% is fairly economic for tax payers to have to fork out - just think about Israel who has a defence budget of 9.6%!
As an aside, the self-protection kit is definitely overdue, but not just for the RAAF. Back when Timor began, the Sea King crews that dropped SAS on the shore at the start of the campaign were told later by intel that they'd been locked up by SAMs. They weren't particularly enthusiastic to hear that to say the least. The Sea Kings aren't even on the schedule for the future self-protection suites.
Anyway, I'm not here to say the RAAF has everything in the works that it needs; but a bit of scope is required for all three services' situations before saying the RAAF has been hard done by in budget boosts.
And 1.9% is fairly economic for tax payers to have to fork out - just think about Israel who has a defence budget of 9.6%!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P-A-F. I agree with your general sentiment in respect to long range strike capability. The F111 is a great deterrent, and simply cannot be replaced by F18 even with force multipliers such as AEW&C and AAR. It is of great concern that some regional powers are purchasing SU30’s variants. This type of acft is a significant threat, with a great payload and range (750Nm radius) we must have a viable deterrent.
However, I’ll try to put some context into your statements. Let us look at the RAAF upgrade/procurement programs:
We had the AP-3C upgrade. Was this no recently finished? The RAAF are advertising it as a capability that is unmatched in certain areas.
We purchased the C130J, what 4/5 years ago? Was this not a rushed program that did not go through the full procurement cycle?
We have recently (this year?) received the last Hawk advanced jet trainer.
Is the F18 upgrade program about to start? Or has it commenced?
The BBJs.
JSF was only announced last year wasn’t it? And as I recall the selection program was a little unusual in that we went straight into a partnership program without a thorough selection process or analysis.
When was the AEW&C program announced? Was that not also last Year?
As to the venerable ‘Boo – well it is a tactical transport. A roll that neither the Brit or US army need given the far more flexible medium/heavy rotary types in the inventory. Lets buy 6 more CH47 and be done with it. But that would be more goodies for the army so we can’t have that (sorry I couldn’t resist a tongue in cheek cheep shot!).
With respect to your equipment issues. I totally agree. The Sea Kings were not the only type flying the Timor or other places without adequate/any EW kit. For that matter I wonder how many soldiers deployed with there own stretchers/mossy domes/camel/backs etc etc?
Do you know that we don’t have self propelled artillery? Do you know that our air defence capability is (very) limited? Do you know our infantry Battalions don’t yet have Javelin? Do you know how vulnerable an M113 is – a type unchanged since Vietnam? We do know (now) about our tanks. The Tiger is an aircraft the wider army simply don’t understand – but they will.
Some food for thought.
However, I’ll try to put some context into your statements. Let us look at the RAAF upgrade/procurement programs:
We had the AP-3C upgrade. Was this no recently finished? The RAAF are advertising it as a capability that is unmatched in certain areas.
We purchased the C130J, what 4/5 years ago? Was this not a rushed program that did not go through the full procurement cycle?
We have recently (this year?) received the last Hawk advanced jet trainer.
Is the F18 upgrade program about to start? Or has it commenced?
The BBJs.
JSF was only announced last year wasn’t it? And as I recall the selection program was a little unusual in that we went straight into a partnership program without a thorough selection process or analysis.
When was the AEW&C program announced? Was that not also last Year?
As to the venerable ‘Boo – well it is a tactical transport. A roll that neither the Brit or US army need given the far more flexible medium/heavy rotary types in the inventory. Lets buy 6 more CH47 and be done with it. But that would be more goodies for the army so we can’t have that (sorry I couldn’t resist a tongue in cheek cheep shot!).
With respect to your equipment issues. I totally agree. The Sea Kings were not the only type flying the Timor or other places without adequate/any EW kit. For that matter I wonder how many soldiers deployed with there own stretchers/mossy domes/camel/backs etc etc?
Do you know that we don’t have self propelled artillery? Do you know that our air defence capability is (very) limited? Do you know our infantry Battalions don’t yet have Javelin? Do you know how vulnerable an M113 is – a type unchanged since Vietnam? We do know (now) about our tanks. The Tiger is an aircraft the wider army simply don’t understand – but they will.
Some food for thought.
I don't understand why there is no replacement of an F111 capability or similar.
If the ADF needs AEGIS warships then surely the long range F111 strike capability neccessary? If our navy will be fighting wars against large numbers of land based fighters that dictate the requirment, surely the offensive counter air capability of F111 more important!
When in the last 30 years, or the next 30 years for that matter, have we found ourselves in a situation where AEGIS is a required capability?
Sounds like an Admiral's Barge to me. And if the Collins Class subs a procurement trend, we will end up with a European hull, American software and missiles and a multi-billion dollar naval gunfire suppport capability.
The shipbuilding unions and Admirals should be well pleased with themselves.
I must add the addition of a stand off land attack weapon for the P3 logical and overdue (as mentioned in the Minister's statement). A cheap and flexible option, coupled with the P3 range and in context of the war on terror.
If the ADF needs AEGIS warships then surely the long range F111 strike capability neccessary? If our navy will be fighting wars against large numbers of land based fighters that dictate the requirment, surely the offensive counter air capability of F111 more important!
When in the last 30 years, or the next 30 years for that matter, have we found ourselves in a situation where AEGIS is a required capability?
Sounds like an Admiral's Barge to me. And if the Collins Class subs a procurement trend, we will end up with a European hull, American software and missiles and a multi-billion dollar naval gunfire suppport capability.
The shipbuilding unions and Admirals should be well pleased with themselves.
I must add the addition of a stand off land attack weapon for the P3 logical and overdue (as mentioned in the Minister's statement). A cheap and flexible option, coupled with the P3 range and in context of the war on terror.
Guest
Posts: n/a
griffinblack
Some valid points.
But none of it confers a credible, durable, in-theatre strike capability that replaces the still-needed deterrent thus far provided by the F-111.
And at long last the pig-worshippers in the RAAF have conceded that their faithful and once mighty steed is no longer viable in a modern war scenario. And no, neither JSF nor the F18 HUG, either alone or in combination, and with the benefit of the 737 wizard, will meet that requirement. Affordable options are around (no, I don't mean Raptor)and have been offered, but Canberra with its great wisdom chose not to bite the bullet - and in so doing denied its Air Force the long-term and optimum tool for its job. Regrettable civvy and uniformed politics. Even, I think, Dibb would agree.
Some valid points.
But none of it confers a credible, durable, in-theatre strike capability that replaces the still-needed deterrent thus far provided by the F-111.
And at long last the pig-worshippers in the RAAF have conceded that their faithful and once mighty steed is no longer viable in a modern war scenario. And no, neither JSF nor the F18 HUG, either alone or in combination, and with the benefit of the 737 wizard, will meet that requirement. Affordable options are around (no, I don't mean Raptor)and have been offered, but Canberra with its great wisdom chose not to bite the bullet - and in so doing denied its Air Force the long-term and optimum tool for its job. Regrettable civvy and uniformed politics. Even, I think, Dibb would agree.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the ADF needs AEGIS warships then surely the long range F111 strike capability neccessary? If our navy will be fighting wars against large numbers of land based fighters that dictate the requirment, surely the offensive counter air capability of F111 more important!
When in the last 30 years, or the next 30 years for that matter, have we found ourselves in a situation where AEGIS is a required capability?
When in the last 30 years, or the next 30 years for that matter, have we found ourselves in a situation where AEGIS is a required capability?
Saying the need for an anti-air destroyer is unwarranted is rich to say the least. When have we ever deployed the F-111s in their thirty years of service? How many times have the F/A-18s gone anywhere, apart from the recent Gulf conflict? The last time the RAAF had deployed fighters to a combat theatre was the Korean War!
Buying 51 AGM-142 Popeye stand-off missiles for the F-111 (which aren't fully integrated yet) for a dwindling seven year life span seems a bit token doesn't it?
I don't understand why there is no replacement of an F111 capability or similar.
To deprive the Navy of a dedicated anti-air platform when deploying large numbers of troops overseas would be insane.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GriffinBlack,
No doubt from the name what side of the coin your on
I wasn't attempting to say the RAAF get's no money at all. Just that I hear on the news $10 Billion Boost for the ADF. I have a look at it , and the boost is the retirement of an aircraft.
I think EW is the biggest problem at the moment. Given that they don't wish to send non-EW aircraft into theatre anywhere (understandable) , the RAAF has a transport fleet (using facts on the public record) of 4 aircraft.. so lets say 3 servicable. That's no a lot of stuff that can be moved around. The poms equiped a bunch of J models with ASE in 6 weeks from decision to crews being trained. Why we can't to the same I don't know.
Unfortunately the all great Echidna has ended up with almost no aircraft left
As for Bou replacement. The RAAF should get Chinooks. (Not the Army).. I can't see why just because it has a rotor it must be an Army asset.
In fact why the Army has helicopters at all is lost on me
No doubt from the name what side of the coin your on
I wasn't attempting to say the RAAF get's no money at all. Just that I hear on the news $10 Billion Boost for the ADF. I have a look at it , and the boost is the retirement of an aircraft.
I think EW is the biggest problem at the moment. Given that they don't wish to send non-EW aircraft into theatre anywhere (understandable) , the RAAF has a transport fleet (using facts on the public record) of 4 aircraft.. so lets say 3 servicable. That's no a lot of stuff that can be moved around. The poms equiped a bunch of J models with ASE in 6 weeks from decision to crews being trained. Why we can't to the same I don't know.
Unfortunately the all great Echidna has ended up with almost no aircraft left
As for Bou replacement. The RAAF should get Chinooks. (Not the Army).. I can't see why just because it has a rotor it must be an Army asset.
In fact why the Army has helicopters at all is lost on me
And what would you propose to replace the F-111's speed, payload and range with? Nothing out there can match all three. Why doesn't Australia just invest in its own aircraft then?!
Here are just some quick counters to the speed, range and palyload argument:
Speed - Any strike aircraft will be limited to roughly the same ingress speed to the target, limited by the weapons being carried. Any external weapons will limit the acft to subsonic speeds.
Range - A modern multi-role strike acft such as the F15E will have equivalent range because it can ingress and egress at high level, as it can fight its way in and out
Payload - whilst the books say an F111 can caryy 48 MK82's, it would never be carried in anger. A typical warload would be up to 6, maybe 8 GBU12. The F15E was carrying on average 9 GBU12's in GWII. (as well as 2 x AMRAAM and 2 x AIM9)
Another counter; lack of multi-role capability - F111 has minimal self defence capability, must have Air Supremacy (not likely in a regional scenario) or Air Escort (F18's that cant go as far) and relies on low level ingress (the USAF abandoned low level after GW1, there are just to many low level SAMS out there)
GWII biggest limitation was lack of ramp space - there will never be another acft developed that is not multi-role
There is a more than capable aircraft out there to replace the F111 AND THE F18, its the F15E and it should have been ordered 5 years ago before the F18 upgrade was commenced.
I believe the firepower end of the RAAF is going to be in a world of hurt come 2010'ish when the Pig is dead (I dont think it will make 2010, the RAAF has been trying to kill it for years, its the politicians who keep it alive), the F18 is fatigue life limited (which means ****ty training) and the JSF is still 10 years away.