RAAF Future Air Combat Capability Review
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Government (and the Opposition) was also offered some attractive and highly innovative purchase options, which would have made a 100-plus buy very affordable, at today's prices. At the time, there were more than a few senior players throughout the RAAF and DoD who were convinced that Typhoon might well have offered them a very viable multi-role solution, and in the right timescale. There was also a highly vocal element (mainly the US-centric and Pig fraternity - and how wrong the latter have been proved) that stuck their heads in the sand, and in some notable cases simply refused to listen. This latter group has done the ADF no favours, and I trust their like will be muted in the upcoming review process.
The "latter" wouldn't be the same people who tried to put ALR-2002 in the AF/A-18 would they? That worked well.
The F/A-18 wasn't fully cleared in 1980, but that's no surprise, since it didn't join the RAG until November of that year, and didn't complete the fleet acceptance process until 1981.
I guess it depends on what your definition of "full" is. It had A/G capability in 1980 with multiple weapons. Your beloved Eurofighter was marketed as a multi-role fighter when Pontius what a pilot. This lack of A/G (on time) is why many countries didn't buy it.
A couple of fairly credible sources suggest that in 1982, VX-5 recommended that the entire Hornet programme be suspended until MDD had sorted out various issues with the aircraft's range and bring-back capabilities (since this would've been terribly embarassing, they were ignored).
And your telling me because....The F/A-18 was developed from the YF-17 for carrier ops (it wasn't a carrier jet from the start). What do you expect and what does this have to do with a/g capability?
Oh, and the F/A-18 was cleared for A-G at the outset since its service entry pre-supposed replacement of the A-7 and the F-4 simultaneously. Service entry for Typhoon presupposed replacement of air-air types first, so it is nothing more than (a) logic and (b) funding that delayed the clearances for air-ground.
Other countries don't care about how the RAF plan to introduce it. You told us (possible customers) it would be multirole. It wasn't (block 5 in 07). Fact.
I'm going to stop winding up the Eurofighter fan club (which is fun and terribly easy). I will acknowledge my error on the gun and add some serious comment (I am capable of it).
I don't know why you guys separate the roles of CAS and Land Strike so much. Air to surface is as simple as find a target, ID IAW ROE and drop a bomb on it (fire a missile or gun at it). In land strike, targets are normally larger in size and in CAS (or any OAS mission) the targets are much smaller (tanks, troops, arty etc). As well as the targets sets being different, CAS also has the requirement for detailed integration with friendlies. At the end of the day if an aircraft can engage a target on the ground, it can perform any of the air to surface roles (land not maritime). Some are more efficient at CAS due to improved sensors and datalink but any modern jet we buy will have this. Most of the time (these days) it's the land forces that lack the equipment (they'd rather buy more tanks and arty).
If we get a new fighter in about the 2010 timeframe, I reckon F15E/K/S, Super Hornet or F22.
F35 was designed to own the air to surface roles (land) and hold it's own in A/A. Smaller countries can't afford to have dedicated aircraft types performing different roles (it costs too much). Many F35 operators will operate them as their sole A/A platform.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Australasia
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is some excellent literature out there, written by the man who is arguably Australia's most knowledgable air power strategist, promoting the signficant advantages of the Aardvark over 'the bug'.
I personally think that Kraziman's comments, whilst clearly tongue in cheek, are not principally flawed. The EF is outdated and obsolete - take a quick look at what is coming out of Russia these days and anybody who knows the first thing about 4th and 5th gen fighter A/A tactics can see that the EF with a mech scanned array (and the significant limitations that this has in a multi-role aircraft) is quickly becoming obsolete.
Rafael and Gripen - I'm glad nobody has touted these as serious competitors..... two words - system integration.
Flanker Family - Aren't we trying to buy/build stuff that, in the event of a contingency against our most likely adversaries, will allow us to shoot these clowns down?
F22 - I don't think anybody has ever said that the raptor isn't clearly the best option for when you 'absolutely and positively need to kill every MF in the room...' - but cost/mission requirements/availability to foreign purchasers... the guys who are paid to know, are 'briefed in' and do this work for a living thought the JSF would be a better option 'for Australia.
The only real solution is to extend the life on the F-111, put an ESA in the front of it and load it up with AMRAAMS / Meteors. I'm sure that with some radar absorbent paint and maybe some plasma in the wings, it would be a gun A/A player while still being able to fly a bazillion miles and engage multiple surface targets.
GD
I personally think that Kraziman's comments, whilst clearly tongue in cheek, are not principally flawed. The EF is outdated and obsolete - take a quick look at what is coming out of Russia these days and anybody who knows the first thing about 4th and 5th gen fighter A/A tactics can see that the EF with a mech scanned array (and the significant limitations that this has in a multi-role aircraft) is quickly becoming obsolete.
Rafael and Gripen - I'm glad nobody has touted these as serious competitors..... two words - system integration.
Flanker Family - Aren't we trying to buy/build stuff that, in the event of a contingency against our most likely adversaries, will allow us to shoot these clowns down?
F22 - I don't think anybody has ever said that the raptor isn't clearly the best option for when you 'absolutely and positively need to kill every MF in the room...' - but cost/mission requirements/availability to foreign purchasers... the guys who are paid to know, are 'briefed in' and do this work for a living thought the JSF would be a better option 'for Australia.
The only real solution is to extend the life on the F-111, put an ESA in the front of it and load it up with AMRAAMS / Meteors. I'm sure that with some radar absorbent paint and maybe some plasma in the wings, it would be a gun A/A player while still being able to fly a bazillion miles and engage multiple surface targets.
GD
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Monday Morning Quarter Back Checking in Sir.
I pays me taxes so I'll have me say (even if it is complete garbage), isn't that how these democracy thingys work?
I for one hope that the review of the Air Combat Capability includes a serious review of the purchase of F35Bs to operate of the Spanish LHDs that we are buying / building.
I pays me taxes so I'll have me say (even if it is complete garbage), isn't that how these democracy thingys work?
I for one hope that the review of the Air Combat Capability includes a serious review of the purchase of F35Bs to operate of the Spanish LHDs that we are buying / building.
I have to bite
In case those speaking of the death of the Caribou aren't aware.
3 have just returned from PNG where they were needed. They achieved a 100% sortie rate, due in no small part to a fantastic hard working flightline crew.
They have recently been deployed to The Solomons, Timor, far NQ for cyclone relief (and the RWY wouldn't have lasted for many more C130 trips if that had gone on).
Sometimes you do need the old ute in the back yard for the low tech solution.
When the Army have all the MRH 90s and extra Chinooks, then indeed it may be time for the old girl, but until then..
Anyway apparently there is no one around to staff a project office for the replacement until 201X. Don't get me started on why we need a project office when we can just tag onto the end of an American buy of C27J
Anyway back to the high tech world of Air Combat.
In case those speaking of the death of the Caribou aren't aware.
3 have just returned from PNG where they were needed. They achieved a 100% sortie rate, due in no small part to a fantastic hard working flightline crew.
They have recently been deployed to The Solomons, Timor, far NQ for cyclone relief (and the RWY wouldn't have lasted for many more C130 trips if that had gone on).
Sometimes you do need the old ute in the back yard for the low tech solution.
When the Army have all the MRH 90s and extra Chinooks, then indeed it may be time for the old girl, but until then..
Anyway apparently there is no one around to staff a project office for the replacement until 201X. Don't get me started on why we need a project office when we can just tag onto the end of an American buy of C27J
Anyway back to the high tech world of Air Combat.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sometimes you do need the old ute in the back yard for the low tech solution.
I know the Hawk could provide some semblance (but only a semblance) of what I'm suggesting, but it has some major limitations. I can't help but think we've reached the stage where the RAAF could really use something specifically designed to be able to remain on station with a decent payload for more than a few moments. (I can remember the days at Rocky where the Miracles could only provide a few minutes top cover over Shoalwater Bay and recover to Townsville so long as they didn't have to come down to low level to deal with any Orange Forces hostiles.) Maybe any such aircraft should also be able to operate from unprepared strips or even roadways as well.
I know the purse isn't particularly deep - it never has been for Defence in Australia - but I think it's time th 'bou was replaced. The long-suffering groundies were doing a Herculean job keeping them flying twenty years ago. God only knows how many rolls of speed tape they're going through every day nowadays.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
OK - I'll try again, but only for a short while.
In the four years up to 2000, the Australian DoD was provided with almost 100% of Typhoon's classified specification and the potential upgrades which would follow, including all those enhancements which are now starting to emerge. Yes there was much glossy-brochure stuff, but behind the scenes there was serious business. The Government (and the Opposition) was also offered some attractive and highly innovative purchase options, which would have made a 100-plus buy very affordable, at today's prices. At the time, there were more than a few senior players throughout the RAAF and DoD who were convinced that Typhoon might well have offered them a very viable multi-role solution, and in the right timescale. There was also a highly vocal element (mainly the US-centric and Pig fraternity - and how wrong the latter have been proved) that stuck their heads in the sand, and in some notable cases simply refused to listen. This latter group has done the ADF no favours, and I trust their like will be muted in the upcoming review process.
It would be good to see this thread develop into an interesting and well-informed debate with contributions from some articulate and up-to-date participants (not me I'm afraid, I bowed out long ago - but I'm still an RAAF fan). Kraziman and friends take note.
I say again - " It would be good to see this thread develop into an interesting and well-informed debate with contributions from some articulate and up-to-date participants " eg ozbig 'n wiley
In the four years up to 2000, the Australian DoD was provided with almost 100% of Typhoon's classified specification and the potential upgrades which would follow, including all those enhancements which are now starting to emerge. Yes there was much glossy-brochure stuff, but behind the scenes there was serious business. The Government (and the Opposition) was also offered some attractive and highly innovative purchase options, which would have made a 100-plus buy very affordable, at today's prices. At the time, there were more than a few senior players throughout the RAAF and DoD who were convinced that Typhoon might well have offered them a very viable multi-role solution, and in the right timescale. There was also a highly vocal element (mainly the US-centric and Pig fraternity - and how wrong the latter have been proved) that stuck their heads in the sand, and in some notable cases simply refused to listen. This latter group has done the ADF no favours, and I trust their like will be muted in the upcoming review process.
It would be good to see this thread develop into an interesting and well-informed debate with contributions from some articulate and up-to-date participants (not me I'm afraid, I bowed out long ago - but I'm still an RAAF fan). Kraziman and friends take note.
I say again - " It would be good to see this thread develop into an interesting and well-informed debate with contributions from some articulate and up-to-date participants " eg ozbig 'n wiley
Last edited by jindabyne; 2nd Jan 2008 at 12:29.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Jandakot, WA
Age: 24
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cant be bothered going into detail but if you take away the glossy brochures and the impressive airshow performances and look at no **** tactical capability then eurofighter is a lemon. Go deeper than what the gunrunners are saying and look at fair-dinkum in service and combat proven capability. AMRAAM/AESA capability will remain untouched for a while yet. And dont try and tell me that the eurolemon has this capability without a bunch of significant limitations.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Typhoon bashing is a little boring and now happening on several threads - could we maybe keep it to just 1 thread so maybe this one could talk about, say "RAAF Future Air Combat Capability Review"? Radical and hopelessly optimistic I know, but its close to Xmas maybe a miracle could happen? Please?
Anyway, the CAS comment are interesting - as I see it you could go 4 different routes:
1. Conventional fixed wing CAS specialist - A-10 style. Upgraded A-10s have a great capability and definitely combat proven.
2. Conventional fixed wing all rounder - F/A-18 style. Generalists dont tend to be as good as specialists, but with the right kit onboard (don't know what aussie hornets have in the CAS dept) very effective.
3. UCAV - rapidly becoming combat proven. Cheap and great time on station as well as providing lots of Int/recce etc. But atm not great payload.
4. B-52 style. Can carry huge payload and choice, great time on station but a little vulnerable for show of force (but very impressive!!) or non afghan/iraq ops where the oppostion has an A/A or SAM capability. Dale Brown was maybe on to something!
However, I got the impression the big issue was with a defend Australia type aircraft, rather than relevant to current ops type aircraft - or maybe thats the point, you want an aircraft that can do both. For the "capability gap" until JSF, as someone already said the biggest issue is who can deliver this year. 3-5 years from now is way too late.
The Russian A-10 equivalent is the Su-25 frogfoot, btw.
And for Jindabyne - I'm pretty up to date (although not specifically with Oz). Was that ok on the articulate front or should I desist?
Anyway, the CAS comment are interesting - as I see it you could go 4 different routes:
1. Conventional fixed wing CAS specialist - A-10 style. Upgraded A-10s have a great capability and definitely combat proven.
2. Conventional fixed wing all rounder - F/A-18 style. Generalists dont tend to be as good as specialists, but with the right kit onboard (don't know what aussie hornets have in the CAS dept) very effective.
3. UCAV - rapidly becoming combat proven. Cheap and great time on station as well as providing lots of Int/recce etc. But atm not great payload.
4. B-52 style. Can carry huge payload and choice, great time on station but a little vulnerable for show of force (but very impressive!!) or non afghan/iraq ops where the oppostion has an A/A or SAM capability. Dale Brown was maybe on to something!
However, I got the impression the big issue was with a defend Australia type aircraft, rather than relevant to current ops type aircraft - or maybe thats the point, you want an aircraft that can do both. For the "capability gap" until JSF, as someone already said the biggest issue is who can deliver this year. 3-5 years from now is way too late.
The Russian A-10 equivalent is the Su-25 frogfoot, btw.
And for Jindabyne - I'm pretty up to date (although not specifically with Oz). Was that ok on the articulate front or should I desist?
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your ideas on CAS are very dated and are probably based on 5-10years ago when sensors (RF & IR) were no where near what they are today. A modern fighter (F18EF, JSF, etc) can perfrom CAS (very effectively) from standoff range and altitude. So CAS is not as risky any more.
You would think that because the air supports the ground, systems on fighters would be driven by the ground forces. Not the case. It's always the fighter with the new technology and the ground forces playing catch up. The key for effective CAS is making sure the dudes on the ground have the correct equipment when the jet arrives.
How's your low tech CAS a/c going to go when you're fighting your ground war under double digit GBAD?
You would think that because the air supports the ground, systems on fighters would be driven by the ground forces. Not the case. It's always the fighter with the new technology and the ground forces playing catch up. The key for effective CAS is making sure the dudes on the ground have the correct equipment when the jet arrives.
How's your low tech CAS a/c going to go when you're fighting your ground war under double digit GBAD?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C_S: sorry mate, but you've been misinformed. According to those who operate it - both A-A and A-G mates, it's really rather good. And with Tranche 2 / Block 8 and onwards, it's going to get even better in the A-G role.
And as much as I'd love to banter Typhoon mates, but facts are sadly, still facts!
Jindabyne/PBLT:
Very interesting: but what's the RAAF's focus - is it looking for a CAS specialist? If I were an Aussie taxpayer (and I'm not), I'd look for the capability mix to include:
- Maritime strike, as anyone intended to invade Australia will need to come by sea;
- Has a precision long-range strike capability to defeat strategic target sets (sending the appropriate message);
And/Or
- Provides a A-A capability to escort the legacy platform (F-18A+) and can provide the same role for the F-35.
For me, it's this second string that makes more sense, as the F-35 / Dave is not an air superiority fighter, and the low observables will be seriously degraded when the inevitable external stores and tanks are added. On this basis, buying an A-A biased platform that will remain credible now (FLANKER, Rafale, Typhoon, maybe evolved Gripen) would ensure that it retains a role in a future mixed RAAF force.
S41
And as much as I'd love to banter Typhoon mates, but facts are sadly, still facts!
Jindabyne/PBLT:
Very interesting: but what's the RAAF's focus - is it looking for a CAS specialist? If I were an Aussie taxpayer (and I'm not), I'd look for the capability mix to include:
- Maritime strike, as anyone intended to invade Australia will need to come by sea;
- Has a precision long-range strike capability to defeat strategic target sets (sending the appropriate message);
And/Or
- Provides a A-A capability to escort the legacy platform (F-18A+) and can provide the same role for the F-35.
For me, it's this second string that makes more sense, as the F-35 / Dave is not an air superiority fighter, and the low observables will be seriously degraded when the inevitable external stores and tanks are added. On this basis, buying an A-A biased platform that will remain credible now (FLANKER, Rafale, Typhoon, maybe evolved Gripen) would ensure that it retains a role in a future mixed RAAF force.
S41
- Maritime strike, as anyone intended to invade Australia will need to come by sea;
- Has a precision long-range strike capability to defeat strategic target sets (sending the appropriate message);
- Has a precision long-range strike capability to defeat strategic target sets (sending the appropriate message);
Plus it can curise at Mach 2.5 and do over Mach 1 a few feet off the deck
Regardless I cannot think of an aircraft one could directly compare to the Pig, as there isn't really anything barring maybe a B1, so one has to just look at easy of transition, fleet commonality, easier integration with existing systems etc
Kraziman,
My point was simply that you indulged in a spot of Typhoon bashing using points that weren't providing entirely accurate parallels, a depressingly frequent event on these means. I don't see offering a contrary point of view as equating to being a member of the 'Typhoon Fanclub'.
I'd just point out the following in answer to your response, if I may:
1. You implied that the Hornet had full clearance in 1980 -i.e. , it was cleared to use the full range of A-G weapons then intended to be available to it in 1980. I merely pointed out that it didn't. The point about VX-5 and its recommendations about the possible suspension of the programme was made to point out that in 1982, a full two years after your date, the F/A-18 was still facing some challenges/issues - just like Typhoon.
2.
First, not just the RAF - the other nations played a key role in this. Second, the key word is possible - frankly, we (the European nations who'd stumped up the money for it) weren't going to spend scarce defence money integrating capabilities ahead of schedule for people who might not buy the thing anyway.
Express a desire to buy it, on condition that the kit is integrated, and you might have found a multi-role airframe in service when required - the question being whether you believed that the company could deliver what you wanted, when you wanted (the Singaporeans, for instance, concluded that they didn't believe what BAE, as Eurofighter's representatives, told them about when certain bits of kit would be integrated). And I'd have been a bit wary on that one...
My point was simply that you indulged in a spot of Typhoon bashing using points that weren't providing entirely accurate parallels, a depressingly frequent event on these means. I don't see offering a contrary point of view as equating to being a member of the 'Typhoon Fanclub'.
I'd just point out the following in answer to your response, if I may:
1. You implied that the Hornet had full clearance in 1980 -i.e. , it was cleared to use the full range of A-G weapons then intended to be available to it in 1980. I merely pointed out that it didn't. The point about VX-5 and its recommendations about the possible suspension of the programme was made to point out that in 1982, a full two years after your date, the F/A-18 was still facing some challenges/issues - just like Typhoon.
2.
Other countries don't care about how the RAF plan to introduce it. You told us (possible customers) it would be multirole. It wasn't (block 5 in 07). Fact.
Express a desire to buy it, on condition that the kit is integrated, and you might have found a multi-role airframe in service when required - the question being whether you believed that the company could deliver what you wanted, when you wanted (the Singaporeans, for instance, concluded that they didn't believe what BAE, as Eurofighter's representatives, told them about when certain bits of kit would be integrated). And I'd have been a bit wary on that one...
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Australasia
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd hate to play devil's advocate on myself - but the bug fleet will have JASSM, and can cruise at 1.8 for about as long as an aardvark can cruise at 2.5.
They can also do over Mach 1 on the deck - but it wouldn't need to be there as no true 4.5 gen (that's what the BlkII has been touted as) aircraft needs to be in the weeds to deny Surface threats.
Harpoon is an old weapon, but bugs can carry that too, my understanding is that the geeks just need to work the 1's and Zeroes to get that on board.
That's why we need to heed Dr Kopp's advice and start 'plus-ing up' the F111, am I the only one on this thread that sees this as a viable option? WBB?
The Hornet is a great CAS platform, ask any marine and i'm sure they'll vouch for it - but imagine having a LO F111, with AESA, AMRAAMs and an arsenal of smart iron sitting on station - even in a high threat environment, it would be nearly invincible.
They can also do over Mach 1 on the deck - but it wouldn't need to be there as no true 4.5 gen (that's what the BlkII has been touted as) aircraft needs to be in the weeds to deny Surface threats.
Harpoon is an old weapon, but bugs can carry that too, my understanding is that the geeks just need to work the 1's and Zeroes to get that on board.
That's why we need to heed Dr Kopp's advice and start 'plus-ing up' the F111, am I the only one on this thread that sees this as a viable option? WBB?
The Hornet is a great CAS platform, ask any marine and i'm sure they'll vouch for it - but imagine having a LO F111, with AESA, AMRAAMs and an arsenal of smart iron sitting on station - even in a high threat environment, it would be nearly invincible.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Garuda, which planet are you on.?
Even I (2000hr F-111) acknowledge that the future is not the F-111 (sobs again).
You cannot modernise (any further) something 40+ years old without selling Tasmania.
I cannot offer a perfect solution, but....(interim) replacement is not another word for modernisation/upgrade.
Even I (2000hr F-111) acknowledge that the future is not the F-111 (sobs again).
You cannot modernise (any further) something 40+ years old without selling Tasmania.
I cannot offer a perfect solution, but....(interim) replacement is not another word for modernisation/upgrade.