RAAF Future Air Combat Capability Review

[antipodean alligator]

Looks like Fitzgibbon is changing his tune on the Rhino buy....

http://www.theage.com.au/news/nation...949675268.html

More Uber-control from the new PM or a real review with suitable TORs? I guess only time will tell.......

[control snatch]

I will be facinated to see if they can come up with a better alternative, currently available, within the realms of monetary reality.

F22 cant have it
Eurolemon = self explanatory
Rafale in eurolemon category, and please lets not buy french again
F15E best option in my opinion, but havent they stopped producing them?
Grippen tehehe!!

[L J R]

Alligator,

You a wee bit nervous that they might get a single seater as an interim buy??

[Squirrel 41]

AA -

Many thanks for this, interesting for an ex-Pommie Btard to se how the discussion develops; be very interesting to see what the Rudd Government comes up with!

C_S

F-22 - Agree, not likely to be released.

F-15E+ - still in production (F-15K for South Korea, F-15SG nee F-15T for Singapore). But still a 4th generation design. And what exactly is the RAAF requirement - as a Pig replacement, good, but what's the overall requirement.

Eurolemon? Eurofighter anything but lemon-esque, but the issue would be range (though not sure how Block 5 with conformal tanks would compare with F-18E/F - I suspect quite well. Eurofighter is also a fundamentally more advanced design than SuperBug).

Rafale - well, smaller and less effective than Eurofighter, so if you don't like Eurofighter.... (but the Edinburgh SA based Mirage IIIOs in white and orange were very pretty in the 80s.....)

Gripen - you may want look again at it, especially the mooted Mk 3 for Norway version that is supposedly going to be built in 2008-09. Nonetheless, possibly too short legged for the RAAF's needs.

Cheers!

S41

[Kraziman]

1st post of PPRuNe but couldn't resist to roll in on eurolemon

1. The British consistently promise capability and performance that are just ideas they got a sketch artist to draw (vice what they actually have achieved and are achieving). They have nice glossy brochures.
2. Eurofighter 2000, hangon make that 2008. Does it have full air to surface yet? I think the F/A-18 had that in 1980.
3. It's got a mechanically scanned RADAR!!! Wonder if they've got 6 x .50cals in the wings (WWII style). Oh hang on, it doesn't have a gun

Bring on "the most potent air defence fighter the world has ever seen"

[Backwards PLT]

1. The British consistently promise capability and performance that are just ideas they got a sketch artist to draw (vice what they actually have achieved and are achieving). They have nice glossy brochures.
2. Eurofighter 2000, hangon make that 2008. Does it have full air to surface yet? I think the F/A-18 had that in 1980.
3. It's got a mechanically scanned RADAR!!! Wonder if they've got 6 x .50cals in the wings (WWII style). Oh hang on, it doesn't have a gun

Bring on "the most potent air defence fighter the world has ever seen"

I dont fly Typhoon but do get a little bored with ill informed comment. All modern fighters have had issues early in life. F15 was a crock of s**t until the US spent billions on it. The main problem with Typhoon is that it is a multi-nation European aircraft that will never see the level of spending that F22/F35 do.

To address the specific points:

1. By "the British" I assume you mean BAe systems? In which case you are correct - but so does every other company. Have you seen Russian sales literature? Or French? Or American for F35? Their job is to sell stuff.

2. I don't know what the F18 A/G capability was in 1980, but I am sure Typhoon TODAY (well not today, they wont be flying!) exceeds it in most areas, but probably not the range of A/G munitions yet.

3. Agree on the radar. However it derisked everything and an ESA Typhoon would almost certainly not be performing as well as the current Typhoon today. We just don't have the experience and knowledge in Europe (don't believe everything the French tell you!)
Typhoon does have a gun. Keep up.

I hope the final quote isn't from a brochure! Todays Typhoon is far more capable A/A than older types such as F18, but I don't think anyone has ever claimed that it is better than a F22 - not even BAE (but they do claim it is more cost effective, I've seen the graphs in a sales brochure, it must be true!)

Reading through this, it sounds like I am a big Typhoon fan, which I am not, it has some issues and I am not convinced it was the right way for the UK to go, but at least critique it with facts, rather than jump on an ill-informed "Typhoon is crap" band-wagon.

[Backwards PLT]

Despite what I posted above (apologies to the OP) I hope that this thread does not disintegrate into a Typhoon v whatever slag fest - lets try to stay on topic!

The article raises some valid points. The previous ruling party kinda pulled the super hornet buy out of it's ass, so it is not unreasonable for the new government to want to examine it, IMO.

Long term the F35 is probably the way ahead, so the question is what could fill the gap from now until 2020? The problem is that 12 years is a very short time and if the Aussies buy new, ie super hornet, then they will realistically be running it for a long time in parallel with F35. Having such a capable type for just 10 years then selling it would appear to be madness!

But if they don't buy a modern (or updated) aircraft then it won't fulfill the spec of matching these super-duper Russian aircraft they are so worried about. Interestingly the article only seems to focus on A/A, not A/G, so maybe super hornet is the wrong way to go - defining requirement might be useful, the politicians themselves don't seem sure!

I bet the Aussies could get some F15Cs really cheap right now!

[Wiley]

I know we need a top shelf, top of the range aircraft to help insure we'll never need such an aircraft, but I really wish they'd also spend some money on a type we'll probably get to actually use in earnest - and in doing so, maybe avert the need to ever use the subject of this thread, whatever type it turns out to be.

I'm talking about a low tech, long loiter time mud mover, along the lines of an A10 or the Russian equivalent, whose designation I've forgotten, that could provide meaningful support for troops involved in 'peace keeping' operations like Afghanistan and Timor.

Heaven forbid, Australia might actually be able to build such a beast ourselves.

It's also about time the Caribou was put out to pasture.

[Gundog01]

I'm not up with the gouge about Euro Fighter, Rafale, Gripen, but i think you can safely say it wouldn't matter how they stack up with the Super Hornet. The deal was struck because of the delivery schedule that boeing has guaranteed the RAAF. IMO

The problem started 10 years ago when the RAAF/Government continued to stretch the legs of the Pig believing that F-35 would magically be on time.
Some forward (and logical) thinking would have revealed that, like all fighter projects, the F-35 would be late. If the RAAF/Government had been realistic a decade ago, then the options could have been explored and the delivery timetable could have been more flexible.

Wiley.
Don't expect the Caribou to last more than 5 years. Once the yanks have finalised there light transport purchase expect us to follow suit. C-27 is looking like a reality early next decade.

[Backwards PLT]

Wiley - interesting that you introduce another role. I think that at the moment a lot of air forces don't know how to balance the 3 traditional roles of A/A, traditional A/G strike and CAS. If I understand the politicians, they are looking for an aircraft to essentially protect Australia from her neighbours. This would seem to say A/A first, then strike then CAS. The army won't be happy! Given the size of the region, F15E seems to be the logical choice to me. The only really bad point is stealth and if you really need that you are screwed until F35 arrives!

Obviously, at the moment there is only a need for CAS in real world ops (noone counts QRA for some reason), but governments can't just buy aircraft with a life of 20+ years based on todays limited wars (just is an important word there). And before people start getting upset, I am only talking about traditional FJ roles, I am disregarding the helo and heavy side of things as well as all the other ISTAR stuff etc.

In my opinion what most air forces need is a dual role A/A and A/G strike platform (F15E etc) plus a dedicated CAS platform (A10). The current (pre-Typhoon) UK model of dedicated A/A, dedicated strike (bit of CAS) and dedicated CAS (bit of strike) is inefficient madness! Interestingly the bigger European nations (France, Germany, Italy) all did a similar thing. It is only the smaller countries (Belgium, NL, Denmark etc) who went dual role with the F16. I am sure someone once told me that flexibility was the key to airpower. At least the Brits and French have the excuse of supporting national industry.

Of course politicians have an inability to look beyond the next election, which doesn't help.

Happy New Year to everyone (except politicians), btw.

[Archimedes]

2. Eurofighter 2000, hangon make that 2008. Does it have full air to surface yet? I think the F/A-18 had that in 1980.

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. 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). Hornet didn't have a decent night AG capability until the C-model entered service in 1987.

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.

But don't let little things like the facts or logic get in the way of a good Typhoon bashing, eh?

[LowObservable]

The SH was selected because it provides an insurance policy against JSF delays or overruns (and the consequent hailstorm of "we told you so" from all sides.
If JSF works, SH can be kept as a complementary capability (two seats with baig-screen back cockpit, added weapon choices) or sold back to the USN, which will always take a standard aircraft with no carrier landings. Also, although it is different in many ways from the classic Hornet, it is similar in ways that facilitate conversion. In those respects buying SH was very different from buying EF.
On the other hand, reviewing JSF would be timely.

[herkman]

At the end of the day, the RAAF will do the best that it can, with what is available.

I suspect that the delays with the JSF will continue, but eventually it will come good. The problem is that we are going to run out of airframes, before this will happen.

Whilst the F22 could be a good choice, we also have to face the fact that they may never be released. But the fat lady has not sung yet.

After the Mirage restrictions on use, I doubt if the RAAF would want to visit that area of supply, as it affectively ties one hand behind our back.

The SU family, good aircraft that it maybe, has a unproven track record both in active duty, and also with after delivery support. Could you also understand the cry that would go up from all areas if the purchase was made.

The Super Hornet to some, appeared to be the best solution, and would have allowed the retirement of some of the earlier airframes. The rumour down here prior to the election was the order was to be increased to a quantity of 48.

Whilst the fighter selection is one issue, we are facing bigger problems with our air uplift capacity.

The KC30 at first will not be much help in that area, because at least the first three do not have freight doors or floors.

The C130H is about the standard of the RAF K models, and will have to go, and we will loosing some of that capacity, as airframes are parked.

The Caribou, great airframe that it is, strugles with the engine ages, and now cannot move because of width, much of the army vehicles. Its replacement is some years away, and whilst the C27 is a favourite, no contracts have been let.

The C17 great aircraft that it is, we have not learnt from the RAF experience and do not appear have bought enough. The government fully believing that as one C17 equals three C130J's, as three into 12 goes four. Not however thinking of all the other associated factors that should have been considered.

Timor and other deployments quickly showed that we do not have enough deployment assets, and many feel there should be more C17's. If we do not order soon then the chance will be gone.

In conclusion the RAAF faces many challenges in regard to airframe purchases at this time, let us hope that Kevin Rudd learns to have confidence in his defense chiefs.

Regards

Col

[Razor61]

F22 cant have it
Eurolemon = self explanatory
Rafale in eurolemon category, and please lets not buy french again
F15E best option in my opinion, but havent they stopped producing them?
Grippen tehehe!!

Develop and construct an indigenous type then and you won't have to moan and groan about other aircraft you know nothing about you to$$er!!

[Kraziman]

We have; the Boomerang. All our pilots said it was ****. We acknowledged that and moved on. Something you need to do. Try and separate passion and patriotism from cold hard facts.

[Razor61]

Going from your first post Kraziman, your "cold Hard Facts" that you have cunjured up are a load of tosh.
Maybe read a few more backdated Air Internationals to get up to speed on what the Typhoon does or doesn't have.

2. Eurofighter 2000, hangon make that 2008. Does it have full air to surface yet? I think the F/A-18 had that in 1980

.

Well that quote really says it all then... an old F/A-18 getting A/G back in 1980.

[Squirrel 41]

Thanks to all for an interesting discussion. But the stated position seems to be to provide insurance against delays in the F-35 programme to allow for the retirement of the F-111; if so, fair enough, the viable "buy it today" options would appear be dedicated strike platforms - an advanced F-15E or an Su-30MK variant. (Unless RAAF fancied a couple of squadrons of GR4s, one careful owner!)

However, this strike emphasis is somewhat confusing to me in that it seems to assume that the F-35 will be a full swing role platform which is just as good at A-A as CAS with a strike option, and (from my limited perspective) this simply isn't true. Indeed, good though the F-35 will be (buckets of American dollars should ensure that it works at some point), the only people who seem intent on operating it in A-A/CAS/Strike role are those who will not have a an A-A specific platform - e.g. a similar position to the European F-16 operators from the 1980s onwards.

Therefore, my question to the RAAF focusses on whether the need a strike platform that can do A-A (e.g. F-15E+) or whether the smarter route would be to re-role the F-18 force as a predominately strike focussed force with the A-A role taken on by a new platform that would continue in that role after the F-35 is introduced in 2020 or so?

Not getting into a solution for what that A-A platform should be, just a genuine question.

S41

[Like-minded]

Why would anyone choose EF at this point in time? Could EF go much better than an attritional slugfest with Russian SU-30BMs over the Pacific (about to be sold to the Red Horde?) The Hornets would at least have the benefit of being a combat proven system, especially A to G, that the Ozzies would be familiar with. Furthermore, it is unsure that the EF would be much more effective than the SuperHornets to waarant its Super Price Tags (in comparison especially.

Face it, if you want an aircraft to look different and cool, choose an European aircraft, like a Prada bag. But if you want something forged in the heat of war, you choose Amrikan.

Stop trying to foist off the EF on all air forces of the world. It is already obsolescent according to NATO doctrine - leading edge technology and leverage multiplying systems that compensate for fewer numbers.

[Like-minded]

>>However, this strike emphasis is somewhat confusing to me in that it seems to assume that the F-35 will be a full swing role platform which is just as good at A-A as CAS with a strike option, and (from my limited perspective) this simply isn't true. Indeed, good though the F-35 will be (buckets of American dollars should ensure that it works at some point), the only people who seem intent on operating it in A-A/CAS/Strike role are those who will not have a an A-A specific platform - e.g. a similar position to the European F-16 operators from the 1980s onwards.<<


Yeah, and we all know that European aircraft are proven more successful in battle. Everyone knows that the Tornado is a better fighter than F-15 and the Mirage has scored more kills than the F-16!

Wait a minute...

Doubting American aviation is a laugh, especially in the realm of stealth aircraft.

Have you not seen F-117, B-2, Bird of Prey, F-22 and the numerous multigenerational designs in successful stealth, not to mention the vast experience in fighter multirole aircraft?

The only experience the British have with stealth are their stealth taxes/

[WannaBeBiggles]

It is interesting how many "Monday morning quarterbacks" we have here.

Most people do make some very valid points, but maybe most are missing the big picture in the replacement of the F111.

I have to say from the get go, I worked with the F111 and various other projects for a large defense contractor in Australia and have to say I love the Pig, it's fast, has an awesome range and packs a real punch, but unfortunately she's a bit long in the tooth and getting very expensive to maintain.

If you were to replace just the pig then the European and Russian options would be quite feasible, HOWEVER this is not the only criteria.

With the increased use of UAV's, the bringing online of Wedgetail, the eventual replacement of the PC3's with another MMA type, Australia is looking more at a Network Centric capable aircraft, and more so, one that will be easier to integrate in to, with existing (and upcoming) technologies.

Now the Super Hornet might have it's fault, but we have skills in maintaining and running the F18, as well as have already done many exercises with them. Our Hawk trainers are currently set up to mimic the F18 cockpit, so re-equipping would be cheaper for the training fleet. Any other type would make the money invested in the Hawks (changing of cockpits) a waste.

As far as capability matching goes, what makes the pig so important to our current arsenal is that fact that it is the only type which is capable of carrying the AGM142, our only true standoff weapon, as well as the Harpoon, which is the most effective anti shipping set up to date.
Yes I know the PC3 can carry a harpoon, but isn't capable of delivering it with the same force as the F111, and yes our current F18's have been evaluated to carry an AGM 154, but aren't equipped to do so.

One must also remember some of the criteria for the replacement aircraft are secret, whether they be requirements for matching current capabilities (i.e. capabilities the aircraft has that are classified) and upcoming projects in Australia's defense strategy.