Air 6000 for ADF

[knightrider4]

Geez in an ideal world it would be great to be able to purchase say 50 odd F-22's and around say the same number of F-22B strikers if they get developed, however seeing as Uncle Sam only wants to sell us block 2 model JSF's I cant see that happening.

 

[nz enthusiast]

Very interesting discussion,
I think Australia chould go the JSF and UCAV way, if they go for the P-8 they could use that as cruise missile platform. I like the idea of using F-35Bs but there must be a limit to the Australian defence budget.
I think Australia needs to get a proper air domince fighter if anything. I'm concerned about the possible lack of ability of the F-35 in an air domince role. Australia should try and get one or two squadrons worth of F-22s. Problem is the US would not want to sell them (because if they sold them to Australia, they would feel presured to sell to everyone else).
I also don't get this Australia obsession with 'strike' god damn it its even starting to get annoying. Why don't they care about air domince more? there defence reviews say it very clearly, air domince is very important in the strategic enviroment Australia finds itself in today.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Very interesting discussion,
I think Australia chould go the JSF and UCAV way, if they go for the P-8 they could use that as cruise missile platform. I like the idea of using F-35Bs but there must be a limit to the Australian defence budget.
I think Australia needs to get a proper air domince fighter if anything. I'm concerned about the possible lack of ability of the F-35 in an air domince role. Australia should try and get one or two squadrons worth of F-22s. Problem is the US would not want to sell them (because if they sold them to Australia, they would feel presured to sell to everyone else).
I also don't get this Australia obsession with 'strike' god damn it its even starting to get annoying. Why don't they care about air domince more? there defence reviews say it very clearly, air domince is very important in the strategic enviroment Australia finds itself in today.

Because Australia will never be able to acquire sufficient fighter aircraft to protect it's territory. We've got about the same landmass as contintental USA to protect with a GDP that's only half as much again as the USA defence budget...

A strong strike capability is used as a deterrent. Deterring war is infinitely preferable to winning war. A big stick (the F-111) in my opinion has saved us (AND probably NZ) many, many battles over the past 30 years. A JSF purchase is arguably NOT going to provide such a capability. An F-22 purchase on the other hand, would provide both strike capabilities equal or greater to that we possess now and the Air Dominance you consider so important...

The US has already indicated (when AIR 6000 was actually in full swing) that they would sell the F-22 to us should we decide to acquire it. The problem is OUR politicians have invested too much politically on BOTH sides of the house in the JSF. One can only hope that the JSF turns out to be the Sergeant York program of the new Millenium...

It also looks increasingly unlikely that Australia will acquire the P-8 MMA in the near future. A far cheaper option will be to further upgrade the AP-3C Orions and "re-life" them much as NZ has done. This is due to doubts that the P-8 will meet Australian requirements and because funding for it will be required "right smack in the middle" of the $15 billion AIR 6000 and the $6 Billion SEA 4000 (Air warfare destroyers) project and a heap of other major projects...

They may still be used as missile firing platforms though with JASSM and SLAM-ER due to be integrated onto the AP-3C's prior to 2010.

 

[Viggen]

Because Australia will never be able to acquire sufficient fighter aircraft to protect it's territory. We've got about the same landmass as contintental USA to protect with a GDP that's only half as much again as the USA defence budget...

We have already the capacity to defend CONOZ with our air combat element. There isn't a force comparable that can deny our DCA via incursions into Oz airspace.

Does anyone seriously believe a dozen geriatric Indonesian non-BVR F-16's constitutes a threat?

The US has already indicated (when AIR 6000 was actually in full swing) that they would sell the F-22 to us should we decide to acquire it.

I posed a similar question to a senior USAF source on another web forum and it was rejected. Seems at no stage had the Pentagon considered asking US Congress for foreign military sales rights to Oz wrt F-22 Raptor. It's a non-starter unless you are a acolyte of Carlo Kopp and his ilk.

It also looks increasingly unlikely that Australia will acquire the P-8 MMA in the near future.

Exactly, as BAMS/HALE will take over the mundane surveillance roles, a B737 P-8A derivative is overkill.

While we are moving to theProduction, Sustainment and Follow-on development phase of JSF with an acquisition decision for 2008, DefMin Hill has said Nope to any near term investment in System Design and Development of the Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft.

The skinny is that Defence is still unsure as to if the USN requirement actually fits the ADF requirements.

Latest news I have suggests the ADF is baulking at the funding costs of $3.5-4.5 billion for new B737 based P-8A's and instead is looking at refurb/re-winging Orions for $1 billion.

I'm not sure we need a B737 to do maritime surveillance.

The Great Southern Ocean ops require the Orion to feather props. Imagine conserving fuel by shutting down one of only two engines of a B737!

It ain't gonna happen!!

I think some people in the general media don't realise that the UAV will take over MOST of the current roles and that the basic - throw out a flare or liferaft will be the only real non-military role of the future Orion fleet.

Sonobuoys, anti-sub torpedoes and harpoon firing is the remaining mil role.

Several platforms will fire harpoon and there will probably be better sub hunting alternatives in 20 years time anyway.

It sounds great, but in reality and with budget constraints I think saving $3 billion+ on the P-8A is better than buying maybe only a small handful of 3-4 planes anyway.

It's not like we can afford to replace 19 Orions with 19 B737's!!

I personaly think we should stick with refurbed Orions. The UAV will take some operating pain/accrued hours from the individual Orion airframes, hence they will last longer.

If you look at current market prices for a green civvy B737-800 you are looking at $US61-69M per aircraft. Not to mention fitting it out with Milspec interior/equipments.

They may still be used as missile firing platforms though with JASSM and SLAM-ER due to be integrated onto the AP-3C's prior to 2010.

I seriously doubt SLAM-ER will get up as it isn't planned for service on USN JSF.

Can somebody say ORPHAN?

Check following article:

JANE'S DEFENCE WEEKLY - JULY 06, 2005


Australia almost sure to buy JASSM

Ian Bostock JDW Correspondent
Sydney

Australia is almost certain to select the Lockheed Martin AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-Off Munition (JASSM) for its next long-range stand-off weapon (SOW) as the need to take the weapon onto the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) and cost come into play.

Under Project Air 5418, the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) will equip its F/A-18 Hornet strike fighters and AP-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft with Follow-On SOWs (FOSOWs) between 2007 and 2009 to engage targets on land and in maritime environments. Air 5418 has been allocated a budget of A$350 million and $450 million (US$270 million and US$348 million).

The project, delayed for several years due mainly to funding constraints, was originally intended to equip the first RAAF aircraft with FOSOW by late 2005.

Two companies responded to the Air 5418 request for tender released in
2004: Lockheed Martin with the JASSM and Boeing offering the AGM-84H
Stand-off Land Attack Missile-Expanded Response (SLAM-ER). Despite being an early contender for the Australian FOSOW, the Taurus KEPD 350 was not offered.

In April, the US Defense Security Co-operation Agency (DSCA) notified
Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale of JASSM and SLAM-ER to
Australia. The notification stated that Australia had requested a possible sale of up to 260 FOSOWs. The JASSM and SLAM-ER purchases are estimated to cost up to US$163 million and US$430 million respectively if all options are exercised.

Either purchase would include a full in-service support package comprising war stock, telemetry and captive air training missiles, support equipment, integration and certification support, containers, spares, repair items, test equipment and technical and training manuals.

According to the DSCA, there are no known offset agreements proposed with the forthcoming sale.

Given the significant disparities in cost between the two missiles and the allocated budget for Air 5418, the National Security Committee of Cabinet is likely to look favourably on the cheaper option. Also counting against SLAM-ER is that it has not been nominated by the US for integration into the JSF, which is set to replace the RAAF's F/|A-18s from about 2015.

Australia is increasingly averse to assuming the technical and financial responsibilities associated with integrating weapon systems into new and existing platforms.

Defence Minister Robert Hill made it clear earlier in 2005 that his
preference is for an FOSOW capable of transitioning seamlessly between the F/A-18 and JSF.

In 1999, the Defence Materiel Organisation, supported by capability and performance analysis conducted by the Defence Science and Technology Organisation, identified that JASSM best met Air 5418's requirements.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Yes, but JASSM has anything BUT an assured future in-service, with the US House Defence Appropriations committee trying hard to kill it. They have only provided $2 million for further development this year instead of the $150 million required.

Congress is pushing extremely hard to can this weapon as it's considered to essentially duplicate the capabilities of an in-service weapon that's reportedly providing excellent capabilities ie: SLAM-ER.

Here's the Australian Aviation Magazine Article on this:

JASSM FACING AXE

The Lockheed Martin AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM), a leading contender for Project Air 5418 to equip the RAAF’s F/A-18 Hornets and AP-3C Orions, is reportedly facing the axe after a series of test failures in recent months.

According to a report in the online Defense Daily, the US House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee is looking to kill the JASSM program as part of several cost-cutting measures designed to arrest a projected blowout of the US’s 2006 defence budget, and has reportedly provided only US$2m (A$2.62m) of a requested US$150m (A$197m) to the program for the 2005/06 fiscal year.

The program has been marred by a series of test failures in recent months, including one where the missile’s foldout wings failed to deploy after being launched, and another where a missile failed to reach its intended target. The wing failure is reportedly related to a production problem with the missile’s complicated wing-fold mechanism.

"The Committee continues to have grave concerns regarding the viability of the JASSM," the appropriators wrote in explaining their decision.

The missile is currently in a low-rate initial production (LRIP) phase, and has been designed to equip USAF B-52H, B-2A, B-1B, F-16C and F-15E, and USN F/A-18C/E/F aircraft. The USAF hopes to acquire up to 4900 JASSMs, with the USN taking another 453.

Obtained from www.ausaviation.com (subscriber link only).

It beats me why they didn't look seriously at Storm Shadow. At least it's approved, in-service and possesses reportedly greater range than SLAM-ER...

As to an F-22 purchase, it was Angus Houston who publicly stated that the RAAF had received extensive briefings on the F-22 and "assurances" that Australia would be authorised to acquire F-22 should it decide to do so. Just like you, I don't think much of Kopp myself, Houston however is a different kettle of fish...

I completely agree about the P-8. I think it's completely unnecessary for Australia when the AP-3C's are doing a fine job. As I mentioned the upgrade/replacement program falls right in the middle of required funding for the biggest programs in Australia's history and I think the money is needed elsewhere than on a new Maritime patrol aircraft.

 

[Viggen]

Aussie Digger


Am interested to know which platforms you would like to have seen replace Bug and Pig with for Air6000.

You mentioned a preference for Storm Shadow, are you a fan of the Typhoon and would you have liked to see that downselected?

If so (or not), what numbers and roles (A2A/A2G) etc.

Curious.

Regards

Viggen

 

[Aussie Digger]

I mentioned the Storm Shadow because it is in the same class as the Tauras KEPD 350, JASSM and SLAM-ER and the Tauras weapon was included in the potential bidders list to start with for the FOSOW project. By including Tauras it shows that the ADF obviously wasn't adverse to looking at a non-US weapon system, unless it was simply "making up the numbers"...

The SS was never even considered apparently and I thought that a bit strange. I also thought it more likely to be integrated onto the JSF due to the British connection, plus it's an in-service and combat proven weapon system, something only the SLAM-ER can truly boast besides it...

I'd like the RAAF to seriously look at acquiring even a small quantity (1-2 Squadrons in total) of F-22's. They "may" be too expensive, and possibly difficult to acquire, but I think they'd be worthwhile even so. The qualitative edge of the RAAF would be ensured with this aircraft, plus the other enhancements already decided on (Wedgetail, A330, Vigilare etc). If the F-22 could be acquired even in limited quantities, then I would agree the JSF should be acquired to round out the force.

If the F-22 is unobtainable for whatever reason I think a serious evaluation of another "Twin tier" air force model should be conducted. This would include a THOROUGH evaluation of JSF, Typhoon, Rafale and evolved F-15 variants. (I have no particular preference for any of these aircraft, though I'd lean against F-15's simply because of their age).

I don't like the idea of a single aircraft type for our air force, particularly the JSF as I don't think any version of it will be a sufficiently capable air to air player for Australia's needs.

On top of this, AIR 6000 was effectively ended by a political decision (ie: to likely acquire JSF). Not a sound expert decision by the military after an exhaustive evaluation.

This is a $16 Billion dollar acquisition after all and is around 3 times more expensive than the next dearest defence project in Australia's history... It's also a decision that's been made by a Government that probably WON'T be in power when this capability is supposed to come on line (and therefore NOT answerable)...

I still think that around 100 aircraft spread through 4 Operational Squadrons and a number of OCU's are required for Australia's defence, regardless of the type. Quality is very important but mass still has a role to play, particularly in the large and open areas Australia needs to defend.

I'd be quite happy for 1 Squadron and 77 Squadrons to retain the primary strike/air to surface (as Maritime Strike is one of the most important missions for the RAAF) mission and for No. 3 and No. 75 to be the primary A2A Squadrons. Of course with the multi-role aircraft to be purchased in any event all such capabilities will overlap and every squadron will be capable of each of these roles to varying degrees.

What are your thoughts on these matters?

Cheers.

 

[Viggen]

Cheers, mate.

 

[cherry]

I often wonder what the best solution for Air6000 would be for Australia, obviously because I am not convinced that the current proposal of around 100 JSF will provide the edge we have previously been afforded. My mind about the right mix of platforms changes as often as the weather. Lately I have come to the belief that JSF does have its merits, and perhaps a smaller purchase of this platform can be made, for example, 40 X JSF conventional take-off, 20 X JSF STOVL to operate from the new amphibious ships, and then either a small purchase of 20 X FA-22 for air dominance and strike roles (this would be the most desirable platform) or 20 X of an evolved F-15 that consists of such features as super-cruise, a radar of similar performance as FA-22, more stealth features (if this is physically possible), etc. An F-15 with the same capabilities or close to the FA-22 without the all-aspect stealth would still put Australia well ahead of any other country for years to come. This could all be topped off with a handful of UCAV (maybe around 12) for the roles it is designed to provide including maritime strike. If the Navy came on board and selected a long range strike missile for either the new AWD or subs, then ADF would have all bases covered.

One thing that recently frustrated me was the meagre tax cuts the fed government gave us. It added up to over $20 billion, and now I get an extra $6 a week. I would be quite happy to give up that $6 a week and have the government spend a couple of extra billion on a new dominant airforce (as detailed above), in fact a few extra billion spread over all ADF to really bring us into the 21st century. $6 a week extra won't buy my vote, but assurances of a dominant Defence Force that provides my security certainly will.

 

[cherry]

I forgot to add that I agree with the idea of upgrading the Orions for ADF instead of heading down the MMA path, but only if the $2-$2.5 billion saved is put into Air6000. If this is done then perhaps some of our wishlists may just become affordable???????

 

[Supe]

I don't like the idea of a single aircraft type for our air force

I still think that around 100 aircraft spread through 4 Operational Squadrons and a number of OCU's are required for Australia's defence, regardless of the type. Quality is very important but mass still has a role to play, particularly in the large and open areas Australia needs to defend.

I agree with those points. There's always talk about a 'qualitative' edge but too often that means a sacrifice in numbers. The region is experiencing a bit of an arms race, with some nations reducing the 'qualitative' edge Australia has at least in 'frontline' aircraft terms. If they get serious and buy tankers and AEW&C type aircraft to go with their fighters, then any previous edge Australia had will be largely neutralised. Australia should seek regional dominance in types and numbers of aircraft it procures. The deterrent value alone would be worth the money. Then of course there's the role they could play in future expeditionary/coalition formations.

 

[cherry]

Just to make the debate a little more interesting, I found a little bit more information about the F/B-22 on a website. Very interesting. Sounds like the bomber version will be even more unaffordable than the attack version. Interesting though the new external bomb pods for the wing mounts, perhaps these could be used on the JSF?

http://www.afa.org/magazine/Jan2005/0105raptor.asp

 

[Aussie Digger]

As to a long range land attack missile, It's not up to the Navy, it's up to Treasury and to a lesser degree, DFAT. Navy has asked for a long range land attack missile capability for the AWD's. Whether it will get them remains to be seen...

 

[cherry]

Is anyone aware of the estimated unit cost of both a JSF and a F/A-22 that includes all support in the price. I was under the impression that it is a around $150M for JSF and $300M for F/A-22, is this right?

 

[chrishorne]

I'm curious, does anyone think that Australia could be looking at the carrier (c) version of the F-35 instead of the standard (a) version? With the C's increase payload and range (and price) do you think it is being considered?

 

[Aardvark Fury]

For what it's worth, I was fairly convinced by an article in August 2004's ADM magazine by Air Commodore John Harvey that the capabilities of the JSF would be enough to ensure Australia's qualitative edge in the region would be maintained.

Its capabilities include a Synthetic Aperture Radar, with Electronic Attack and Ground Moving Target Indicator modes, plus an advanced electro-optical Distributed Aperture System (DAS), as well as a significant data networking and data fusion ability.

If Australia was to acquire 100 of these (not less), plus the 'force multiplier' capabilities of the Wedgetail and MRTT I am comfortable our regional superiority can be maintained. The biggest challenge I see will be to ensure they enter service in 2012 as promised.

However, despite the Government's current plans, I would not wish to see the F-111s withdrawn before the F-35s enter service and replace both the F/A-18 and F-111. This decision, which was always silly in my opinion, is even more silly when you consider the AGM-142E will only reach IOC early in 2006. Why does the Government refuse to retain the F-111 in service until the F-35s arrive, or about 2 or so years longer than its current (ridiculous) plans?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Cause they cost an absolute fortune and the Government thinks that money would be better spent going into the rest of the acquisition program for the ADF. What do you think is going to pay for the Bomb improvement program, follow on stand off weapon and other F/A-18 upgrades? The savings from retiring the F-111 fleet...

 

[Whiskyjack]

The problems the RAAF is facing is:

1) JSF
When will the JSF be available, I believe there will be a gap between when it will be operational and when the F/A-18 will reach the end of its life. Even when it is delivered there is the possiblilty it will not have everything intergrated weapon wise, so will be less capable.

The above does not take into further account time slippage in the program and cost over runs, how many western fighter programs have not suffered that?

2) Will it be capable of countering the emerging threats. The latest Asia Pacific Defence Reporter has an article on the new Russian fighter engines that will give the SU-27 and all of its varients the ability to super cruise, the article also points out that it is next to very difficult for a non-supercruise fighter to intercept a supersonic in-coming aircraft.

Given all this, the JSF is primarily designed as a Stealthy bomb truck, not an air superiority fighter, other western nations that are buying the JSF have Typhoons and Raptors as the main air superiority aircraft.

I imagine there are some nervous people around the RAAF at the moment.

 

[pepsi]

Im still surprised that they chose it considering the f/a-18 was chosen over the f-16/mirage etc, due in big part to the fact that it was twin engined

I cant help but think the decision for the JSF was more of an economic one than anything else..

 

[knightrider4]

Theres not a lot I am in agreement with Dr Kopp but the points he makes regarding the F-35 are very valid and more to the point unescapable. Geometry is geometry and kinematics is kinematics no matter who is delivering the info. I dont have a problem with the F-35 as such just a problem with the RAAF asking it to perform an air dominance role which it was never designed to do. Lets use em what they are meant for and thats dropping ordinance on the enemy on a battlefield devoid of serious enemy air opposition and if the F-35 can zoom around with impunity then the fight is already over. However if you happen to come accross an enemy who is equipped with the advanced Russian fighters equipped with the Phazotron Zhuk radars which I believe as an amature enthusiast outranges the APG-81 AESA of the F-35 then you are in for a nasty surprise. As for its stealth just make sure you dont get attacked from the rear as the negligable stealth is only good for the front sector.