Air 6000 for ADF

[gf0012-aust]

The external fuel capability of the JSF is grossly inefficient, IMHO. Only 426 gals on 5,000 pound rated pylons and outers limited by 2,500 lb rating.,

I also take it from your use of the term 'wing loading issues' that you are not an aeronautical type

My use of the term "wing loading" was in the literal weight bearing sense - not in the aeronautical sense.

and yes, I'm not aeronautical, mine is basically acoustic warfare systems and submarines. But, I've never professed to be an expert in aviation anyway - I'm much more comfortable listening to those qualified within the trade.

On that note, I'm probably more inclined to listen to operators who are current or who have some direct association with the project.

But then again, going on your IP address(es), you should have worked out who I am already.

 

[Magoo]

This from the Defence Update column in June's Australian Aviation magazine which came out today...

The JSF debate has hotted up again.
The Joint Standing Committee for Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (JSCFADT) has again heard about the relative merits of the Joint Strike Fighter acquisition and the F-111 retirement, with Defence again stating its case for choosing the JSF over other options such as the F-22 Raptor.
The committee received 23 submissions in the lead up to the hearing on March 31. Many took the line that Australia should acquire the in-service F-22 Raptor instead of the unproven F-35 JSF and radically upgrade the F-111.
Presentations were made by Dr Carlo Kopp and Peter Goon from the Ausairpower thinktank; Dr Alan Stephens, visiting fellow to the ANU’s Strategic and Defence Studies Centre; Ross Babbage and David Connery from the Kokoda Foundation thinktank; and the RAAF led by Chief of Air Force Air Marshal Geoff Shepherd.
“If this nation makes the wrong choice in coming months, Australia’s strategic position in this region, and its capacity to act unilaterally in regional conflicts, will be damaged for the next 30 to 50 years,” Dr Kopp a former contributor to Australian Aviation, warned in his opening statement at the hearing.
Dr Stephens says claims by Ausairpower and others, and ongoing media reports associating “the arrival in our region of a handful of Su-27s with a significant control of the air competency”, were “disappointing and ill-informed.”
Such claims have long been the foundation of Kopp and Goon and their supporters’ arguments. They say the proliferation of Sukhois along with other weapons among the forces of regional powers such as China, India, Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia justifies the need to retain the F-111 and to acquire the F-22.
They say the JSF is just not survivable in such a regional hotbed. Dr Stephens says we should be looking beyond the raw platform versus platform debate and instead look at what capabilities future platforms will bring to their operators.
He claimed that Australia is far ahead of regional powers in the development of an integrated and networked force structure. “What has not been stressed sufficiently ... is the fact that the JSF has been designed from the ground up for network-centric operations,” Dr Stephens said. “Previously, the question was asked: ‘in what domain is the JSF superior to the F-22? It was not sufficiently emphasised, in my opinion, that it will be considerably superior in the ISR – information surveillance reconnaissance – domain.”
There’s no doubt the F-22 will be the most outstanding fighter aircraft ever built. However, opponents say the RAAF needs more than the pure air-to-air ‘fighter’ capability the F-22 offers. It needs a multirole aircraft for strike AND control of the air.
Lockheed Martin and the USAF both say the F-22 will require several block or ‘spiral’ software and hardware upgrades for it to reach its full networking and air-to-surface potential early next decade.
Further, unless the US budgetary landscape changes dramatically, these upgrades will probably never come.
The F-22 has longer range, is stealthier, faster, and more able in the air-to-air arena than the JSF, but it can’t match the JSF’s ability to become a key node in the networked battlespace.
Additionally, the JSF promises to be a true multirole fighter – equally at home supporting dug in troops with precision weapons; striking strategic fixed and maritime targets; performing offensive counter air missions; protecting high value airborne assets; or performing ISR missions.
The situational awareness the JSF and its advanced systems promise to bring to its pilots and the ADF’s commanders cannot be over-emphasised.
Nonetheless, the opposition has jumped on the F-22 bandwagon, with Labor Defence spokesman Robert McClelland claiming the Raptor is the best solution for filling Australia’s looming air power gap. “I think we should seriously be looking at an off-the-shelf product, which is the Raptor,” he said in mid March. He later told the ANU’s Strategic and Defence Studies Centre in early April that “It is simply irresponsible for the government to ignore the reality that the JSF program will confront significant delays, which will likely affect both delivery and operational date.”
However, AM Shepherd says there are currently no indications there will be any major delays to the JSF program. “We are an informed customer,” he told the committee. “We are fully engaged in the program and all the indications to date are that the program is proceeding on track and on time.”
“As Chief of Air Force ... it is my professional opinion that the government’s plan to enhance the current air combat force and to then acquire a cost effective fifth generation system is the smart and responsible way to ensure a strong air superiority capability.”
Regardless of whether the F-22 spiral upgrades go ahead, the current late-build Raptor’s flyaway cost, even if it were available for export, will be at least double that of an early JSF, in the region of about US$140m (A$185m) each before FMS and any development costs to be passed on are factored in.
But barring major blowouts or delays, early JSFs will likely cost around US$80m (A$110m). While this is far more than the US$45m (A$60m) average flyaway cost being quoted by ADF and program officials, the sums are still on the side of the JSF – and the ADF will end up with arguably a better all round aircraft.

Dr Alan Stephens is certainly a well-respected commentator and academic in this arena, as is Ross Babbage. Interesting take...

Mods - sorry I don't have a link but it's behind a subscribers-only login.

Magoo

 

[CX6]

Carrier Pigeons or JTIDS?

If this nation makes the wrong choice in coming months, Australia’s strategic position in this region, and its capacity to act unilaterally in regional conflicts, will be damaged for the next 30 to 50 years.

I agree with Kopps's assessment however, a comprehensive Effects Based Strategy (EBS) would argue that Australia is unlikely to act unilaterally in any regional conflict. East Timor was an example of AU waiting for a UN mandate before committing forces (and ET was as 'regional' as you can get!). UN Security Council Resolution 1264 ensured international legitamacy to the operation - a precursor to any future RAAF operation.

Unfortunately Carlo's estimate of 30-50 years is more of a testament to the Government's bureaucratic budgeting limitations than it is to our Strategic footprint. With the Defence Capability Plan being the weaklink in the modern, agile, knowledge edged force, the reality is that a $16B purchase of the wrong strike/fighter may very well take this long to recover from. (eg low observeability was demonstrated in 1991 and 21 years later we may have a capability in AU).

“the arrival in our region of a handful of Su-27s with a significant control of the air competency”, were “disappointing and ill-informed.”

Defence of Australia (DOA) was a budgeting exercise used by the Government in the nineties to half the size of the ADF (and save $) - not a valid military strategy. Every international conflict AU has been in is testament to this ie expeditionary and offshore (save the vital area defence VAD of Darwin in WW2). Structuring the ADF to fight TNI-AU Soos is not relevant...and never was.

Such claims have long been the foundation of Kopp and Goon and their supporters’ arguments. They say the proliferation of Sukhois along with other weapons among the forces of regional powers such as China, India, Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia justifies the need to retain the F-111 and to acquire the F-22.

I believe Kopp/Goon are half right here. Soos do warrant the F22. The F-111 however, is not a First day of War (FDOW) platform and definitely wont be in the future. Even an AMRAAM shooting F-111 with AESA, DRFM jammers etc etc will struggle in an air engagement due to its low altitude wing. Agility is the key to modern air combat ie thrust vectoring, supercruise etc etc not a swing wing bomber designed for one thing - low altitude high speed flight with a shit load of iron. Change the wing and maybe you have a capability.

“What has not been stressed sufficiently ... is the fact that the JSF has been designed from the ground up for network-centric operations,” Dr Stephens said.

In WW0 they used carrier pigeons, WW1 trench runners, WWII radios and now we have networks. The hysteria surrounding NCW is created by those who sell the boxes to those who have never used the boxes. Command, Control and Communication. The faster you do this the greater your military advantage. However, just because F-111s had radars in vietnam and the enemy did not, did not lead to overconfidence...which I suggest we are with the JSF.

The F-22 has longer range, is stealthier, faster, and more able in the air-to-air arena than the JSF, but it can’t match the JSF’s ability to become a key node in the networked battlespace.

Nodes don't kill the enemy...weapons do. And the network will not be there on all occasions. AEW&C will not push into an AO with a deep strike (as deep as the JSF can get...maybe shallow strike is more appropriate ). Links can be targetted. If you hinge your national security on a mobile signal you had better hope telstra is not your provider.

However, AM Shepherd says there are currently no indications there will be any major delays to the JSF program. “We are an informed customer,” he told the committee. “We are fully engaged in the program and all the indications to date are that the program is proceeding on track and on time.”

Has anyone told Shep there were no WMDs in Iraq?

 

[Aussie Digger]

I agree with Kopps's assessment however, a comprehensive Effects Based Strategy (EBS) would argue that Australia is unlikely to act unilaterally in any regional conflict. East Timor was an example of AU waiting for a UN mandate before committing forces (and ET was as 'regional' as you can get!). UN Security Council Resolution 1264 ensured international legitamacy to the operation - a precursor to any future RAAF operation.

Unfortunately Carlo's estimate of 30-50 years is more of a testament to the Government's bureaucratic budgeting limitations than it is to our Strategic footprint. With the Defence Capability Plan being the weaklink in the modern, agile, knowledge edged force, the reality is that a $16B purchase of the wrong strike/fighter may very well take this long to recover from. (eg low observeability was demonstrated in 1991 and 21 years later we may have a capability in AU).


Defence of Australia (DOA) was a budgeting exercise used by the Government in the nineties to half the size of the ADF (and save $) - not a valid military strategy. Every international conflict AU has been in is testament to this ie expeditionary and offshore (save the vital area defence VAD of Darwin in WW2). Structuring the ADF to fight TNI-AU Soos is not relevant...and never was.

However, just because F-111s had radars in vietnam and the enemy did not, did not lead to overconfidence...which I suggest we are with the JSF.

Nodes don't kill the enemy...weapons do. And the network will not be there on all occasions. AEW&C will not push into an AO with a deep strike (as deep as the JSF can get...maybe shallow strike is more appropriate ). Links can be targetted. If you hinge your national security on a mobile signal you had better hope telstra is not your provider.

Has anyone told Shep there were no WMDs in Iraq?

I don't agree with Kopp's and Goon's assessment for a few reasons. Primarily because they are predicated upon Australia having to "go it alone". Is the USA likely to lose it's military advantage over EVERYONE in the next 30 - 50 years? Hardly. It's at least a generation militarily beyond anyone else NOW and increasing the margin at a rapid rate.

For example, this whole discussion is centred on it's FOURTH GENERATION stealth aircraft. NO-ONE ELSE even has a FIRST GENERATION stealth aircraft.

IF China or India were to attack Australia with the hordes of "advanced fighters" that they are supposedly purchasing, they will both need a MASSIVE increase in tanking, AEW&C and other force mulitpliers plus and advance in fighter capability over what they have now, 1) to achieve overmatch against us and 2) a motivation to do so.

If China were to attack Australia the only thing they would achieve is a need to find a new Natural Gas supplier. We signed a $20 Billion dollar gas contract with them only 2 years ago. WHY would they jeopardise that with an attack that cannot conceivably GAIN them anything?

India has even closer ties with Australia than China. Our F-35A's are FAR more likely to fly ALONGSIDE IAF SU-30's than against them. Once again, EVEN if some crisis put us at such odds as to have India or China desire to attack us militarily our geography alone, gives us one of our best defences. Time is another. For the massive capability needed to be capable of conducting massive attacks on Australia from as far away as China and India, significant time will be needed to acquire such capability. Massive acquisitions of A2A refuelling and logisitical support elements will be needed and will be highly visible to intell persons and force planners.

Despite KOPP and GOON's assertions, such evidence does not appear to exist of this to me. For example, India is buying 3x Phalcon AWACS. China I believe has 1 under development (A-50 or some such).

If numbers counts for capability (as KOPP and GOON would have us believe) THEY should feel threatened by us, as we will have DOUBLE the capacity even of India within the next 2-3 years...

So getting back to strategic necessity, in some eventuality where Australian relations with America have fallen to the extent that they refuse to support us militarily when we are operating in the defence of our homeland AND relations with India and China have deteriorated to the point where they decide to attack Australia with military force, despite any conceivable reason or economic or political benefit in doing so, THEN Goon and Kopp's proposal makes sense.

IF some sort of doomsday scenario occurs where the WHOLE Asia-Pacific region is against us, (except our reliable allies NZ, Fiji and Tonga of course :rosie ) then I agree, we shall certainly require F-22's AND F-111's and a great many other capabilities, in far greater numbers than even in Kopp and Goon's wildest dreams.

The point is that idea's of this sort are so unlikely, that they make a person appear foolish.

Kopp's line to the Joint standing committee on defence, trade and foreign affairs that he sometimes "can't sleep at night" due to the threat of our declining strategic situation, illustrates this perfectly. How the committee members managed to keep a straight face when he said this is beyond me.

KOPP and his ilk want to argue facts and figures. The problem is that their facts and figures are built on a house of cards. The RAAF and RAAF alone is the only organisation that can provide accurate figures. As far as this debate is concerned, everything else is a guess. An educated one perhaps, but still a guess.

The only real figure that concerns me is cost. No-one can say accurately what a JSF will cost when in production. No-one appears able to say for sure what an F-22 costs either. I saw an article the other day stating the additional 4x F-22A aircraft approved for production for the USAF to bring it's fleet up to 183 stong cost a total of US$1Billion, or US$250m a piece. Will a full rate production F-35A cost $250m each? I doubt they'll cost half that.

I am all for a RAAF F-22A purchase, but not at the expense of platform numbers and not at the expense of a near total loss of A2G capability, which is what a current buy of F-22 would achieve, IMHO.

I would dearly love RAAF to operate F-22 but only as part of a 2 tier fleet with JSF, just as the USAF will do. Operating the F-22 as it's sole combat aircraft is simply not a viable option for RAAF in cost or capability, as far as I can see and I don't see the funding lavailable for a dual aircraft fleet.

BTW, apparently LM just ground tested it's initial LRIP F-35A with a warload of 2x 1000lbs JDAM, 2x 500lbs JDAM and 2x AMRAAM all carried in it's internal bays... (Thanks for the info Magoo. Hope I didn't breach copyright???)

Be interesting to see what other combinations those internal bays can mount. 4x AMRAAM and 2x ASRAAM for instance???

 

[tphuang]

Just received an interesting article from a friend in Wash DC. Apparantly it is making the rounds and catching a lot of people's attention.

http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.106/pub_detail.asp

Has this capability, its growth through the next two decades along with the likelihood of export or provision as foreign/military aid to other countries in the region been considered in the formulation of the Air 6000 strategic needs and resulting requirements?

Given the single type JSF solution, would seem this has not been considered.

Comments welcome.

That article overestimates the Chinese flanker force to no end. I would say that it has numerous outdated sources. Many of the stuff that he stated are just not correct based on the currently available information.

For example, this section

Other than structural changes, the principal distinction in the Su-30MKK is the weapon system. The newer N-001V series radar has extensive air to ground modes, and the digital fire control system has interfaces to support a range of guided weapons. These include the Kh-59M/AS-18 Kazoo series, analogous to the US AGM-142 Have Nap, the Kh-31P/AS-17 Krypton ramjet anti-radiation missile, the KAB-500L and KAB-1500L laser guided bombs, analogous to the US Paveway series, the KAB-500Kr and KAB-1500Kr TV guided bombs, analogous to the US GBU-8 HOBOS, and the KAB-1500TK, analogous to the US GBU-15 electro-optical weapon. The Russians are currently testing the KAB-500S-E and KAB-1500S-E with satellite aided inertial guidance, analogous to the US JDAM series. The PLA-AF fleet is expected to be equipped with the Russian Sapsan-E FLIR/laser targeting pod, analogous to the AAQ-13 LANTIRN targeting pod used initially on the F-15E.

The PLA-N Air Arm was evidently not satisfied with the domestically built JH-7 Flying Leopard strike fighter, and opted to expand its fleet by acquiring the Su-30MK2, a derivative of the Su-30MKK, with a rated maximum takeoff weight of 85,000 lb. The Su-30MK2 has an enhanced weapon system optimized for maritime strike, built around the N-001VEP radar. The radar will target the supersonic Kh-31A variant, equipped with an active radar seeker for anti-shipping strike. A radar guided derivative of the Kh-59M, the Kh-59Mk, was also developed for the PLA-N Flanker G. Chinese sources claim that 36 Su-30MK2 aircraft were ordered, with deployment as yet undisclosed.

The Russians were reported to be developing a third PLA variant of the Su-30, the Su-30MK3. This subtype was to incorporate the 'Panda' upgrade package for the N-001 radar, including a signal processor upgrade based on COTS software and a Ts-100 processor, and the new Pero phased array. The Pero, developed by NIIP and Ryazan GRPZ, is a reflective passive phased array antenna, replacing the legacy cassegrain design. It is lighter than the legacy design, but offers similar beamsteering agility to the latest Western AESAs. There have been no disclosed orders to date, and some reports suggest this program is no longer funded.

sapsan pod project simply suffered too much delays that I'm not sure what the status on it is right now. As a result of this, I'm not sure what kind of precision strike capability mkk has. So, the first paragraph is making a lot of useless comparisons.

Second paragraph, it's definitely 24 not 36 that got ordered.

Third paragraph, mkk3 arose no interest from China, neither did Pero. And Pero upgrade was not offered with mk3, but rather for J-11.

I'd expect a professional scholar to put more work into his articles than this.

 

[davidcandy]

Kopp and Goon at least lists the strategic basis of their arguement. The Government doesn't. I disagree with them and most of you for the same reason.

Enemies will attack with surprise. We will start an important war by initially losing.

For Kopp and Goon
I don't see why the North West Shelf project is so important. Blow it up and NSW, Victoria, and SA will prosper. If the role of the RAAF is to fly a CAP over the NW Shelf then we may as well save our money and give up the airforce.

For Aussie Digger
If Australia gets involved in an important war then the US is probably also involved and may be under pressure. Say Russia wanting to become a pacific power rather than a pacific joke. Say Russia and China teaching the US a lesson with Australia just collateral damage. Remember WW2. Britain was under pressure herself.

Although I see our most likely role as reinforcing our northern neighbours.

As the government doesn't publish anything it is unaccountable. Before WW2 the RAF believed in bombing. The voters of Britain believed in defense and forced the RAF to buy fighters. Then came WW2 and the RAF learnt the couldn't find targets, if they fluked finding a target (often city sized) then they couldn't hit it. The bombers also couldn't defend themselves. So it was lucky for the brits the Germans iniated the Battle of Britain as least their fighters could do the job. The brits were also knocked out of the Battle for Berlin (the air one). So their bombers couldn't even do the job at all. Though the war was near the end.

I've read one essay by some RAN (or RAAF) student that stated a strategic threat. India (or China) seizes territory in SE Asia to interdict the other's (or protect their own) SLOCs.

In this case our military policy will be to attack ONLY the fielded forces as both India and China have nukes.

While I'm glad the budget is going for SAMs (hopefully not manpads) up untill that happens the RAAF (and perhaps the Navy) will need to defend everywhere. My fear is that the SU-30s will use buddy refuelling (any trick) to get one bomb over one Australian city. I fear the government will give in to political pressure and try to fly CAPs over our cities and thus demass the airforce, use our offensive assetts defending against military insignificant attacks. As an attacker I would not fight a battle I would lose, so either attack where the enemy isn't or be certain of overmatch.

SAMs allow an economy of force reactions to political attacks allowing the Airforce to do what it is good for - offense.

We also have very low force to space ratios and very long distances. Having the entire ADF critically dependent on 6 AWACs to me means there are just 6 targets to hit.

I believe we need a force structure that degrades gracefully. We will have 33% of our army on two floating targets being defended, over long distances, by 6 AWACs a a few tankers.

I think we need to structure our defence force to be useful after attrition.

To repeat the arguement that the military is not always the best judge of military matters. WW1 had spirit was all important. The machine gun proved that wrong, or more likely one's stupidity overcomes one's spirit.

Vietnam had body counts. Showing a complete lack of understanding of war.

For me, and my comments are mostly based on range, is that the JSF would be great for the WW2 Luftwaffe. It suits their doctrine of supporting the fielded forces. I don't see how it suits Australia's circumstances. Long range is essential. The germans found short ranged planes wern't up to strategic attack.

I too support a two tier force. A strategic plane (with range - F22 will do) and a tactical plane (JSF sounds fine).

 

[Aussie Digger]

Kopp and Goon at least lists the strategic basis of their arguement. The Government doesn't. I disagree with them and most of you for the same reason.

Enemies will attack with surprise. We will start an important war by initially losing.

For Kopp and Goon
I don't see why the North West Shelf project is so important. Blow it up and NSW, Victoria, and SA will prosper. If the role of the RAAF is to fly a CAP over the NW Shelf then we may as well save our money and give up the airforce.

For Aussie Digger
If Australia gets involved in an important war then the US is probably also involved and may be under pressure. Say Russia wanting to become a pacific power rather than a pacific joke. Say Russia and China teaching the US a lesson with Australia just collateral damage. Remember WW2. Britain was under pressure herself.

Although I see our most likely role as reinforcing our northern neighbours.

As the government doesn't publish anything it is unaccountable. Before WW2 the RAF believed in bombing. The voters of Britain believed in defense and forced the RAF to buy fighters. Then came WW2 and the RAF learnt the couldn't find targets, if they fluked finding a target (often city sized) then they couldn't hit it. The bombers also couldn't defend themselves. So it was lucky for the brits the Germans iniated the Battle of Britain as least their fighters could do the job. The brits were also knocked out of the Battle for Berlin (the air one). So their bombers couldn't even do the job at all. Though the war was near the end.

I've read one essay by some RAN (or RAAF) student that stated a strategic threat. India (or China) seizes territory in SE Asia to interdict the other's (or protect their own) SLOCs.

In this case our military policy will be to attack ONLY the fielded forces as both India and China have nukes.

While I'm glad the budget is going for SAMs (hopefully not manpads) up untill that happens the RAAF (and perhaps the Navy) will need to defend everywhere. My fear is that the SU-30s will use buddy refuelling (any trick) to get one bomb over one Australian city. I fear the government will give in to political pressure and try to fly CAPs over our cities and thus demass the airforce, use our offensive assetts defending against military insignificant attacks. As an attacker I would not fight a battle I would lose, so either attack where the enemy isn't or be certain of overmatch.

SAMs allow an economy of force reactions to political attacks allowing the Airforce to do what it is good for - offense.

We also have very low force to space ratios and very long distances. Having the entire ADF critically dependent on 6 AWACs to me means there are just 6 targets to hit.

I believe we need a force structure that degrades gracefully. We will have 33% of our army on two floating targets being defended, over long distances, by 6 AWACs a a few tankers.

I think we need to structure our defence force to be useful after attrition.

To repeat the arguement that the military is not always the best judge of military matters. WW1 had spirit was all important. The machine gun proved that wrong, or more likely one's stupidity overcomes one's spirit.

Vietnam had body counts. Showing a complete lack of understanding of war.

For me, and my comments are mostly based on range, is that the JSF would be great for the WW2 Luftwaffe. It suits their doctrine of supporting the fielded forces. I don't see how it suits Australia's circumstances. Long range is essential. The germans found short ranged planes wern't up to strategic attack.

I too support a two tier force. A strategic plane (with range - F22 will do) and a tactical plane (JSF sounds fine).

First of all, I'll just address a couple of issues as I'm pressed for time. What sort of range do you think the SU-30 has? Your scenario seems to suggest that SU-30 has the range to strike anywhere in continental Australia that either China or India might want to attack. EVEN Kopp and Goon don't suggest that because it's ridiculous. It has nothing like the range needed for this.

If you want to learn about difficulties of long range strike ops using tactical fighters read up on the El Dorado raids on Libya conducted by the USAF using F-111's flying from England.

The range to Australia from China or India is longer and their supporting assets FAR less. Plus the USN was able to put up tactical A2A fighters to support the strikers. I can't really see India risking it's only new carrier to do that, do you? China doesn't have that capability anyway so it's moot for them.

Now they could base their forces closer, if certain other Countries co-operated with them and this would increase the threat to Australia. However it would also bring them that much closer to strike range by us. The JSF for reasons mentioned before, is likely to have a an equal or greater range than F-22, by virtue of (slightly) great fuel capacity and lighter airframe weight.

In addition the F-35A can carry a greater internal warload for strike operations than the F-22, because this afterall is what the JSF is primarily designed to do...

Now Australia only has 6 AWACS you say? This will be true in a few years. Do you think RAAF will abandon it's GCI capability however simply because we now have AWACS?

Do you think we will withdraw our brand new Lockhed Martin/Raytheon TPS-117 (TPS-77) air surveillance radar systems?

Do you think we will abandon JORN?

AS to the RBS-70 capability, whilst it still technically I guess is a MANPAD system, it's starting to strain the definition of the word. We now have 2x battery's of operational launchers, totally 36 (I think) launchers in total for 16 AD Regt.

These launchers are now linked to Lockheed Martin PSTAR radar systems to provide alert cueing, monitoring and a C2 system to provide a tactical air picture and target assignment.

In addition they have a new IFF system and a new missile; Bolide, which provides significant additional range over earlier generation missiles (upwards of 2k+, as well as over 1k in additional altitude).

The capability of our RBS-70's is now borderline with systems considered to be "medium" range SAM's anyway.

I too hope we acquire a "top end" medium range SAM like SLAMRAAM or CLAWS etc, but I recognise that our upgraded RBS-70's DO provide a good capability in the meantime, certainly better than that we had with the Rapier/RBS-70 combo...

I'll come back to the other arguments later.

Cheers.

 

[davidcandy]

When Nelson or Hill (or ADFJ or AAJ) announced the extra missiles they said 2 batteries of three platoons of 5 launchers. And extolled the virtues of three's, so they seem to be for deployment in platoon strength. That was rather recently.

I like the RBS-70 because it is almost a medium missile and is unjammable. But I would like a radar guided missile too so everything doesn't depend on line of sight.

I don't expect anyone to put fleets of planes over Sydney. But as an attacker I would do everything I could to get 1 bomb over a capital to force the population to demand the government keeps planes dispersed over our 8 capitals.

It was important to the US to bomb Japan asap. They put bombers on carriers that had to crash after bombing. I'm actually unaware of the Japanese response to this. When the British started bombing civilians Hitler redirected the Luftwaffe from airfields attacks to revenge attacks. Another factor in the Battle of Britain. Soccer moms are really going to put up with any bomb dropped anywhere near their kids? Local members watch out. (as an aside here a 911 transcript of a soccer mum http://www.snopes.com/crime/cops/burger.asp - you tell me if this is a good civilian to have on one's side in time of war).

 

[Brutus Caesar]

Just back onto the JSF for a second, I saw this in the Australian and thought it might be of interest:

New-age jet fighters are coming, Nelson promises
Patrick Walters, National security editor
May 11, 2006
AUSTRALIA's $13 billion joint strike fighter is on track for delivery to the RAAF from 2012, according to Defence Minister Brendan Nelson.
In an interview with The Australian, Dr Nelson strongly defended the JSF as the best possible choice to replace the frontline combat force of F-111 bombers and the F/A 18 fighters.

He said the Government expected to sign a memorandum of understanding with Washington late this year on sensitive technology transfer issues relating to the JSF, and then commit a further $180 million to the next phase of the program. "We are not going to go into it unless we get access to the technical data we need. I am very confident we will," Dr Nelson said.

A final decision to buy up to 100 strike fighters in Australia's biggest-ever military purchase would be taken in 2008.

"There are a lot of uncertainties in the JSF program, but in the key elements it's on track. All of the evidence I have got is that we may reasonably expect to see one here in 2012."

Dr Nelson said calls for the Government to reconsider its decision to buy the JSF and look at alternative combat planes such as the F-22 Raptor were misplaced. "In terms of the suite of challenges we are likely to face, the JSF is a superior aircraft and will be at least half a generation more advanced than the F-22."

He said the Government could still decide to delay the arrival of the first batch of aircraft to get a better budgetary deal, but 2012 remained the target date.

Dr Nelson agreed that the commitment to fund the defence budget at 3 per cent real growth beyond 2010 would make it difficult for future governments to cut military spending.

The decision will add more than $10 billion to defence from 2010-2015, locking in the purchase of the JSF as well as new warships worth at least $8 billion and helicopters and armoured fighting vehicles.

"It's clearly something that needs to be done. It's the baseline commitment for the foundation of the defence budget."

Dr Nelson remained "reasonably confident" about developments in Iraq, but said the next 6-12 months would prove a big challenge for the new Iraqi government and the coalition forces.

The key issue for Australia would be to negotiate the terms by which military support would be offered to the new government in Baghdad once the deployment in al-Muthanna providing security for Japanese forces ended later this year.

"With the Iraqi Government, if the defence force is going to be used to support domestic Iraqi security we need to be satisfied in terms of the chain of command and constitutional arrangements. I feel reasonably confident about Iraq in the medium to long term. I feel less confident about what is likely to happen in the next six to 12 months."

Dr Nelson said the Goverment's firm preference in negotiations with the US, British and Iraqi governments was for Australian troops to remain in al-Muthanna rather than take a new mission in other parts of Iraq.

 

[scraw]

I don't see why the North West Shelf project is so important. Blow it up and NSW, Victoria, and SA will prosper. If the role of the RAAF is to fly a CAP over the NW Shelf then we may as well save our money and give up the airforce.

It's important because it brings in (IIRC) 30 billion a year in export earnings, not to mention in times of need would be a significant source of energy for our country.

Not sure why blowing it up would make the south east prosper?

 

[davidcandy]

It's important because it brings in (IIRC) 30 billion a year in export earnings, not to mention in times of need would be a significant source of energy for our country.

Not sure why blowing it up would make the south east prosper?

When commodity prices are high WA and QLD boom. The Australian dollar rises. Manufacturers export prices become higher so they lay off staff and manufacturing contracts. When commodity prices are low the opposite happens. Although there is a horrible period when prices are dropping and mining contracts and it takes a while for mfg to start growing. In some ways it's a counterbalance to our economy. It is a problem and there is no real solution (except seperate currencies but a main point of being Australia is a single currency). We just have to live with it. But if the NW Shelf (of which I had a very very small role in but was also my biggest sale in my life) disappeared tomorrow the dollar would drop and SE Australia would have better prices for goods it makes. NSW unemployment jumped 0.5 percentage points in the results released this week. WA is at a record low.

It does have military implications. If mfg contracts then if the economy goes onto a war footing there isn't as many factories. OTOH in a limited war high commodity prices will allow lots of arm purcheses (as we are now seeing with C-17s being bought).

 

[Aussie Digger]

Quote: "Australia gets involved in an important war then the US is probably also involved and may be under pressure. Say Russia wanting to become a pacific power rather than a pacific joke. Say Russia and China teaching the US a lesson with Australia just collateral damage. Remember WW2. Britain was under pressure herself.

Although I see our most likely role as reinforcing our northern neighbours.

As the government doesn't publish anything it is unaccountable". (end quote)

David, I said I'd come back to this and here I am...

I seriously doubt that Russia and China combined could put US "under pressure" at present. The scenario your are referring to would be a massive war over Taiwan or North Korea, or a seizure by China of the Spratley's, I presume?

Even if they did, do you seriously think they'd have the assets to spare to conduct a strike on Australia, from their homeland, just to "embarass" the USA?

I have read plenty on WW2, and Britain was hunderds of k's away, not thousands. 61 years hasn't changed the difficulty involved in striking over such long distances, particularly given the need to fly over Countries which are ALLIED to us.

In any of these scenario's at any rate, Australian involvement would be limited or non-existent, IMHO.

At the end of the day, it boils back down to the strategic situation of China or India gaining nothing by doing so. A platform v platform comparision is useless if there is next to no chance of said platforms going head to head. Under these circumstances, focussing on what a platform WILL do and how much it will cost, is far more useful than focussing on radar performance, fuel capacity etc.

India wants to sign up for our Uranium. They are NOT going to bomb us to try and force us to sell it to them. That would be the height of stupidity, something they are not well known for.

The fact is that we luckily live in an extremely benign strategic environment. The piecemeal acquisition of individual platforms does not significantly alter this, and this is where Goon and Kopps assessment of our environment falls over.

Given the obvious difficulties involved for China or India to attack us, this leaves only Indonesia, Malaysia or Singapore as legitimate threats due only to their proximity.

Of the 3, Indonesia is the geater threat, followed by Malaysia and Singapore, based on their excellent relationships with us.

Indonesia is not a country for us to fear. They do not have, and are unlikely to ever have the wherewithal to acquire sufficient military capability, to significantly threaten us. The acquisition of 2x SU-27's and 2x SU-30's which they cannot afford to ARM is not a cause for concern.

Malaysia has 9x MiG-29's, 8x F.A-18C/D and 18x SU-30's on order, as their main combat capabilities. hardly a force to put us in terrible fear even if they WERE an enemy rather than an ally. Their F/A-18's are not even armed with a BVR missile, AFAIK, and they distinctly lack a significant A2A refuelling capability, AWACS and standoff weapons for ALL aircraft types.

Look at the advancement of OUR military capability in the time these other so-called developments are occuring. Who has more to fear???

 

[davidcandy]

I don't fear Malaysia, Singapore, or Indonesia. I expect in magor war these three will be our allies. And Indonesia needs us in such a case.

My point is that Carlo and Peter lists a plausable (although not to me) strategic situation - China or someone bombing NW Shelf. Then they make force structure/strategy based on their assumptions.

The government doesn't do this. I am far more able to critique the US government than my own. It should be the other way around.

My point about the Battle of Britain is the the military got it very wrong. The pollies and citizens got it right. The type of institutions that militaries are is a mix of bureaucratic and total (total organisations are things like hospitals and gaols where people don't have personal freedom in all areas of daily life - eg a soldier in the Solomons has to do what he's told while he's there). Being human, and as all organisations are political, they get to screw up just like any other field of human endevour.

So the phrase often repeated here to do with those who say don't have classification and those who have classification don't say is a poor arguement.

I don't know what the DoD thinks. Therefore I cannot say if I agree with them of not. This is a problem. If our strategic policy is secret then we the citizens cannot correct it.

While I think NZ has got it strategy wrong I really appreciate the link with ends, ways, and means . NZ is implementing it's military strategy to suit it's particular strategic goals. Again I'll repeat, as I don't want to argue about their goals, that I think their goals are wrong. But the implementation is good.

As to specific scenarios how about India siezing a part of SE Asia to interdict China's SLOC. Further India believe Australia and ASEAN will object. So launched preemptive attacks as a warning or to remove strike assetts. We are in a war, as minor third party players, between two superpowers (and another two watching on).

I know the above can be considered plausable because some officer passed a course saying something similar (minus the preempotive part). I can't find it but I think it was from here
http://www.defence.gov.au/adc

My point isn't to say the above is likely (I don't know) but we the people need to know. Then we can assess and draw our political conclusions.

My background was Civil Defence (now called SES) in intelligence (later renamed to scientific branch). What that meant was I would be plotting fallout and calculating expected dosages during evacuations. I still hold 2 weeks canned food in the cupboard. I have plans what to do for my street in case of nuclear war (not that I'm likely to survive for longer than a few milliseconds). So war to me means big important wars of national survival (if not extermination).

So advocates of the JSF only (and as it will probably be JSF only, I hope they buy enough and VTOL variants) need to say what they envision them doing and why they are the best. Goon and Kopp have done this with the super F111. The government hasn't with the JSF.

 

[Magoo]

My point is that Carlo and Peter lists a plausable (although not to me) strategic situation - China or someone bombing NW Shelf. Then they make force structure/strategy based on their assumptions.

So, is it plausable or inplausable?

The government doesn't do this. I am far more able to critique the US government than my own. It should be the other way around.

The government is unlikely to publicly list "plausable" future political or military scenarios for fear of upsetting current or potential future trading partners. At the moment, the ONLY enemies Australia officially has are terrorists who are not bound by national borders. There is no way they are going to publicly renounce or label as future enemies any countries they may or may not be worried about behind closed doors.

I don't know what the DoD thinks. Therefore I cannot say if I agree with them of not. This is a problem. If our strategic policy is secret then we the citizens cannot correct it.

The DoD publicly thinks exactly what government tells them to think, and therefore they make procurement decisions based on this. Carlo and Goon can label as many countries as they like as potential future enemies, and can overstate or understate the military capabilities of these countries to their hearts content, however, as long as the 2001 White Paper and its revised incarnations are government policy, that's what our procurement decisions are going to be based on.

So advocates of the JSF only (and as it will probably be JSF only, I hope they buy enough and VTOL variants) need to say what they envision them doing and why they are the best. Goon and Kopp have done this with the super F111. The government hasn't with the JSF.

The government, through DEFMIN, CDF, CAF, and their representatives have consistently said what they plan to do with JSF, i.e, in a nutshell, use it in a networked coalition environment against hard and soft targets in a strike and fighter role - there's nothing else flying OR on the drawing board that can match the JSF's potential to fulfill this/these role/s - period! Carlo and Goon may also have done this with the F-111S, however their 'vision' is a warped one, one which I suspect would quickly be found wanting in any likely future war we will become involved in.

Magoo

 

[Aussie Digger]

I don't fear Malaysia, Singapore, or Indonesia. I expect in magor war these three will be our allies. And Indonesia needs us in such a case.

My point is that Carlo and Peter lists a plausable (although not to me) strategic situation - China or someone bombing NW Shelf. Then they make force structure/strategy based on their assumptions.

The government doesn't do this. I am far more able to critique the US government than my own. It should be the other way around.

My point about the Battle of Britain is the the military got it very wrong. The pollies and citizens got it right. The type of institutions that militaries are is a mix of bureaucratic and total (total organisations are things like hospitals and gaols where people don't have personal freedom in all areas of daily life - eg a soldier in the Solomons has to do what he's told while he's there). Being human, and as all organisations are political, they get to screw up just like any other field of human endevour.

So the phrase often repeated here to do with those who say don't have classification and those who have classification don't say is a poor arguement.

I don't know what the DoD thinks. Therefore I cannot say if I agree with them of not. This is a problem. If our strategic policy is secret then we the citizens cannot correct it.

While I think NZ has got it strategy wrong I really appreciate the link with ends, ways, and means . NZ is implementing it's military strategy to suit it's particular strategic goals. Again I'll repeat, as I don't want to argue about their goals, that I think their goals are wrong. But the implementation is good.

As to specific scenarios how about India siezing a part of SE Asia to interdict China's SLOC. Further India believe Australia and ASEAN will object. So launched preemptive attacks as a warning or to remove strike assetts. We are in a war, as minor third party players, between two superpowers (and another two watching on).

I know the above can be considered plausable because some officer passed a course saying something similar (minus the preempotive part). I can't find it but I think it was from here
http://www.defence.gov.au/adc

My point isn't to say the above is likely (I don't know) but we the people need to know. Then we can assess and draw our political conclusions.

My background was Civil Defence (now called SES) in intelligence (later renamed to scientific branch). What that meant was I would be plotting fallout and calculating expected dosages during evacuations. I still hold 2 weeks canned food in the cupboard. I have plans what to do for my street in case of nuclear war (not that I'm likely to survive for longer than a few milliseconds). So war to me means big important wars of national survival (if not extermination).

So advocates of the JSF only (and as it will probably be JSF only, I hope they buy enough and VTOL variants) need to say what they envision them doing and why they are the best. Goon and Kopp have done this with the super F111. The government hasn't with the JSF.

You don't need to explain the military or any other Government Branch to me, I served in the ADF for 6 years, served a short stint (3 months) with "Centrelink" and have now worked in the Queensland Police Service for going on 8 years.

Whatever the ADF does or does not say publicly, is exactly what the incumbent Government WANTS them to say. The children overboard issue is a perfect example. The Iraq WMD issue is another.

The Government HAS stated it's strategic vision in the Defence White Paper 2000, it's Bi-annual strategic updates and through the measures announced in the various Defence Capability plans released. The Government funded (partly) ASPI also provides regular assessments on Australia's strategic position and changes to Government policy.

The Government's policy is to maintain military CAPABILITY that remains qualitatively superior to those within our region, within a limited budget. Our forces are small, will likely always remain so, short of a "major" war of the sort you have mentioned occurring, although are relatively capable compared to regional capabilities.

The difference is that that a platform v platform comparison ignores the other realities of warfare and what is required to generate military capability.

Here's an example, the F-22 is the best A2A fighter on Earth, yes? It's pretty generally recognised. How much capability do you think, Zimbabwe for instance could generate if they purchased a Squadron of them? (I'm NOT picking on Zimbabwe either, I'm using them to illustrate a point).

Military capability is not based on total paper statistics, how you operate something, how good your pilots are, how well you can sustain your capability all count for just as much.

Seeing as though you use WW2 as an example, it is akin to conducting a comparison between Sherman tanks and Panther tanks. On paper the Panthers were a vastly superior tank. Sherman's however COULD prevail against them if handled well enough.

Now as to GOON and Kopp's strategic situation. Again it's only valid should relations between Australia and China and India massively degenerate. In a war between the 2, Australia would be FAR more likely to remain neutral. We have nothing to gain by taking EITHER side. We didn't take a position, particular AGAINST either side in the wars they HAVE fought already.

As to the long range bombing missions you seem to see as a worry, here's some statistics;

Between Hong Kong (one of the most Southern parts of China) and Darwin, as the crow flies, the distance is 4157k's, EACH way...

Between Madras (one of India's most Southern and Eastern major cities) and Darwin, the distance is 6259k's, EACH way.

The El Dorado Canyon raids provide an insight into the capability needed to support such long range raids. The USAF F-111 aircraft (with it's FAR greater range than ANY SU-30 series fighter) flew a total of 8800k's during this round trip, the mission took 14 hours to complete and required a total of 28x KC-10/KC-135135 class tankers to support 24 strike aircraft and 5x EW aircraft. Each aircraft was refuelled 4x times on the way there and 2x times on the way back, with the tankers launched hours before the strike/EW aircraft took off.

IF China or India starts developing these kinds of capabilities, THEN Australian would be well served to take notice, with the caveat though that mere possession of a military platform implies neither capability NOR intent...

Until then, the Government's plan seems fine to me. A 4x Squadron force of 80 or so operational F-35A's (which is where the Government seems to be intending to head, given 1 Sqn will be the first operational F-35A Sqn) should be well able to provide air defence of our homeland against virtually any aggressor.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The El Dorado Canyon raids provide an insight into the capability needed to support such long range raids. The USAF F-111 aircraft (with it's FAR greater range than ANY SU-30 series fighter) flew a total of 8800k's during this round trip, the mission took 14 hours to complete and required a total of 28x KC-10/KC-135135 class tankers to support 24 strike aircraft and 5x EW aircraft. Each aircraft was refuelled 4x times on the way there and 2x times on the way back, with the tankers launched hours before the strike/EW aircraft took off.

In addition - and to quote Col Paul Fazackeley who was part of the strike package made the following observations:

• they had 35% platform attrition. ie 35% of the strike package had to abort due to platform failure whilst inbound
• he referred to the platform as being old - and that 35% failure rate should be expected. This was from an operator who gave a debriefing in 1989
• That the USN was responsible for guard duties on the return home
• That the F-111's were responsible for 60% of the mission package - Navy was tasked for the balance 40% which were eastern targets

So an airforce that was on a committed politically driven and military motivated mission, which was not short of support assets and resources, suffered a 35% attrition rate even though they were running support and pre-prep well in advance of and into a known hostile location.

Long range strike is a non trivial issue as can be seen by the above numbers. It also means that for any nation that is going to engage in long range strike against australia will need sufficient capability and prepositioning to get those assets to and from and supported in/outbound from the australian mainland targets.

It also means the negotiation of far more complex and friendly airspace - far more complex and divergent than the route taken by the F-111's against Libya. The airspace penetration/range numbers therefore are not "crow flies" numbers - they're going to be substantially longer. All of which means huge logistics impositions - and all of which means that radical changes in force structure/ORBAT are detectable in advance.

 

[RubiconNZ]

Query?

Does australia have a "ready" flight or wing pair for Air intrusions etc is there any disclosable info on procedures, say a UFO terrestial of course or bogey whateva was detected, would there be pair of hornets in there air in 10, 15, one hour? Is that capability planned?

 

[Magoo]

Does australia have a "ready" flight or wing pair for Air intrusions etc is there any disclosable info on procedures, say a UFO terrestial of course or bogey whateva was detected, would there be pair of hornets in there air in 10, 15, one hour? Is that capability planned?

Since 9/11, there are always a 'few' Hornets on alert XX at Tindal and Williamtown. I wont elaborate.

Magoo

 

[gf0012-aust]

Since 9/11, there are always a 'few' Hornets on alert XX at Tindal and Williamtown. I wont elaborate.

Magoo

They've also been "cleared weird" twice since 2001

 

[Occum]

Ot&e Comments

Just in from a member of the T&E community -

Global Hawk
I worked on Global Hawk several years ago during it’s OT&E out of Edwards. It has really long legs- can stay up for almost 2 days at altitudes above 60k. They flew it via satellite control to Australia, and we flew missions during OT&E that went from Eddy to upper Alaska and back non-stop. I also got the chance to work as pilot debriefer and test evaluator on the FA-22 OT&E summer before last at EDW. I was totally blown away by the airplane. Unless you have ever watched them go 2 or 4 V many on the big electronic game board, you have no idea what stealth brings to the battle. Basically, they come into the fight at a high mach # in mil thrust, start killing people way out with AMRAAMS, and continue doing that until everyone is dead, and no one ever sees them or paints them on radar. There is practically no radio chatter because all the guys in the flight are tied together electronically, and can see who is targeting who, and they have AWACS direct input and 360°situational awareness from that and other sensors. The aggressors had a morale problem before it was all over. The only shots that I ever saw taken on a 22 were when someone screwed up and popped up high enough to leave a contrail. I went in a skeptic and came out a true believer. It is to air superiority what the jet engine was to aviation.

Came with the picture of the Global Hawk in the rag hangar with its side wall papered with the mission decals.

By the way, for the few who keep claiming the Raptor only has such things as 'one way data links, etc.', suggest you might want to think again.