Australia & US Military Co-operation

[Eeshaan]

The ADF dosent operate Leo 2,we did operate Leo 1,but they are being retired
The Abrams is the ADFs new Tank.

Regards

Oh, thanks for the correction there.

By the way, what about the Challenger ? I know this question is deviating towards Army/MBT discussion that belongs in the Land Forces forum, but was Australia ever offered the Challenger 1, or 2 even ?

It's unfortunate that a state-of-the-art tank like Challenger 2 has only found 1 foreign purchase ( 36-Oman ), but given Aus-UK's relation, did Australia get a better offer from USA ? Or were both Challengers rejected due to performance issues, ( like the Chieftain, who's performance did not match Australia's requirements ) ?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Oh, thanks for the correction there.

By the way, what about the Challenger ? I know this question is deviating towards Army/MBT discussion that belongs in the Land Forces forum, but was Australia ever offered the Challenger 1, or 2 even ?

The Challenger 2 was considered for LAND 907 but rejected early on because of cost and concern about the future of its main gun. Because the British were at the time considering replacing the L30 with the Rheinmetall gun the Australian Army didn't want to face having to pay for a new gun after their were in service or facing an orphan gun capability.

 

[Eeshaan]

The Challenger 2 was considered for LAND 907 but rejected early on because of cost and concern about the future of its main gun. Because the British were at the time considering replacing the L30 with the Rheinmetall gun the Australian Army didn't want to face having to pay for a new gun after their were in service or facing an orphan gun capability.

Je vous remercie, Monsieur Gubler. Speaking of replacing parts, does Australia modify foreign weapon systems to suit it's own needs using indigenous or other imported parts ? For example what India did with Su-30MKI ?

Or are these purchases just off-the-shelf, after assessing which system is most suitable for Australia's conditions & requirements ?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Je vous remercie, Monsieur Gubler. Speaking of replacing parts, does Australia modify foreign weapon systems to suit it's own needs using indigenous or other imported parts ? For example what India did with Su-30MKI ?

Or are these purchases just off-the-shelf, after assessing which system is most suitable for Australia's conditions & requirements ?

Until recently just about every imported system was changed in some major way to try and improve it and customise it. But recently a series of failed attempts to change and modify has made this a very unpopular activity. For example we spent 10 years and a billion dollars trying to build an automatic flight control system for the Super Seasprite so it would only need a crew of two (in place of three) before ending the program. The system worked but the bureaucracy couldn’t handle the paperwork requirements of certifying it as safe. On the other hand we turned the British Oberon submarine into the most capable non-nuclear submarine in the early 1980s with a then unique computerised combat system. And so on. Australia has the technically know how and proficiency to improve most weapons but it’s the admin load that is burdening the system that is creating big problems. Something I’m sure our Indian cousins are well aware of!

 

[Kalasag]

Could the Australian Air Force put on sale some of the Aardvarks they are junking and offer it to the Philippines?

 

[Bonza]

Could the Australian Air Force put on sale some of the Aardvarks they are junking and offer it to the Philippines?

No one in their right mind would want them (airframes are well and truly shagged), and I very much doubt (and I mean absolutely no offence by this) that the Phillipines would have the capability to operate and sustain them in any meaningful fashion. Australia was struggling very much with this in the last few years, to the point of requiring an interim strike aircraft (Super Hornet) be purchased in order to replace them.

Abe would be able to give you a far more specific answer, but in short, the airframes are old, their systems have been pushed as far as they will go, they are complex and they are extremely maintenance-intensive. The support costs and requirements alone would be staggering, and if the RAAF struggle with it then I don't think the Phillipines are going to do any better (and again, I mean no offence, but in terms of resources, fast-jet experience and qualified support personnel the Phillipines would really be working from a disadvantage).

There are far, far better options available. for ANY air force.

EDIT: In addition to the above, I believe there would be an issue with re-selling the F-111Cs, and it's my understanding that all our C airframes with the exception of one or two museum pieces will be returned to the US for destruction. If I remember correctly this has to do with the F-111C's role in the USAF as a nuclear-capable platform (though my memory is hazy and I'm happy to stand corrected on that).

 

[Eeshaan]

Until recently just about every imported system was changed in some major way to try and improve it and customise it. But recently a series of failed attempts to change and modify has made this a very unpopular activity. For example we spent 10 years and a billion dollars trying to build an automatic flight control system for the Super Seasprite so it would only need a crew of two (in place of three) before ending the program. The system worked but the bureaucracy couldn’t handle the paperwork requirements of certifying it as safe. On the other hand we turned the British Oberon submarine into the most capable non-nuclear submarine in the early 1980s with a then unique computerised combat system. And so on. Australia has the technically know how and proficiency to improve most weapons but it’s the admin load that is burdening the system that is creating big problems. Something I’m sure our Indian cousins are well aware of!

Thanks again. You're right about the admin load issues lol. Lets see what Australia can do with ( to ) the Eurocopter Tigre and F-35 when they're delivered...

 

[Todjaeger]

Thanks again. You're right about the admin load issues lol. Lets see what Australia can do with ( to ) the Eurocopter Tigre and F-35 when they're delivered...

Australia has already done development work on the Tiger ARH, which is why it is now rated to carry the Hellfire. That is one development programme which seems to be returning funding to Australia, since IIRC Spain has opted for a Hellfire-kitted Tiger as well. The unfortunate downside to Oz choosing the Tiger is that the cost and IOC dates suggested in the contract appear to have been just that, suggestions. As opposed to something more concrete like what would have been the case had Oz gone with the Apache.

-Cheers

 

[Kalasag]

No one in their right mind would want them (airframes are well and truly shagged), and I very much doubt (and I mean absolutely no offence by this) that the Phillipines would have the capability to operate and sustain them in any meaningful fashion. Australia was struggling very much with this in the last few years, to the point of requiring an interim strike aircraft (Super Hornet) be purchased in order to replace them.

Abe would be able to give you a far more specific answer, but in short, the airframes are old, their systems have been pushed as far as they will go, they are complex and they are extremely maintenance-intensive. The support costs and requirements alone would be staggering, and if the RAAF struggle with it then I don't think the Phillipines are going to do any better (and again, I mean no offence, but in terms of resources, fast-jet experience and qualified support personnel the Phillipines would really be working from a disadvantage).

There are far, far better options available. for ANY air force.

EDIT: In addition to the above, I believe there would be an issue with re-selling the F-111Cs, and it's my understanding that all our C airframes with the exception of one or two museum pieces will be returned to the US for destruction. If I remember correctly this has to do with the F-111C's role in the USAF as a nuclear-capable platform (though my memory is hazy and I'm happy to stand corrected on that).

Well, something is better than nothing. We honestly have no air assets. With the retirement of our F-5s (yes it's sad), we are practically helpless on air. I've heard rumors that we were going to buy some second-hand Canadian Hornets. The F-111 could serve as our bomber.

 

[Bonza]

Well, something is better than nothing. We honestly have no air assets. With the retirement of our F-5s (yes it's sad), we are practically helpless on air. I've heard rumors that we were going to buy some second-hand Canadian Hornets. The F-111 could serve as our bomber.

But what I'm saying is, you wouldn't have "something" if you bought the F-111s, because they're beyond the Phillipine Air Force's ability to support or operate. Not because of deficiencies with the PAF but because they are extremely old, complex, difficult to maintain aircraft. Because the PAF have such limited air assets, their ability to support an asset (in terms of logistics, maintenance, and trained personnel) is compromised. Put it this way, the RAAF was having extremely serious issues with keeping the fleet airworthy and combat capable - compare the RAAF to the PAF and I think you'll see the problem I'm getting at.

Maintaining an air combat capability isn't just about buying the aircraft, it's also about developing the capacity to support the aircraft on the ground, to sustain the fleet over years of service, etc etc. This all takes lots of time, and lots of money. Neither of which are wisely spent on an airframe that would only have a few years service life left at the most. The RAAF thought the problem so serious that they replaced the aircraft with the Super Hornet, even though they originally intended to replace all the Hornets and F-111s with the F-35 in a few years time. If the RAAF couldn't see a way to sustain them until the F-35 arrives, what does that tell you about the condition of the F-111 fleet?

A Vietnam-era supersonic low-altitude bomber isn't something any air force should consider purchasing, particularly one in the position of the Phillipine Air Force. I do hope that position improves soon, but there are better ways to spend money and other capabilities that should take priority.

 

[Eeshaan]

Australia has already done development work on the Tiger ARH, which is why it is now rated to carry the Hellfire. That is one development programme which seems to be returning funding to Australia, since IIRC Spain has opted for a Hellfire-kitted Tiger as well. The unfortunate downside to Oz choosing the Tiger is that the cost and IOC dates suggested in the contract appear to have been just that, suggestions. As opposed to something more concrete like what would have been the case had Oz gone with the Apache.

-Cheers

I was also wondering why Australia chose Tigre over Apache. Longbow version's radar/targeting systems are designed to work alongside Abram's A1 models and their upgrades. At least thats what I've heard about how USA wants to integrate their systems .

Apache over Tigre might have been a better choice ? I'm seeing a procurement trend similar to India : Buying weapon systems from several different nations, while developing them further to suit one's own requirement, instead of going for one particular supplier/country's technology.

For example, USA fields mostly American equipment. France & germany use their indigenously designed/manufactured systems, with the addition of European-joint technology projects.

This might cause some logistical issues, like the issues people talk about with India's MMRCA project. I.E. Buying spare parts & getting technological support for equipment from so many countries...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I was also wondering why Australia chose Tigre over Apache. Longbow version's radar/targeting systems are designed to work alongside Abram's A1 models and their upgrades. At least thats what I've heard about how USA wants to integrate their systems .

Well the Tiger was chosen some 5-6 years before the Abrams so there was no requirement for interoperability with FB2C2 (the digital battle management system in Abrams). The Tiger won AIR 87 because it was the newer more advanced helicopter and had better fuel endurance. The Army requirement was for a recce helo first and attack helo second. Apache needed to carry external fuel tanks to meet the Tiger’s range.

Australia doesn’t have the same ‘independence’ strategic guidance that India seems to have. We are closely integrated with NATO and would be happy sourcing all our weapons from America because we don’t have realistic strategic disagreements with America. Obviously India has difference needs. However our Governments do like high levels of Australian industry involvement so as to spend money in Australia rather than overseas.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I’ll be a bit more blunt and state there is no way the PAF could fly and operate F-111s if they were to be sourced second hand. Even if they could the cost per annum of a F-111 force is in the hundreds of millions of dollars and far more than very cheap F-5s. PAF would be much better off combing the US Boneyard for cheap and easy to fly aircraft like A-10s or A-37s.

Anyway the RAAF F-111s are only being disposed of in an inoperable condition. This in part is to meet US requirements for disposal. When Australia brought the F-111s from the US the US mandated approval for any operational passing on to a third party – as they do for all weapons sales. Rather than go through with this they will be turned into duds before disposal. To meet this need and environmental issues it will cost any potential buyer $2.5 million to buy a second hand RAAF F-111.

The media brief for the disposal has some details of what will happen to the aircraft. All of the F-111Gs (ex USAF FB-111As) will be destroyed and this was announced some time ago. Of the 21 F-111Cs the RAAF will keep seven for museum and gate guard service. Four will be destroyed because they are unsuited for display (RF-111) and the remaining 10 F-111s be available for sale for use as static displays (with the $2.5m price for demilitarisation).

 

[Aussie Digger]

Australia has already done development work on the Tiger ARH, which is why it is now rated to carry the Hellfire. That is one development programme which seems to be returning funding to Australia, since IIRC Spain has opted for a Hellfire-kitted Tiger as well. The unfortunate downside to Oz choosing the Tiger is that the cost and IOC dates suggested in the contract appear to have been just that, suggestions. As opposed to something more concrete like what would have been the case had Oz gone with the Apache.

-Cheers

France did actually. Spain chose the Israeli SPIKE-ER for her Tigers.

France To Buy Hellfire Missiles at U.S. Price - Defense News

Cheers,

AD

 

[Eeshaan]

How will Australia make up for the gap between operating only 24 Superhornets and recieving their 100 F-35s ? All F-18s ( As & Bs ) will be retired by 2015, and with F-35 costs going up, have they considered the cheaper and extremely effective ( against ground targets ) A-10 ? For ground attack/fire support role ofc., not air-to-air/air superiority

 

[SASWanabe]

How will Australia make up for the gap between operating only 24 Superhornets and recieving their 100 F-35s ? All F-18s ( As & Bs ) will be retired by 2015, and with F-35 costs going up, have they considered the cheaper and extremely effective ( against ground targets ) A-10 ? For ground attack/fire support role ofc., not air-to-air/air superiority

what ground targets does Australia have to attack? we have a capable class of subs to patrol the Sea gap up north, what we need is a good air superiority platform to fullfil the Air part of the Air/Sea gap defence

 

[Abraham Gubler]

How will Australia make up for the gap between operating only 24 Superhornets and recieving their 100 F-35s ? All F-18s ( As & Bs ) will be retired by 2015, and with F-35 costs going up, have they considered the cheaper and extremely effective ( against ground targets ) A-10 ? For ground attack/fire support role ofc., not air-to-air/air superiority

The F/A-18A/Bs will NOT be retired by 2015. That was the original plan with the original (circa 2002) timetable for F-35 delivery. Obviously the F-35s will be a few years late so the F/A-18A/Bs will stay in service out to 2020ish. They have the airframe life and are extremely capable after a range of systems upgrades. They are the most capable F/A-18A/B/C/Ds in the world and very few (far younger) strike fighters can match them.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

what ground targets does Australia have to attack? we have a capable class of subs to patrol the Sea gap up north, what we need is a good air superiority platform to fullfil the Air part of the Air/Sea gap defence

Air/sea gap defence has not been part of Australia's serious defence plans for the past 10 years. Even before then it was a crazy fiction that was never going to be realised short of a total collapse of global trade and civilisation. Plus our submarines have never been used to patrol the air/sea gap, they operate in the threat's home waters.

Our current strategy is help our neighbours and friends in case someone out there is foolish enough to attack them. This, along with the ongoing counter insurgency in Afghanistan, requires plenty of ground targets to be serviced if the RAAF is deployed.

 

[riksavage]

Though the Apache was never a serious option for Australia, did the Mil/Gov ever seriously consider the Bell AH-1Z Viper? It was designed specifically for LHD/LHP use and is fully marinised, which on paper seams a no-brainer considering the Canberra class purchase. Plus the weapons load is very similar to the that of the Tiger, as follows:

Guns: 1 x 20 mm (0.787 in) M197 3-barreled gatling cannon in the A/A49E-7 turret (750 round ammo capacity)
Hardpoints: Up to 6 pylon stations on stub wing
Rockets: 2.75 in (70 mm) Hydra 70 rockets - Mounted in LAU-68C/A (7 shot) or LAU-61D/A (19 shot) launchers
Missiles: AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles - 1 mounted on each wing tip station (total of 2), and
AGM-114 Hellfire air-to-surface missiles - Up to 16 missiles mounted in four 4-round M272 missile launchers, two on each wing

 

[Bonza]

The media brief for the disposal has some details of what will happen to the aircraft. All of the F-111Gs (ex USAF FB-111As) will be destroyed and this was announced some time ago. Of the 21 F-111Cs the RAAF will keep seven for museum and gate guard service. Four will be destroyed because they are unsuited for display (RF-111) and the remaining 10 F-111s be available for sale for use as static displays (with the $2.5m price for demilitarisation).

Ah, it was the G airframes I was thinking of, not the Cs. Thanks for the correction.