Australia's Large Budget Surplus, Spawns Spending Speculation

[gf0012-aust]

this may sound stupid but whats CONUS?

CONUS=CONtinental US which in light of the speech is misleading, as they would deploy it to their offshore bases like Anderson, Hawai'i if required etc....

The overall reference was that they were not selling it to anyone else - period.

its something that the "tame" anti-ADF managed elements of the press and Labor seem to not have sufficiently absorbed - otherwise they still wouldn't be carrying on as though we can go cap in hand with a shopping order and a fistful of money.

 

[rjmaz1]

Hmmm

A-10 in the anti shipping role. Granted it is a very fine ground attack aircraft but would need a sensor and information system upgrade for the antishiping role in order to target any ships. It would have limited range unless supported by tankers (and able to tank) and wouel not be able to react quickly. I suspect it wouel be easy meat to a capable AWD. If the other guy has any sort of AEW aircraft things would get very dodgey fast.

Airframe life and maintenace will be an issue.

The A-10 would be far more survivable than the current P-3 orions.

Also the A-10 can beinflight refueled. The A-10 can also carry drop tanks that extends its range which limits its short take off performance but that wouldn't matter to us. A pair of A-10's with external fuel and two harpoons would be far superior to any P-3 orion.

A-10's could attack ships using IR weapons with targeting information sent from our wedgetails.

Also maintenance o the A-10's are very low, as one of the main goals of the A-10 was to have extremely low maintenance. Taking into account its ages it would require less maintenance than all of our aircraft we fly.

Upgrading the A-10's and refurbing them in Australia would also be excellent for our economy. As the A-10 is so simple we have the infrastructure to upgrade them ourselves. The US also has alot of off the shelf upgrades available as well as potential engine upgrade. Even a small diameter bomb upgrade to the A-10 would be sensational.

It also allows the hornets to be used in the primary role of air defence so that fewer super hornets would be required.

 

[alexsa]

The A-10 would be far more survivable than the current P-3 orions.

As they do not have the relevant sensors or information systems this is utter rubbish. The A-10 cannot carry harpoon at this point in time and has a pretty basic sensor suite and lacks the necessary EW for the maritme strike role. So compare to the 'current P-3 options' it is a complete non starter in the maritime role. As I noted it wouel have to be seriously upgraded to do this work, the P-3 is already capable.

Also the A-10 can beinflight refueled. The A-10 can also carry drop tanks that extends its range which limits its short take off performance but that wouldn't matter to us. A pair of A-10's with external fuel and two harpoons would be far superior to any P-3 orion.

As the aircraft is not fitted with the necessary sensor suite and systems (remember how hard it was to upgrade the F-111) this is a bit pie inthe sky. An A-10 has a maximum range (carrying nothing but fuel) of 1300km, the P-3C has a range of 3130km. You would have to tank the A-10 to any target remembering that in maritme strike range is critical. In that case you would be better off using the F-18s.

A-10's could attack ships using IR weapons with targeting information sent from our wedgetails.

IR weapons still need to see the heat source to lock on and, as noted before, the A-10 is not equiped for the information transfer you would rely upon to use AEWC data for the strike. It must also be remembered that the maximum payload of the A-10 is 7250 kg (admittedly very large). All the sensors and fuel carried must be subtracted from that total. Each harpoon (wihtout the pylon and wiring) is 691kg, and IR pod at about 200kg you really are starting to chew into the range. That before we start trying to fit link 16, new avionics and sensor/EW suite all of which will chew up the range on this old airframe.

Don't forget the P=3C is an MPA and is fitted with the sensors and information systems necesary for this role, including a ship strike capability. You proposal for the A-10 would simply be a slow weapons carrier wiht no ability to loiter.

Also maintenance o the A-10's are very low, as one of the main goals of the A-10 was to have extremely low maintenance. Taking into account its ages it would require less maintenance than all of our aircraft we fly.

The same goal has been applied to every new generation of aircraft. Where is your evidence that this wouel be less work "taking into accout its age". Don't forget the USAF are spending quite a bit of money upgrading the A-10 to the A-10C standard because of its ground attack capability. Part of the cost came from the fact the aircraft is not digital, trying to make it a maritime attack aircraft.

Upgrading the A-10's and refurbing them in Australia would also be excellent for our economy. As the A-10 is so simple we have the infrastructure to upgrade them ourselves. The US also has alot of off the shelf upgrades available as well as potential engine upgrade. Even a small diameter bomb upgrade to the A-10 would be sensational.

What.... you are looking at the sort of upgraded applied to the AP-3C and the F-111, these were not simple or cheap. As noted above all the US upgrades are forthe ground attack role only.

It also allows the hornets to be used in the primary role of air defence so that fewer super hornets would be required.

Better still, don't bother with the A-10 and if the interim fighter is requried get a few extra F-18F and get it to carry the harpoons, at least it is fitted for them and has the sensors and systems. They could even use Wedgetail data, not to mention information from JORN or event he P-3C. Seems to make a lot more sense the trying to turn an old (but very capable) ground attack aircraft into something it was not designed for. It wouel be an unmitigated waste of funds.

You could even suggest a few F-18Gs as well as it would allow EW support to your strick package. Make more sense than the Warthog.

 

[icelord]

Hell a few A-10s for supporting Troops would be good enough, let alone anti-shipping
Given that we're currently trying to put new tech in old frame(seaspat) , might be best to see what the USAF does to their A-10 fleet since they will be extending them till i think 2020.

50 superhornets and 50 A-10

is that a stop gap for F35, or an addition, cause they currently have a shortage of pilots as is.
plus 50 A-10 is a bit much, more like 20 for Army support, would be better suited.
IFV Damn it!, think about a hardened network, damn fools
Nother AWD would be good to cover for no new shipping in 2018-2020, with ANZAC class not even needing consideration for replacement, saves money in long run and would benefit A larger defence fleet.
New boots! would be most peoples choice for any addition to budget, think small, to make big.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I think A10's are a waste of cash. Especially scince were probably going to have F35's in the near future and lets face it giving them a marine strike capability would be a bitch since there analog at the minet anyway. And given range requirements and max speed, lets face it they dont really shape up to the bugs in a maritime strike role, upgraded or not. 40-50 superbugs would be awesome. Maybe another couple of collins, upgrade them with TLAM. Or a new AWD. More LAV's are a must. have we already bought JASSM?? If not then f**k the harpoons off!!! Annother battalion for sure!

But the most important thing i think we need to adress is the manpower defecit. Spend a big chunk of this cash on meeting recruiting targets. Thats the most important thing!!!

 

[alexsa]

Hell a few A-10s for supporting Troops would be good enough, let alone anti-shipping
Given that we're currently trying to put new tech in old frame(seaspat) , might be best to see what the USAF does to their A-10 fleet since they will be extending them till i think 2020.

The life extension is focus on their ground attack role. One for which they are renowned. I would have been more impressed with the suggestion we get A-10C for ground attack as opposed to maritime strike. the problem is it is an old airframe for which we currently have no support infrastrucuture. As such there would be a large outlay for a truncated service life as well as the costs of operating another type.

I agree the army could use more support. JSF will provide some when in service but perhaps, given our location, helo based systems such as more Tigers (maybe wiht additional capability) would be more cost effective than A-10s. This could also be operated off the LHD's as an added advantage.

If more money is to be spent over and above that to be spent in the immediate year or so (noting the interim fighter is not deemed necessary at present) I wouel like action is respect of:

1. The issue of retention being addressed (particalarly in the training intesive areas),

2. The tactical STOL issue being resolved one way or another (I love the Bou but it is running out of legs and the C-27J/C-295 and additional chooks seems to be a good choice).

3. The airlift issue resolved ... are we upgrading the C-130H's or shoud we look at six more C-130J's and converting some of the H's to combat support birds (my preference). I would love to see an additional 2 C-17s as well.

4. Arty for the Army. This has dragged on and should be settled. Again my preference would be for a mobile system with the Hamels and 155's given to A Res to replace their Vietnam vintage systems.

5. ASMD for the ANZAC's resolved sooner rather than later and add the second 8 cell VLS and fire control system.

6. Action taken to sort out warstocks for all weapons and personal equipment for the Army.

 

[Todjaeger]

Here's what I could get behind. Buying/leasing about a dozen each F/A-18F& E/A-18G super bugs. Basically enough to cover the loss of the F-111 once it retires in 2010, and also provide more airframes for the lag between Hornet replacement and the practical availability of the JSF. Me being me, I'd prefer to lease, as long as the overall cost is less.

The way I see it, doeing this would allow only the more recent Hornets with lower frame time, to receive the HUG. At the same time, it could give the RAAF operational experience with an AESA which could help prep for the APG-81 on the JSF. At the same time, RAAF would have an available SEAD aircraft, something they don't have at present. Once the JSF enters the RAAF inventory in sufficient numbers to replace the F/A-18 A & B, then the leased aircraft could be returned.

 

[alexsa]

Here's what I could get behind. Buying/leasing about a dozen each F/A-18F& E/A-18G super bugs. Basically enough to cover the loss of the F-111 once it retires in 2010, and also provide more airframes for the lag between Hornet replacement and the practical availability of the JSF. Me being me, I'd prefer to lease, as long as the overall cost is less.

The way I see it, doeing this would allow only the more recent Hornets with lower frame time, to receive the HUG. At the same time, it could give the RAAF operational experience with an AESA which could help prep for the APG-81 on the JSF. At the same time, RAAF would have an available SEAD aircraft, something they don't have at present. Once the JSF enters the RAAF inventory in sufficient numbers to replace the F/A-18 A & B, then the leased aircraft could be returned.

I have to say like the idea of some F-18E/F combined with the F-18G and buying the JSF a bit alter in the production run. However, I do note the the Plan B option is not considered necessary yet.

I would not lease. If you went down the plan B route buy the SH (E, F and G) and look at replacing these with a later block version of the the JSF (if it is still the optimal aircraft) in 20 or so years time.

 

[Todjaeger]

I have to say like the idea of some F-18E/F combined with the F-18G and buying the JSF a bit alter in the production run. However, I do note the the Plan B option is not considered necessary yet.

I would not lease. If you went down the plan B route buy the SH (E, F and G) and look at replacing these with a later block version of the the JSF (if it is still the optimal aircraft) in 20 or so years time.

The reason for my preference for leasing, or perhaps leasing with option to buy (geeze, I could like a car commercial...) is the way I would recommend it be implemented. Based on what I've read here and other sources, I'm expecting normal/series production of the JSF starting in the 2016-2018 timeframe. Assuming the program doesn't get scrapped of course. I'm making rough estimates that if series production starts in 2016, then the F/A-18 A & B Hornests (approx. 80) would have been replaced in a 2020-2022 timeframe. I would imagine that any Super Bugs purchased to take the place of the F-111 would be purchased in 2010, so would only be about 10-12 years old when the RAAF could start replacing them with F-35s. Granted, with leasing I'm assuming the following things, that a F-35 version available then would be more effective than any upgraded Super Bug, and that the cost for leasing is less than the next cost for purchasing Super Bugs and then reselling them at time of replacement. I wouldn't expect the RAAF to continue operating Bugs once it is able to start fielding Lightnings. But as has been mentioned, no Plan B yet.

On other fronts, this was litterally posted just 2 minutes before my post, so I didn't see it...

If more money is to be spent over and above that to be spent in the immediate year or so (noting the interim fighter is not deemed necessary at present) I wouel like action is respect of:

1. The issue of retention being addressed (particalarly in the training intesive areas),

2. The tactical STOL issue being resolved one way or another (I love the Bou but it is running out of legs and the C-27J/C-295 and additional chooks seems to be a good choice).

3. The airlift issue resolved ... are we upgrading the C-130H's or shoud we look at six more C-130J's and converting some of the H's to combat support birds (my preference). I would love to see an additional 2 C-17s as well.

4. Arty for the Army. This has dragged on and should be settled. Again my preference would be for a mobile system with the Hamels and 155's given to A Res to replace their Vietnam vintage systems.

5. ASMD for the ANZAC's resolved sooner rather than later and add the second 8 cell VLS and fire control system.

6. Action taken to sort out warstocks for all weapons and personal equipment for the Army.

Responding to each point:
#1. Yes, if retention is an issue, make it worthwhile to stay.
#2. The STOL I'm not so sure on. I get a sense that a firm decision on what the mission role would be hasn't been made. Until operational parameters (like range, speed, cargo and min. laden take-off distance...) are decided on, I think it's premature to go shopping for platforms. But yes, the Caribou is getting a little long in the tooth.
#3. For maintaining lift capacity, I'd go with replacing the 12 C-130H with KC-130J, though I'd be interested to hear about a Combat Support role for C-130H. As for the C-17, would be nice, but I think Boeing has already stopped ordering long-leadtime parts, so more C-17s might not be an option without significant restart costs.
#4. I would like to see Australia get SP guns, my preference would be for the new G6/L52 155mm from Denel. Particularly with the types of enhanced munitions coming out.
#5. Definately like to see the 2nd Mk 41 VLS, though that might be better waiting for the upgrade adding CEAFAR. Otherwise I'm not sure if an Anzac mounting 64 ESSM would have enough illuminators.
#6. Warstocks... I think need to be brought to a reasonable level, for both likely operational needs and training purposes.

 

[alexsa]

In regards to the C-17 all that has been done is that suppliers have been sent notification of the cesation of the line. The gear is still being produced and the line has some time to run yet. Now is the time to order additional units if you are going to want them hence the suggested extra C-17s at this point in time.

Still not a fan of leasing and prefer the 2 tier arrangement if plan B is needed.

 

[dioditto]

Just curious, what's the range of A-10? I mean if they are to be in the sea patrol role we do have a VAST territory to be cover...

 

[Todjaeger]

In regards to the C-17 all that has been done is that suppliers have been sent notification of the cesation of the line. The gear is still being produced and the line has some time to run yet. Now is the time to order additional units if you are going to want them hence the suggested extra C-17s at this point in time.

Still not a fan of leasing and prefer the 2 tier arrangement if plan B is needed.

What I had been hearing re: C-17 was that some of the supply arrangements Boeing had made were for certain types of parts being ordered up to three years in advance. With no additional US orders being placed, whatever contracts had been in place to supply parts ceased, excepting for parts already under order. Right now there's about 3yrs work left on the production line and for parts, but getting additional aircraft ordered would cost more due to having to place more parts orders. If it could still be done more or less economically, then definately go for it though. Assuming one can afford then costs of owning the transport, it's better to have too much than too little.

Alexsa, if you went with a purchase of super bugs, when would you anticipate having them replaced. With the lease option, I was figuring replacement roughly 1/3 to 1/2 way into service life. If you're looking at replacement in a 2030 timeframe, then yeah, buying Bugs makes sense.

As for the A-10, just looked up the range. It's 1,280km per Globalsecurity. Not great legs for a MPA, but then again, the A-10 was designed for CAS/COIN missions. Hence the relative lack of EW & sensor equipment. Admittedly, an A-10 can do MPA missions, it can't, without heavy modification, do them particularly well. Certainly other platforms are far better suited for an MPA role.

 

[alexsa]

Just curious, what's the range of A-10? I mean if they are to be in the sea patrol role we do have a VAST territory to be cover...

Deagle gives it a max range of 1300km. This tallies with the the air force fact sheet (800 miles). As this is max range I suspect this is without weapons and with max fuel.


http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=70

 

[alexsa]

Alexsa, if you went with a purchase of super bugs, when would you anticipate having them replaced. With the lease option, I was figuring replacement roughly 1/3 to 1/2 way into service life. If you're looking at replacement in a 2030 timeframe, then yeah, buying Bugs makes sense.

As noted in my previous post I would look at a 20 to 30 year life with the SH.

I would not lease. If you went down the plan B route buy the SH (E, F and G) and look at replacing these with a later block version of the the JSF (if it is still the optimal aircraft) in 20 or so years time.

 

[icelord]

Simple way to boost recruitment, most people have no idea what the Defence force does on daily duties, and you'd be stunned how many are shocked when asked during assesments if they're comfortable going into combat(its a military force fools!), If you want more people, jump on the reality show bandwagon, the ABC series Submarines showing HMAS Rankin a few months ago was brilliant, and Border security is no 1 rated show in the country, with Navy regulars on it. People want to see the jobs, instead of going in blind.
They need to look at what they do in the forces, and the new Ten drama series with Lisa Mccune onboard a Fremantle may also help, although it won't be the same as her on Blue Heelers...
A peek behind the forces would be a massive boost, but the downside of course is, that the ABC series took 2 years to produce after shooting footage to remove any security risks, so they must be carefully reviewed first.

 

[knightrider4]

Recruitment

Unfortunately defence has to contend with an extremely tight labour market and this in no way is peculiar to Australia. Simply your going to have to alter the pay rates to make it attractive for the young ones its that simple. For example you can be relatively uneducated and earn a fortune sitting on a shovel at a mine site and that is the challenge for defence in this country.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

My uncles producing that showon the Freemantle!! my aunt broke hher ankle when they were doing the pilot!! Dont know the name of it. He did blue healers aswell, f**king Lisa McCune, i have to see her god damned face every time i walk into coles and now she'll reck a good show (for me anyway)!!!

Your right there needs to be a change in the public's conception of the military. Me and a mate were going to kapooka last january, but i broke both my arms before so i bailed, so then he did. my other mates are patriotic blokes but as soon as you mention the army the've got vissions of R.Lee Ermy screaming in there faces calling them Private Pile . You mention the Navy and and they think there all, well, you know. The govt needs to spend some cash on some serious PR.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Unfortunately defence has to contend with an extremely tight labour market and this in no way is peculiar to Australia. Simply your going to have to alter the pay rates to make it attractive for the young ones its that simple. For example you can be relatively uneducated and earn a fortune sitting on a shovel at a mine site and that is the challenge for defence in this country.

There's no major problem with recruiting for ADF in general. The big problem is that ADF treats it's trained and experienced personnel (in general Diggers, Pussers, RAAFIES and NCO's) like sh*t and hence retention is the most serious problem affecting ADF numbers.

All the flashy advertisements in the world including Lisa McCLUNE on a boat (even if she WERE naked...) isn't going to do anything about our biggest problem and that is that Defence has to learn to properly manage it's people and wake up and realise the 19th Century style disciplinary sh*t doesn't cut it anymore.

You get shiny bums in SCMA (Soldier Career Management Agency) that have quota's to fill for positions and make executive decisions on transfers that A) normally defy logic and B) Alienate personnel have completed their ROSO and can leave ADF if they want and C) are un-contestable and the shiny bum is not held accountable for it.

I have heard of cases were soldiers both requested transfers. They were of the same corps at the same rank with the same basic ECN qualifications (same trade basically) who had differing postings. They wanted to do a swap with each other. They weren't allowed to and they were BOTH transferred to postings neither of them wanted. End result: both quit and Army lost 2 experienced soldiers who were keen to stay in, provided they were allowed to serve where it suited them.

Now obviously this cannot happen EVERYWHERE in Army, but the example is indicative of Army's intransigence on these sorts of issues and the complete lack of logic involved. Apparently it's better to lose to competent and experienced soldiers than to accede to a reasonable request...

 

[Simon9]

There's no major problem with recruiting for ADF in general. The big problem is that ADF treats it's trained and experienced personnel (in general Diggers, Pussers, RAAFIES and NCO's) like sh*t and hence retention is the most serious problem affecting ADF numbers.

All the flashy advertisements in the world including Lisa McCLUNE on a boat (even if she WERE naked...) isn't going to do anything about our biggest problem and that is that Defence has to learn to properly manage it's people and wake up and realise the 19th Century style disciplinary sh*t doesn't cut it anymore.

You get shiny bums in SCMA (Soldier Career Management Agency) that have quota's to fill for positions and make executive decisions on transfers that A) normally defy logic and B) Alienate personnel have completed their ROSO and can leave ADF if they want and C) are un-contestable and the shiny bum is not held accountable for it.

I have heard of cases were soldiers both requested transfers. They were of the same corps at the same rank with the same basic ECN qualifications (same trade basically) who had differing postings. They wanted to do a swap with each other. They weren't allowed to and they were BOTH transferred to postings neither of them wanted. End result: both quit and Army lost 2 experienced soldiers who were keen to stay in, provided they were allowed to serve where it suited them.

Now obviously this cannot happen EVERYWHERE in Army, but the example is indicative of Army's intransigence on these sorts of issues and the complete lack of logic involved. Apparently it's better to lose to competent and experienced soldiers than to accede to a reasonable request...

You also have to remember that SCMA is massively incompetent. The two worst departments of the army are recruiting and SCMA. Coincidence we're having recruiting and retention problems? I think not.

(and I don't agree that there are no problems with recruiting, AD - they have enough people applying, they just mismanage the application process so badly that they lose a lot of good people)

 

[gf0012-aust]

(and I don't agree that there are no problems with recruiting, AD - they have enough people applying, they just mismanage the application process so badly that they lose a lot of good people)

My last hatted job in Govt in the early years of the changeover from lab to Lib was as Nat State Director for Defence Force Recruiting in SA, which meant that I was on the national executive.

part of our job was undertake the political direction of the govt of the day (/pub svce speak off) and form a model of outsourcing of recruitment.

some pertinent facts I can now safely talk about.

• we recommended against outsourcing
• we regarded Manpower (the final private winner) as incompetent and of deliberately misrepresenting their capability
• we objected to the fact that ADF denied application for ex rec-staff who were setting up their own vehicle of business to bid for the tender. - they were the most competent of any of the bidders
• that the procedures of recruitment were archaic and needed modernising
• that the assessment procedures were flawed
• that ADF culture was not conducive to maximising outcomes - ie the internal job placement process putting staff into recruitment centres was inappropriate and flawed
• that the principle problems facing recruitment required an assessment of why there were retention problems. ie take a contrarian look at the problem.

This was when Dunn was wearing his recruitment hat - and he was entirely supportive of what we wrote. he failed to get enough momentum and interest higher up so as to make change.

Its been a cluster ever since.