Australia's Large Budget Surplus, Spawns Spending Speculation

[rjmaz1]

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...

The combat radius of the A-10 is similar to the superhornet. Both are in the 450-500Nm zone with your average warload.

However you can travel 1000kms in an hour or 1000kms in 2 hours, the A-10 will be able to loiter over the battlefield for much longer than the hornet. The A-10C can use laser guided mavericks and could defend against a low-tech naval attack, wedgetail can give co-ordinates over radio to the A-10. But then again sea patrol would not be what we would use the A-10 for, just one of the possibilities it could be used for.

More food for thought.

If Australia goes the JSF we have a huge capability gap in close air support. The JSF cannot get down in the mud and will remain at medium altitude as it could easily get shot down by ground fire as its non armoured and single engine.

The US has cheap dispensible F-16's, armoured A-10's and Apache attack helicopter all available to perform close air support. These three weapon systems between them can handle any close air support mission.

Australia only has the light armoured Tiger helicopter and soon the JSF. Australia has nothing in between. This gap in between i believe is the most important area, we need dedicated close air support more than ever and will continue to need it in the future as the war on terror looks like its here to stay. The A-10 suits Australia perfect, if you think im trying to say the A-10 is the replacement for the Hornet or F-111 you have got me wrong. The A-10 will be for a mission that we currently dont even have an aircraft. We could probably get A-10's for less than half the price of a superhornet.

An A-10 purchase in itself could be the Interim solution, it would allow the F-111's to be retired in 2010 and to help carry the load with our classic hornets. This allows us to wait until the JSF arrives. We could then operate 50 JSF's and 50 A-10's, fewer JSF's would be needed. The JSF will remain in Australia for air and naval defence while the A-10's will be deployed oversea's to support our troops, the USAF would already have secured all airspace.

Also the A-10 is probably the only aircraft that is basic enough for Australia to actually make parts for easily. We could keep the A-10's flying for another 50 years if we wanted to, sure it will cost alot but all that money is going back into the economy and to the employee wages of Australians.

Opinions? Does anyone else think there is a huge capability gap?

 

[Todjaeger]

The combat radius of the A-10 is similar to the superhornet. Both are in the 450-500Nm zone with your average warload.

However you can travel 1000kms in an hour or 1000kms in 2 hours, the A-10 will be able to loiter over the battlefield for much longer than the hornet. The A-10C can use laser guided mavericks and could defend against a low-tech naval attack, wedgetail can give co-ordinates over radio to the A-10. But then again sea patrol would not be what we would use the A-10 for, just one of the possibilities it could be used for.

More food for thought.

If Australia goes the JSF we have a huge capability gap in close air support. The JSF cannot get down in the mud and will remain at medium altitude as it could easily get shot down by ground fire as its non armoured and single engine.

The US has cheap dispensible F-16's, armoured A-10's and Apache attack helicopter all available to perform close air support. These three weapon systems between them can handle any close air support mission.

Australia only has the light armoured Tiger helicopter and soon the JSF. Australia has nothing in between. This gap in between i believe is the most important area, we need dedicated close air support more than ever and will continue to need it in the future as the war on terror looks like its here to stay. The A-10 suits Australia perfect, if you think im trying to say the A-10 is the replacement for the Hornet or F-111 you have got me wrong. The A-10 will be for a mission that we currently dont even have an aircraft. We could probably get A-10's for less than half the price of a superhornet.

An A-10 purchase in itself could be the Interim solution, it would allow the F-111's to be retired in 2010 and to help carry the load with our classic hornets. This allows us to wait until the JSF arrives. We could then operate 50 JSF's and 50 A-10's, fewer JSF's would be needed. The JSF will remain in Australia for air and naval defence while the A-10's will be deployed oversea's to support our troops, the USAF would already have secured all airspace.

Also the A-10 is probably the only aircraft that is basic enough for Australia to actually make parts for easily. We could keep the A-10's flying for another 50 years if we wanted to, sure it will cost alot but all that money is going back into the economy and to the employee wages of Australians.

Opinions? Does anyone else think there is a huge capability gap?

AFAIK, the current avionics for the A-10 doesn't support CEC, so without an upgrade (and a significant one IMO) no link with Wedgetail. Also, no link for using JASSM, etc. Given the was maritime area of interest for Australia, without the datalinks and advanced avionics, an A-10 just wouldn't be of much use. And again, due to the lack of avionics and particularly speed, an A-10 is of little use in an air defence/interceptor role. Basically all an A-10 can do is blow stuff up on the ground. It does it quite well, with a high degree of survivability, but keep in mind the development and history of the aircraft.
The A-10 started out as a COIN design to support US troops in Vietnam. By the time it reached production, the US was out of Vietnam so it had been changed to an anti-tank role for Northern Europe. As a result of being designed to destroy Soviet/Warsaw Pact tanks, it was deemed unnecessary for advanced avionics.

Regarding the capability gap, yes, the RAAF does have one to a degree, but keep in mind doctrine as well. If the RAAF needs CAS, it can configure the Hawk 127 to a CAS role. The question becomes, would the RAAF want/need to do so. Outside of a Defence of Australia situation, I don't think so (training not included). From an Australian perspective, I don't think the survivability features of the A-10 would be much of an advantage, particularly given the other limitations of the aircraft. If Australia does deploy aircraft for CAS missions, I believe that by that time, Australia (with allies) would have control of the air and sufficient ground control to not be overly concerned with enemy SAM defences. From what I'm aware, it was in GWI when A-10s were taking hits, and that is because they were performing anti-tank strikes before SEAD missions had been completed. In GWII and after, from what I've seen, most of the aircraft losses due to ground fire are occurring when aircraft are just landing or taking off. Not sure all the armour on the A-10 would help there.

For an Interim aircraft solution, the point of an acquisition would be to get a replacement for the Hornet and/or the F-111, That means aircraft that have the same or similar performance and flexibility. Getting the A-10 isn't an interim solution, because it is a new/different capability the Australia doesn't have at present.

 

[rjmaz1]

In GWII and after, from what I've seen, most of the aircraft losses due to ground fire are occurring when aircraft are just landing or taking off. Not sure all the armour on the A-10 would help there.

Have a looking at this Damage Photo of an A-10 that sucessfully landed, that was GWII as well. Any other aircraft would have crashed and could have caused loss of the pilot and people on the ground.

For an Interim aircraft solution, the point of an acquisition would be to get a replacement for the Hornet and/or the F-111, That means aircraft that have the same or similar performance and flexibility. Getting the A-10 isn't an interim solution, because it is a new/different capability the Australia doesn't have at present.

The F-111 long range bombing capability is no longer needed, this mission has pretty much been made redundant. To buy an intermin aircraft to carry out this redundant mission would be a waste of money. The capability/mission that is now crucial in my opinion is close air support. If we bought an interim aircraft to replace the F-111 and Hornet and ignored the fact that Australias requirement/priorities has now changed then we will be left with a capability gap.

Its probably premature to say that a long range strike aircraft has been made redundant, its more of the case that its no longer cost effective to have an aircraft to perform this mission if it results in taking money/resources from other areas, such as airlift, close air support and of course air to air.

For conflicts like east timor, the A-10 would be flawless, just as flawless as the hornet but at half the price. Close air support that requires some bombs dropped at a certain point would be better from a faster hornet, but identifying targets by eye like a forward observer and then striking would better with the A-10 due to its agility at lower speeds. Slow speeds put it at risk but then thats where the armour comes in.

If the A-10 isn't a good solution to fill this capability gap, what does everyone else suggest? Just rely on US aircraft for protection of our overseas troops?

 

[Aussie Digger]

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)

I agree, but ADF is STILL managing to recruit enough people to provide 4000-5000 new recruits to ADF each YEAR, but is losing roughly 11% of the permanent work force each year (around 5200-5400) per year. Hence ADF being described as "going backwards" each year.

The problem is of course, that the people ADF are losing are experienced and qualified...

 

[icelord]

The Civilian market doesn't help, anyone with military experience has a brilliant resume. Once you leave, theres a pay packet no military in the world can match for most jobs. Even if you offered cash bonuses and so forth, keeping officers would be extremely hard, as officer from Captain up can get a good income in the open market, and for others, their trades are in high demand. 4RAR and SAS can get a ton in War zones like Iraq as contractors, more then ADF can offer, but with a higher risk. Its not just mismanagement of keeping trained soldiers, its also a better offer, where later in their careers, as they get older, family becomes the bigger focus of their lives. A 9-5 job with no risk would have a better impact then being called to leave for training and deployments for months on end and a high risk in either case.
If people thought ahead, they might find that a good enough reason to join in the first place!

 

[alexsa]

Have a looking at this Damage Photo of an A-10 that sucessfully landed, that was GWII as well. Any other aircraft would have crashed and could have caused loss of the pilot and people on the ground.



The F-111 long range bombing capability is no longer needed, this mission has pretty much been made redundant. To buy an intermin aircraft to carry out this redundant mission would be a waste of money. The capability/mission that is now crucial in my opinion is close air support. If we bought an interim aircraft to replace the F-111 and Hornet and ignored the fact that Australias requirement/priorities has now changed then we will be left with a capability gap.

Its probably premature to say that a long range strike aircraft has been made redundant, its more of the case that its no longer cost effective to have an aircraft to perform this mission if it results in taking money/resources from other areas, such as airlift, close air support and of course air to air.

For conflicts like east timor, the A-10 would be flawless, just as flawless as the hornet but at half the price. Close air support that requires some bombs dropped at a certain point would be better from a faster hornet, but identifying targets by eye like a forward observer and then striking would better with the A-10 due to its agility at lower speeds. Slow speeds put it at risk but then thats where the armour comes in.

If the A-10 isn't a good solution to fill this capability gap, what does everyone else suggest? Just rely on US aircraft for protection of our overseas troops?

When in East Timor did we need the A-10? when to you see us needing the A-10 in the Australian context? The Hornet provided very capable PGN delivery during the Afganisatn conflict and GWII so I think that needs to be considered before you write it off as incapable. I have no problem with the A-10 as a ground attack aircraft in "close air support" but you did state very categorically the A-10 is superior to the "current P-3C option" in maritime strike. Sorry I still think this is rubbish.

Who says we don't need long range strike. The idea appears to be the this can be better provided by stand off weapons currently not available with the F-111.

By the way and IAF F-15 lost almost the entire area of its starboard wing in a mid air collision and landed. circusmtance can paly a mjaor part in survival and i doubt an A-10 would bet back relying on the lift provided by an engine nacelle. It is a very survivable aircraft never the less.

However you can travel 1000kms in an hour or 1000kms in 2 hours, the A-10 will be able to loiter over the battlefield for much longer than the hornet. The A-10C can use laser guided mavericks and could defend against a low-tech naval attack, wedgetail can give co-ordinates over radio to the A-10. But then again sea patrol would not be what we would use the A-10 for, just one of the possibilities it could be used for.

Laser guided mavericks, you would very likley be consigning the pilot to his death if the ship was armed with any missile system noting the max range of the AGM-65 is 24000m. You would be in gun range for medium calibre weapons at that distance.

The aircraft has a maximum range of 1300 odd km no gear. Range is range, getting there slower does not mean you have more time over the battle field (the ocean) if you are operating at close to your maixmum range. This is very relevant to the Martime role where the strike will be launched on a positive sighting and will be a long range operations unless you are planning to give up most of the EEZ. Time becomes very important as does the sensor and data transfer systems. the A-0 does not have these. In its currnet configuration (even with US updates) it is not as capable as the P-3 or F-18 in the martime role.

 

[machina]

If the A-10 isn't a good solution to fill this capability gap, what does everyone else suggest? Just rely on US aircraft for protection of our overseas troops?

Tigers are a start, and a few extra would be nice, but maybe Predators?

 

[old faithful]

Looks like they government is spending it in the right area's. More troops and air lift.

I hope they dont buy F-22's, wow we'd have air dominance.. we could dominate the air with spitfires against indo's.

My wish list is:

1-2 extra C-17's
100 extra bushmasters
A third extra batallion of troops
Dozen C-27J airlifters
50 Superhornets
50 A-10's with anti shipping capability (very unsual)

We need to set our defence force for peace keeping, which means troops, transport and close air support.

Mate, the last thing the ADF needs to be is a "professional peecekeeping force!" We are a defence force,and peace keeping is part of that,but ,we should NEVER sacrifice our war fighting,be it defence or offenceive capability,by structureing around peace keeping!

 

[icelord]

Mate, the last thing the ADF needs to be is a "professional peecekeeping force!" We are a defence force,and peace keeping is part of that,but ,we should NEVER sacrifice our war fighting,be it defence or offenceive capability,by structureing around peace keeping!

Agreed, let the kiwis be a peacekeeper, we're a peacemaker:nono
As much as troops, transport and close air support is vital, make sure you got some Armour to move, otherwise your a duck in a pond during hunting season:sniper
As much as Indo is no immediate threat, as their equipment rivals the 3rd reich, We should not just think for a second that it is all over and we don't need a large force, as it is BS. Mech infantry is more vital then any other, as it provide protection on the ground, and current purchases show that the Army needs heavy support, hence Tiger, Abrahms.

 

[knightrider4]

Peacemaker

It is far easier to peacekeep when you are armed to the teeth. Because of the extroadinarily long lead in times for capital equipment it is imperitive that the Army has what it needs to fight a conventional war. It is then a relatively simple matter to assume the role of peacekeeper once the major combat phase is over. On the other hand if your geared towards a peacekeeping role and if there is a drama and you dont get a warning in the mail ten years before hand then it's going to be a case of tears before bed time.

 

[old faithful]

well put K Rider. thats exactly the point i am trying to make. If you are prepared for all out war, then you can easilly adapt to lesser conflicts,but not vice versa!!

 

[scraw]

But the most important thing i think we need to adress is the manpower defecit.

Actually what we need is a Manpower deficit