F-111's back in the game if Labor elected to Govt

[gf0012-aust]

Labor to use $1.3bn to keep F-111s By John Kerin June 26, 2004

A LATHAM government would spend up to $1.3billion to keep Australia's ageing F-111 long-range fighter bombers flying until 2015 to plug any gap caused by the late delivery of the $16billion US-built F-35 stealth fighter.

Labor's defence spokesman, Chris Evans, said maintaining the F-111 in Australia's frontline defence would be the most cost-effective option to deal with any delays.

At least one international report this week suggested problems with the development of the new joint strike fighter could result in the Pentagon delaying its introduction by two years. But Senator Evans said Labor also reserved the option of buying or leasing interim fighters should the F-111, which came into service in 1971, develop unforseen structural problems.

Lockheed Martin plans to build about 2600 F-35s for the US and its allies at cost of around $350billion. But the early versions of the aircraft have been plagued with weight problems and other development difficulties.

Defence Minister Robert Hill has committed $300million to the development phase of the project.

But the winner of the coming federal election will have to decide whether to proceed with buying up to 100 F-35s in 2006.

The options will further open up the divide between the Coalition and the ALP over national security, and Labor's overall commitment to the US alliance in the lead-up to the poll.

The F-35 is due for delivery to Australia in 2012, but a report in Flight International magazine this week says the stealth fighter's manufacturer has applied for Pentagon approval to put back the delivery schedule by two years, meaning Australia might not get the aircraft until at least 2014.

Under Labor's plan, the F-111 fleet would operate for 12 months to 2015 until the F-35s became fully operational.

Labor's pledge to plug any gap in Australia's air defences follows the Government's decision to retire the 35 F-111s in 2009. and repeated assurances from Senator Hill that weapons upgrades to the F/A-18s and Orion surveillance aircraft will cover any loss of air firepower.

Senator Evans said extending the life of the F-111s would be cheaper than buying or leasing an interim fighter, which he conceded could cost $2billion to $3billion, but any extra cost would have to be met from the existing defence budget.

Senator Hill maintained this week that he was still expecting the F-35 to be delivered on time in 2012.

He warned that "any Labor plan to buy an interim capability will cost billions of dollars".

"Where is that money going to come from?" Senator Hill asked.

He said the Government had accepted the advice of the RAAF that the F-35 was the best option available for Australia's future air defence needs.



http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,9955502%5E2702,00.html


Looks like our good mate Carlo Kopp has been dribbling in Beasleys ear.. Senator Evans wouldn't know a Cessna from a Hornet. Beasley is very much pro F-111. Say goodbye to our little "carriers" if Labor get elected.
(and the air warfare destroyers)

 

[highsea]

GF, Would the 1.3 Bn come out of the 16Bn planned for the F-35?

When you posted on this topic a couple of days ago, I was thinking, why not do just this? Extend the F-111 service for a couple years until the F-35 can plug the hole?

I don't know how long your F-18's will still be in service as the JSF's are brought online, but as you pointed out earlier, a few Super Hornets could fill the gap (barely) if the F-111's had to go before the JSF's could be brought up.

The choice seems to be either extend F-111's or replace with Super Hornets or F-22's until the JSF's are ready, or live with the gap in long range punch for a couple years.

What do you think is the best choice?

-CM~~~likes F-22's

 

[gf0012-aust]

GF, Would the 1.3 Bn come out of the 16Bn planned for the F-35?

When you posted on this topic a couple of days ago, I was thinking, why not do just this? Extend the F-111 service for a couple years until the F-35 can plug the hole?

I don't know how long your F-18's will still be in service as the JSF's are brought online, but as you pointed out earlier, a few Super Hornets could fill the gap (barely) if the F-111's had to go before the JSF's could be brought up.

The choice seems to be either extend F-111's or replace with Super Hornets or F-22's until the JSF's are ready, or live with the gap in long range punch for a couple years.

What do you think is the best choice?

-CM~~~likes F-22's

The official blurb from the US is that if we have a requirement (eg if we end up in a shooting war with a rambunctious neighbour to our nth west), then they will ensure that we get the airframes we need on a fast tracking basis. whether that means it comes out of US war reserves of active squadrons - then heavens only knows.

I'm a risk mitigator - I'd rather have capability inserted in before there is an opportunity for the region to go to custard. We've already had some local examples of how quickly things can turn for the unprepared.

F/A 18's are out. Too many centre barrel fatigue issues unless we start buying up the Swiss Hornets, or the Canadians. I have a funny feeling Canada is now going to try and stretch the life of their platforms a little longer. The new govt is intent on filling the gap in defence that it has been plagued with over the last few years. They were the Northern Hemispheres version of NZ. Not a particularly good acquisition and sustainability model.

The Swiss Hornets use titanium armoured tubs, so they have sacrificed some war fighting capability in the intercept role, they're designed for air-ground work, so aren't an ideal fit.

Next option are the F-111's. They are still the most capable long range strike bomber of their type in the world, but they now need to be escorted into battle by suppression assisters (weasels), otherwise they would get chewed up by any competent S-300 ground crew

Super Hornets, lots of capability, more cost effective to run than an F-15, but don;t have the long range unassisted strike legs. My belief is that your platforms need to have maximum autonomous capability before you start to factor in symbiotic support like tankers etc.. as they add in vulnerability issues.

F-15's Good, reliable long range strikers. If we get the AESA version then they are more than a match for an Su-30. The time frame is long enough for them to be a real consideration. The "F-100" of planes IMHO

Rafale. A gen 4.5 aircraft that on paper can be impressive. but its a purchasing and operators "orphan". The French embargoed Australia in the 60's and 70's. We don't trust them as such to not do it again. The plane has a small installed user base, and if Singapore doesn't get them, then they become a "cottage" purchase. 0/10

EF2000. Broader user base, but too dissimilar in the logistics area - too much of a worry with parallel concerns that Rafale faces - but it's a more capable strike aircraft

My view, is that unless we can demonstrate clear savings and benefit for the F-111, then they are a continuing liability - irrespective that they currently could deal with Indonesia quite easily - 5-10 years time will be a different story.

I'd go for the AESA equipped Eagles. We minimise the logistics variables, we get a heavy hitter, we get a platform of known capability, we know how the F-15c's performed at Gwalior, so we know what the F-15D's with AESA could do in their place - so platform confidence is high.

F-22's would be nice, but unless we can do mates rates and barter off some of the technology that the US wants from us (acoustic warfare technology, combat room technology, OTH Radar, Scramjet technology) then the price is too high - and I can't see the US providing allies with F-22 tech for a short window at least. Unofficially we've been told that together with the UK we would be the only nations that would be considered for F-22 access and fly away rights.

/breathes out

 

[Aussie Digger]

The problem is that the Australian Government (of either political persuasion) has maintained apolicy of keeping a qualitative and quantitative edge over any likely "regional" adversary. Now our "likely regional adversaries" are acquiring SU-27/30 jets, AWACS aircraft, air to air refuellers and advanced air to air and air to ground weaponry, not to mention advanced surface to air missile systems and it is becoming much harder for us to maintain our advantage, given our politically restrained defence budget (1.9% of GDP, even a lift to 2.5% of GDP which would put us on par with our reional neighbours level of spending would provide us with an extra $10 Billion a year for defence and these problems wouldn't exist)...

The option our Air Force came up with was to scrap the entire F-111 fleet and further upgrade the F-18 and Orion aircraft and fit them with new precision attack weapons and standoff missiles. The Government accepted this advice (despite the issue that our air force strike capability is supposedly being enhanced by scrapping 36 world class strike aircraft!!!) and is now politically committed to it... The reason for this apparently is that it would cost too much to sustain the F-111 until 2015 due to the upgrades it too will require (new weapons, electronic warfare systems etc).

I think the F-111 will go and not be replaced at all and Australia will have at best a long term parity with it's regional neighbours rather than the advantage it used to have...

 

[highsea]

Well, I have no doubt that the US would jump quick in if Australia somehow ended up in a shooting war, but it would be nice if Australia and the UK could get some F-22's. Our own budget problems seem to keep chopping that program a little more every year, and if Kerry beats Bush, It will only get cut back further. Additional orders from AUS and UK could help cut the unit cost of these AC for everyone.

-CM

 

[Aussie Digger]

Our Air Force would love to have some F-22's. Unfortunately at $250 Million a pop, they're a little bit rich for our blood... Not to mention the likelyhood that the US would actually export them...

 

[highsea]

Yea, they're kinda pricey.

Can we interest you in a few F-15E's maybe?

-CM

 

[Aussie Digger]

If it were up to me, we would have acquired F-15C's in the mid 80's when we actually acquired F-18's (the F-15 it was thought wouldn't last in production, ironic huh...) followed by F-15E Strike Eagles in the mid 90's to replace our F-111's, if this was done we again wouldn't have the problems we face today. But common sense has never really been our Government's best attribute... :help

 

[gf0012-aust]

Yea, they're kinda pricey.

Can we interest you in a few F-15E's maybe?

-CM

As long as it's got Link16 and AESA, then we'd probably welcome anything above a super hornet.

interestingly enough, the russians were trying to get us to purchase 40 x Su-34 Platypus. They even tried to sweeten the deal by offerering us exclusive development in a long range stand off missile.

CASA refused to certify the plane to land in australia though, said it failed to comply with international safety regulations. They got a little upset at that as they were keen on having it our bi-annual airshow. :