F-111s beyond 2012

[Magoo]

OK, if Occum doesn't want to start this thread, then I'll kick it off.

First, I want to stress that I have no financial, political, technical nor operational connections to the F-111 or to any other aircraft. I work in the defence and aviation media and have many contacts in both industry and defence, so I guess you could say I'm coming from an 'informed lay-person's' point of view.

Alot of informed and not-so informed observers and commentators have pushed their various barrows in the past decade about retaining and upgrading the RAAF's F-111 force so that it remains relevant past 2020. Indeed, I have been a 'fan' of the jet and its capabilities for more than 30 years, and in recent years have hoped for a viable upgrade and retention plan to come along.

I'd love to see the following capabilities integrated onto the Pig, and hope that some of you out there may be able to convince me as to the viability (and risks!) associated with doing so. I've read the parliamentary submissions, the ausairpower website and all the Australian Aviation and Defence Today articles and still have questions, so please don't refer me to any of these.

* A safe airframe with low-risk fatigue related issues. Can the wings, carry-through box, horizontal stabs etc be made safe for an extended life of type through to 2020+?

* Stand off precision weapons - from JDAM and SDB, to Harpoon Block 2/3, up to JASSM, and even ASRAAM. Now that the Pig has the C4 upgrade, what are the remaining issues in doing this? Let's not go down the AMRAAM armed 'Missileer' route for now.

* Recce/SA - can the Pave Tack be upgraded, or can a new generation of pod be successfully integrated? Can a SAR/GMTI capable radar be successfully integrated with the aircraft, either in the radome or on the current Pave Tack cradle?

* Cockpit upgrades - If a new pod and/or radar can be integrated, will the cockpit displays also require an upgrade so the Nav can properly interpret the imagery/data?

* Two-way datalinks - can a two-way MIDS/Link-16 system be successfully installed and integrated?

* EWSP system - Is there a capable, low-risk option out there which can be integrated with the jet, or can we go a podded system (a la Tornado)?

* Engines - are the P108s good enough, or do we need to look at F110s? What about reconditioned F model P100s? Please don't talk to me about F119s as, even if they could be released for foreign sales, I feel this really is an 'out there' option.

* Other issues - what else is there that needs to be addressed with the aircraft? Are there other structural issues soon to rear their ugly heads? Are the wiring looms OK? How about the hydraulics? What else needs to be done?

* Finally, and perhaps most importantly, what is the minimum viable force of an upgraded fleet of F-111s? Can we do it with 16-18 jets, or do we need to pull more G models out of the Boneyard to bulk the fleet up more?

I look forward to some informed, interesting, and hopefully, mutually respectful debate on this thread.

Thanks

Magoo

 

[Aussie Digger]

I am certainly no aviation expert. I find aviation issues fascinating and as such I'll respond here.

Firstly, I understand the significance of the F-111. It's range, speed and payload is unmatched in the "Western World" inventory by anything short of a B-1B, AFAIK.

It has provided outstaning service for Australia, yet it has never been called upon to perform it's ACTUAL role. Apart from a very few recce missions over Timor (which "could" have been conducted by other assets) it has in fact never performed an actual operational mission in Australian service.

In saying this and given world events, our strategic environment and Australia's political ideals, I cannot conceive of a scenario where the specialty of the F-111 is required.

The F-111 will not, in RAAF service, conduct long range strike missions un-escorted. This is admitted as much by it's operators and commanders. As such it is limited by the range of it's escorts and whatever A2A refuelling capacity we possess. Given our politcally limited budget, our A2A capacity is likely to remain extremely limited in the foreseeable future.

It is also an ageing plane. Irregardless of the enhancements made to it, it is still an old aircraft and increasingly outmatched by newer aircraft and threats. It's LOT will fall sooner or later, no matter how much we upgrade or how carefully we maintain them.

As to the proposed upgrades, what benefit therefore is there to Australia? All the enhancements mentioned will be or already are incorporated into our F/A-18A/B HUG fleet.

Some argue that further upgrades such as JDAM, JASSM, ASRAAM will be simple, now that the "hard" work has been (substantially) completed, thanks to the AGM-142E "Popeye" project. Others disagree and argue that similar amounts of work "may" be required. Whatever the correct answer, as the sole operator WE will be responsible for the entire design and integration of such work. We cannot "fall back" on the USAF's experience in such matters.

In my opinion, such upgrades are too risky. The AGM-142E is not yet operational despite nearly 8 years work and (reputedly) $600 million invested in the project.

The F-111 would require vast investment in an enormous range of capabilities to be competitive in air environments beyond 2012. Such upgrades would rival the Hornet upgrade program in scope, (over $2 Billion in project cost) yet would be immeasurably riskier given the obvious difficulties encountered in the AGM-142E project.

The maintainability of the F-111 is also a point in question. The wheel loss the other day is an obvious reminder. A more serious one is the fuel tank explosion a year or 2 ago. But despite others stating that was a sign of the aircrafts "robust build", I think that is a circumstance for more serious concern.

When did an F/A-18 have a fuel tank explosion in RAAF service? When did one lose a wheel for that matter? Surely the de-skilling of RAAF is an issue, but is the difference in skill level between 3, 75, 77 and 1 Sqn's THAT big, or is the newer, more reliable aircraft the greater factor???

To answer your question Magoo, (if I haven't already) I think F-111 should be continued in it's current form until 2011-2012 and then allowed to retire gracefully. Every platform retires eventually and the enthusiasts need to realise that whatever happens, sooner or later they'll be flogging a dead horse. Let it RIP and let us move onto to something newer and (hopefully) better...

 

[Magoo]

To answer your question Magoo, (if I haven't already) I think F-111 should be continued in it's current form until 2011-2012 and then allowed to retire gracefully. Every platform retires eventually and the enthusiasts need to realise that whatever happens, sooner or later they'll be flogging a dead horse. Let it RIP and let us move onto to something newer and (hopefully) better...

At this time I tend to agree with you AD. However, I guess I'm holding on to a slim hope that I can be swayed towards a change of mind.

Cheers

Magoo

 

[Occum]

Facts versus Perceptions

The maintainability of the F-111 is also a point in question. The wheel loss the other day is an obvious reminder. A more serious one is the fuel tank explosion a year or 2 ago. But despite others stating that was a sign of the aircrafts "robust build", I think that is a circumstance for more serious concern.

When did an F/A-18 have a fuel tank explosion in RAAF service? When did one lose a wheel for that matter? Surely the de-skilling of RAAF is an issue, but is the difference in skill level between 3, 75, 77 and 1 Sqn's THAT big, or is the newer, more reliable aircraft the greater factor???

At the Chief Engineers' Conference in 2000 (run by the then DGTA, Air Commodore Noel Schmidt), the Chief Engineer at Boeing Australia, the organisation which was in the process of taking over the F-111 Deeper Maintenenace, put up a slide of what they identified as the 10 most significant areas of risk on the F-111 fleet.

IIRC, at or near the top of the list was the fuel tank wiring with the recommendation that it be changed out for the later technology (developed as a result of fuel tank explosions in the civil aviation sector). The cost per aircraft was measured in the thousands of dollars, the bulk of which was for the harnesses since the proposed plan was to replace them on standard servicings of the fuel tanks.

Defence did not accept this expert advice. The rest is history.

There is an equally enlightening saga behind the catastrophic failure of the full scale wing fatigue test article. Up until that event, such an unplanned 'catastrophic failure' on a full scale fatigue test article being used as part of a life extension study was unheard of.

Put simply, the crack that resulted in the failure, was initiated on the first day of testing and grew through over 17k test hours without being detected. Anyone with experience in structural fatigue will know what this means. For those who don't, ask to see the post failure review report done by DSTO.

Well may you ask how this came to be?

Because (a) no one was looking at the outer section of the test article and (b) as a result of funding restrictions, the wing was not instrumented in the outer panel areas to detect the crack and its growth. Amazing!

Footnotes:

1. The last time I looked, the F-111 fuel tank wiring harnesses have not been upgraded to the later technology harnesses. I understand it is being talked about (still). The extensive inspections that have and are being carried out on the fuel tank harnesses allow you to infer there are no defects but do not guarantee this is the case. The type of defect that led to the fuel tank explosion can only be confirmed by destructive testing of the harness. Retaining this technology harness is just plain silly.

2. A Hornet would be unlikely to survive such an explosion ..... or wheels up landing for that matter without serious (Cat 5) damage.

3. In terms of the measure of aircraft age (nos of flying hours flown vs original design life), the Hornet is 'more aged' (aka 'older') than the F-111 which is why there are the Structural Repair Programs (SRPs) and the centre barrels need to be replaced.

4. The F-111 is the only aircraft in the fleet with a proper Ageing Aircraft Program in place. Now don't let this name confuse you. The smarter people in the Aerospace Industry, have, since the late 1980s, put in place what are called Ageing Aircraft Programs or Life of Type Risk Management Programs from day one of an aircraft going onto the flight line.

 

[rjmaz1]

I'll put up an argument against F-111 upgrades.

Some of the things that people dont realise is that the trend is for a more streamlined and light strike force which requires very little support costs. The F-111 will never allow this to happen as it requires a decent amount of ground support and requires air escorts so the force has to be quite large to accomodate the F-111's. Its good at eating money though.

People also persist that the F-111 capability needs to remain or replaced with a similar aircraft. The thing is that our F-111's have never been used since we have had them. For the last 20 years we could have been using a single aircraft fleet of hornets with no loss in used capability. We wouldn't have missed the F-111's but we do miss the billions of dollars they have consumed.

Our F-111's have been used purely as a deterance, that deterance is nearly gone as Enemy SAM and aircraft now make our F-111's sitting ducks in any modern conflict. Our close neighbours though are not very advanced which is the only way the F-111's can be justified. We could drop bombs from a C-130 against indonesia :

If we had a military as strong as Israel or Taiwon as our neighbour we would NOT be using F-111's now as any war would see our F-111's being shot down.

The only role that our F-111's could be used for in 10 years is a similar role as the US B-52 aircraft. Staying away from heavily defending area's and slash striking from a distance. Six Standoff missiles and a few Small diameter bombs would provide alot of firepower, however this would require a more advanced radar and full digital cockpit to use it effectively so they can actually find targets themselves.

The devlopment cost of something like this could not be justified for such a small fleet of aircraft. Everyone knows that the more aircraft that are upgraded the less cost it will be per aircraft, but we have no one to share development costs with so we are all alone. Even if they were upgraded this standoff capability is not really required as the strike aspect can be sent to our ships.

I think the wise thing to do is to gracously retire the F-111's in their current config. Use Ship launched missiles to replace their long range strike capability and use the Hornets for the short range strike. The hornets no longer have to escort the F-111's so they can now have greater combat persistance.

Then either do the barrel upgrade on all Hornets and fly them for another 10 years and buy JSF's in 2015.

If i was in charge i'd be buying more C-17 aircraft, these aircraft SAVE life rather than destroy life.

Remember that politicians look at things not from a technical point of view but from a more strategic point of view. They are the ones who decide the fate of the F-111's and provide the money. So comparing A technology versus B technology is not looking at the big picture.

We shouldn't be too concerned about the Airforce, our Navy is the one in trouble, we cant even crew all our boats. Automation is a huge problem with our current boats.

The Anzac frigates are too big to crew and we plan on getting even bigger destroyers

Australian Navy should be buying boats like the Israel Saar 5 Corvette. These have all the capabilities of our ANZAC frigates but are HALF the size and a THIRD of the man power.

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/naval/saar5/Saar5.html

 

[Pusser01]

The Anzac frigates are too big to crew and we plan on getting even bigger destroyers

Australian Navy should be buying boats like the Israel Saar 5 Corvette. These have all the capabilities of our ANZAC frigates but are HALF the size and a THIRD of the man power.

Sorry mate, will have to disagre with you here.
The Anzacs aren't too big to crew, the problem lies in how they are being utilised. They are currently performing jobs that used to be the domain of the FFG's with 40-50 more people ie Gulf deployments with 2-3 boarding parties activated, makes it very tough for those onboard.
As you said for the Saar 5, it may have the some of the capabilities but it would struggle to complete most of the tasks set for the Anzacs due to its small size & crew.
Cheers

 

[Magoo]

:cop :cop
fftopic

Whoa...hold on there guys. We've got some serious thread creep happening here!

Can we please get back to F-111 upgrades and take the ships discussion over to the Naval Forces forum.

Cheers

Magoo

:cop :cop

 

[Pusser01]

:cop :cop
fftopic

Whoa...hold on there guys. We've got some serious thread creep happening here!

Can we please get back to F-111 upgrades and take the ships discussion over to the Naval Forces forum.

Cheers

Magoo

:cop :cop

Apologies mate, just got a little sidetracked there.
I have to admit, there is nothing better than exercising with the Pigs (when they haven't speared in U/S). It is great to try & track them in on the deck & then watch them on the uppers as they roar overhead below mastheight.
Unfortunately I belive their time is fast approaching. The question I ask is do they still fill a requirement that can not be filled by other means ie F/A18 with JASSM after 2010. In the meantime I still look forward to playing with them for a few more years yet.
Cheers

 

[vined]

Re the F111 discusion:
1st excellent landing by the pilot recently, loved the hook dragging along the ground into the wires.

Most/if not all aircraft will be cat5 after wheels up landing.

Goon/Coop spent too much time on F111 upgrade, may have been ok if some other AF wanted to do the same/similar but it's getting to the end of it's life, even if frames are zero timed, intergrated with new systems/etc/etc/etc. The F111 appears to be approaching the end of it's life, it's like getting rid of a good car.....

Haven't time for a 10 pager and hopefully covered some issues/thoughts below but not all.

Two options would like to see in regards to the RAAF fighter force
O1- 75-80 FA18EF, 20-25 F22A current plan upgrade/centre barrell/etc FA18 as interim measure. deliver 18s/22s by 2010-2012.
O2- 50-60 FA18EF, 40-50 F35C current plan upgrade/centre barrell/etc FA18 as interim measure. deliver 18s 2010-12, F35's 2015-20.

The FA18s rebarrel with give extra time allowances if F22's/F35's delayed. Also if F35C is selected, this will allow the aircraft to mature a little on slightly longer timeframes while the S~Bug is providing frontline service with the Advanced Classic Bug in support.
Is there any real advantages in having both F35A/C's & F22's?? or having a single type to cover all roles.
F35A timeframes appear marginal & is it appears a better option on the C version.

SuperBug & F22 is available NOW & in service, not a proposed timeframe in 5-10 years time. Construction in the F35 appears interesting (and maybe complex) including matting the wing to the fuselage. This may be interesting with mid-life refurbs and repairs (same likely with the F22). Have a 2 type aircraft fleet so if problems develop with 1 type durings it's lifespan the other is generally still available with good multirole capablilty.

There have many times when items have gone way overtime/budget, DoD has a bit of egg on its face so far, even the 111 was 10 so years late on delivery and things don't appear to getting better any time soon. Even with the good purchases of equipment recently Tankers, AEW and Choppers, some of these
aren't proven in their roles & are having some developmental issues..
Train pilots in combat with the SuperBug before progressing to the F35, but while S~bug is full combat capable. S~Bug offers twin engine extra safety margin for pilots going over hostile territory (F18's proved in Iraq with
distance/time/multi-tanking), do we have adequate rescue resouces, if largely by ourselves if/when confict dicates.
Simulators fully can't replace real experience.

If selected, F35 could be delivered in F35C version giving some range advantages except F22..
F35C is a larger platform than F35A with slightly increased range.
F22 will be usefull in Long Range Intercept and Med-Long Range strike & recon.
F35 is similar in combat to the s~bug except some electronic & steath advantages.
The F22 supplying Steath with Med-Long Range with highspeed cruise AA & AG.
The F35 supplying Steath with Med Range AA & AG.

 

[rossfrb_1]

I'll put up an argument against F-111 upgrades.

Some of the things that people dont realise is that the trend is for a more streamlined and light strike force which requires very little support costs. The F-111 will never allow this to happen as it requires a decent amount of ground support and requires air escorts so the force has to be quite large to accomodate the F-111's. Its good at eating money though.

A lot of that support infrastructure for the F-111 already exists, granted new capabilities would need additional support though. Regards air escorts - whatever environment that an F-111 requires escorting in wouldn't anything else that is doing the F-111's job also require escorting?

People also persist that the F-111 capability needs to remain or replaced with a similar aircraft. The thing is that our F-111's have never been used since we have had them. For the last 20 years we could have been using a single aircraft fleet of hornets with no loss in used capability. We wouldn't have missed the F-111's but we do miss the billions of dollars they have consumed.

The Leopard Is have never been used in anger (that I recall), but for some reason they are being replaced with something even bigger and meaner.

Our F-111's have been used purely as a deterance, that deterance is nearly gone as Enemy SAM and aircraft now make our F-111's sitting ducks in any modern conflict. Our close neighbours though are not very advanced which is the only way the F-111's can be justified. We could drop bombs from a C-130 against indonesia :

Hang on, the F-111 can't survive a modern combat environment but a C-130 can?

If we had a military as strong as Israel or Taiwon as our neighbour we would NOT be using F-111's now as any war would see our F-111's being shot down.

As I understand it the F-111s have consistently been one of the least shot down aircraft in Red Flag exercises

Remember that politicians look at things not from a technical point of view but from a more strategic point of view. They are the ones who decide the fate of the F-111's and provide the money. So comparing A technology versus B technology is not looking at the big picture.

Ah yes, like giving up an offensive capability to placate a neighbour

rb

 

[Aussie Digger]

A lot of that support infrastructure for the F-111 already exists, granted new capabilities would need additional support though. Regards air escorts - whatever environment that an F-111 requires escorting in wouldn't anything else that is doing the F-111's job also require escorting?


The Leopard Is have never been used in anger (that I recall), but for some reason they are being replaced with something even bigger and meaner.


Hang on, the F-111 can't survive a modern combat environment but a C-130 can?


As I understand it the F-111s have consistently been one of the least shot down aircraft in Red Flag exercises



Ah yes, like giving up an offensive capability to placate a neighbour

rb

The F/A-18's and and later the JSF are replacing the F-111. It is not simply beinfg withdrawn without replacement. Both types are capable of "self-escorting" to varying degree's and do not require another aircraft to provide A2A coverage for the striker.

If we're going to start retiring ADF capabilities that haven't been deployed operationally, we could easily shave $6 Billion or so a year off our budget. I don't recall our submarines, minehunters, artillery or mortars being used operationally too often either. Perhaps we should scrap them too?

How many C-130's do you think the RAAF intends to fly directly into hostile air defence systems and conduct strike missions against said air defences??? That is the F-111's primary job and it IS becoming increasingly in-capable of conducting this mission.

How often do F-111's operate in Red Flag unescorted NOW? Never AFAIK. It operates as part of a package, with most capabilities required to support it provided by OTHER air forces... Unfortunately RAAF needs an aircraft capable of "independant" operation as we are and likely to always remain deficient in a lot of areas of air combat. F-111 WAS capable of that, but has not been used in this role for many years by RAAF with damn good reason.

AS to the withdrawal of an offensive capability. Our neighbours certainly found the announcement of our acquisition of JASSM pretty "offensive". They bleated to the "high heavens" as I recall about US creating an "arms race" all the while doing everything they possibly could to get their hands on more Sukhoi's...

RAAF seems to think that F/A-18's firing 400k plus JASSM's (possibly 950k plus in the future) is much better idea than flying F-111's with 10-12k LGB's into the face of an enemy IADS.

I for one, tend to agree with them...

 

[Occum]

Mil Std 1760 Weapons Bus - Where are you?

RAAF seems to think that F/A-18's firing 400k plus JASSM's (possibly 950k plus in the future) is much better idea than flying F-111's with 10-12k LGB's into the face of an enemy IADS.

I for one, tend to agree with them...

And why is that AD? Wasn't the F-111 the primary carrier of the weapon to be procured under Air 5418 (aka JASSM) up until 2003 when maintenance bungles and flawed fatigue tests coupled with the carping of the Anti-F111 lobby put the willies up a few senior people who, as CAF Shepherd said on the 31st of March last, 'don't know what they don't know?'

To compare apples with apples, should you not consider both types carrying the JASSM?

If you do, then you would also know that, in simple terms, the F-111 can carry at least twice the number, twice as far and faster. Moreover, integrating the JASSM on the F-111 is far less risky and would cost far less (less than a quarter of the cost for integrating and clearing the weapon on the F/A-18 Classics). For the reasons for this, refer F-111 BUP Block 4C et al.

As for 'self escorting'. It sounds really good if you say it really, really quickly. But think about it for a minute or two. If the strikers are carrying external stores (which, in the case of the Hornet, that is all they can do), then they will still need escorts for A/A protection (plus the additional tanking off load) unless they jettison their A/G load if jumped and rely upon their remaining diminished A/A load (and gun) for self protection. In which case, the 'jumpers' have already achieved their aim. N'est pas? QED.

 

[111Lover]

RAAF seems to think that F/A-18's firing 400k plus JASSM's (possibly 950k plus in the future) is much better idea than flying F-111's with 10-12k LGB's into the face of an enemy IADS.

Then imagine just how far tanker-supported F-111s would be able to reach with the AGM-158?

As for 'self escorting'. It sounds really good if you say it really, really quickly. But think about it for a minute or two. If the strikers are carrying external stores (which, in the case of the Hornet, that is all they can do), then they will still need escorts for A/A protection (plus the additional tanking off load) unless they jettison their A/G load if jumped and rely upon their remaining diminished A/A load (and gun) for self protection. In which case, the 'jumpers' have already achieved their aim. N'est pas? QED.

IMO, the F-35 is the only one of the two that will be really be capable of self-escorting. If I was a Hornet driver, I wouldn't like the prospect of getting into an engagement with four JASSMs slung under my wings.
The F/A-18/JASSM combination is nothing more than a band-aid solution. You can't strap a couple of JASSMs on a tactical fighter and turn it into a long-range strike aircraft. Given the Block C-4 Upgrade on the F-111 and the fact that the JSF is cleared for the JASSM, why not integrate them onto the F-111 then transfer the stocks to the JSF when it replaces the F-111?

 

[Occum]

The JSF has yet to drop a bomb or fire a missile.

Then imagine just how far tanker-supported F-111s would be able to reach with the AGM-158?

Precisely but also consider the lower tanker off load requirement with F-22s escorting.

IMO, the F-35 is the only one of the two that will be really be capable of self-escorting. If I was a Hornet driver, I wouldn't like the prospect of getting into an engagement with four JASSMs slung under my wings.
The F/A-18/JASSM combination is nothing more than a band-aid solution. You can't strap a couple of JASSMs on a tactical fighter and turn it into a long-range strike aircraft. Given the Block C-4 Upgrade on the F-111 and the fact that the JSF is cleared for the JASSM, why not integrate them onto the F-111 then transfer the stocks to the JSF when it replaces the F-111?

The JASSM has not been cleared off the JSF (Lightning II); is not scheduled to be cleared during SDD; is not part of the Baseline Threshold Weapons Plan; and, if and when cleared, will only be carried externally and then only on the inboard pylons. Therefore, the same situation applies for the purported 'self escorting' scenario.

Sorry about that.

As for the JSF replacing the F-111, provided the JSF can demonstrate the capabilities to replace the F-111 then this might be a good way to go. However, the JSF Program is unlikely to be in a position to demonstrate if it has such capabilities till some time after 2016.

 

[111Lover]

The JASSM has not been cleared off the JSF (Lightning II); is not scheduled to be cleared during SDD; is not part of the Baseline Threshold Weapons Plan;

Sorry, I though it had been. :redface

 

[Occum]

Techno Glitter

Sorry, I though it had been. :redface

No need to apologise. You are in illustrious company as can be seen by the language of senior Departmental officials. Their belief system which is predicated on self deception and denial has them talking about the Lightning II as if it can already do what their marketeering buddies were saying back in 2002, even though things have moved on since then. This is further reinforced by the canned modelling, simulations and other techno glitter they are being fed. As one of my professors in aircraft systems design said some years ago, without real world verification and validation data to calibrate them, such models and simulations are but very expensive video games - 'techno glitter' was a term he coined for such things.

The veracity of the due diligence on such things is what sorts the enthusiastic amateurs out from the professionals.

For Magoo - I will try to get to your questions at the earliest but have to say the answers you seek are all in the various submissions to the inquiry and articles on these subjects in Australian Aviation, Defence Today et al, in a far more cogent, readily understandable form than you are likely to get from me and my dry Technical/Engineering speak. Surely the various OpEds and TechEds that cover the subjects you have raised would not have been published by such venerable publications as Australian Aviation and Defence Today if they were not factually correct. I have seen and heard some of the criticisms levelled at such articles but, frankly, these have been more emotive and perception based than factual with hard data.

 

[rjmaz1]

I think if the we go the JSF the long range strike capability will be reduced dramatically. So the F-111 will be missed, however it is also not the only aircraft that will be missed. The capability of the hornet will be lost if we go with the JSF. The JSF cannot provide the same level of Close air support would that a hornet can. Our hornets can fly slower, have two engines and if we lost a hornet its wouldn't hurt as much.

Close air support doesn't require stealth or speed, it requires strength and survivability. The A-10 will always be better than a JSF in close air support, our hornets will be better for similar reasons but to a lesser extent.

I still feel that the best option for the RAAF is to purchase 40 F-22 aircraft in the next few years and keep 40 of the current hornets flying. Put the remaining Hornets in storage and use them for parts which will reduce the operating cost of the hornets. We'd keep flying the better condition hornets so we could get a few more years before the centre barrel upgrade.

This is an ideal High-Low mix.

The F-22 provides air dominance and the stealth strike capability and it can self escort itself flying at high altitudes. The capabilities of the F-111 remain. The Hornets can then provide close air support to our navy and army forces at lower altitudes.

The self escorting aspect of the F-22 and the fewer numbers will considerably reduce the number of tanker aircraft required and the Hornets now being used in the short range role will reduce this even further.

If the JSF price does rise and we can only purchase 60 aircraft we really are putting our eggs in one basket. 40 F-22's will cost less than the price for the proposed 80 JSF's.

I would rather have 40 F-22 and 40 Hornets, than 80 (or less) JSF's.

What do you guys think about this idea?

 

[Sea Toby]

The air force wouldn't be considering a central barrel fix unless its needed soon. So buying 20 F-22s and stretching out the life of the Hornets without the fix will only result in having to buy new aircraft in 10 years. Until another air force decides to buy long range bombers again, the F-111s can't be replaced adequately.

Wouldn't it make more sense to do the Hornet central barrel fix and buy F-35As 10 years later, when the Lightning IIs should be much cheaper, like half the cost of a F-22A? There is a good possibility Australia could afford 90 As and 10 Bs, allowing the Bs to be used on a LHD. Plus, I would rather have more aircraft than less, with an abundance of aircraft buddy refueling can be used to extend the range of the aircraft. That is if the Lightning IIs are configured with similar refueling pods as the Hornets.

Australia's air defence infrastructure has changed significantly since the F-111s were purchased. Australia has built a few empty air bases along its northern coast, allowing shorter ranged aircraft to reach further north more quickly than aircraft based at Williamstown or Amberely. In my opinion range isn't as important as it once used to be. New airfields and tankers have been introduced.

If the air force does have to deploy to a foreign airfield abroad, surely the range of the JSF will be sufficient. The days of no tankers and flying over half if not all of the Australian continent to reach a target are history. Frankly, there is no reason why Australia should rush into a F-22A or F-35A order! The key to Australia's defence is MARITIME STRIKE, not air interdiction.

 

[vined]

I would rather have 40 F-22 and 40 Hornets, than 80 (or less) JSF's.

What do you guys think about this idea?

As I mention yesterday 20 so F22, its is a better balance as its primary role
is Air-Air, Iraq showed F15C's were next to useless after the initial stages which required fighters of more a multi-role type (eg.F14's,F18's,F15E's etc).
Someways its still a numbers game and more of the Superbugs whould be more useful than a larger number of F22's. It been reported that the '22's have droped gps SDB's which is more than the F15C is reported it can do. I prefer the F18's as it can carry the full range of weapons than the F22 (& F35??).

 

[Magoo]

For Magoo - I will try to get to your questions at the earliest

Thanks, look forward to it.

Surely the various OpEds and TechEds that cover the subjects you have raised would not have been published by such venerable publications as Australian Aviation and Defence Today if they were not factually correct.

Not necessarily. For those of us in the mejia who are not so technically savvy, there is an element of faith in our freelance technical contributors that they are factually as close to the mark as possible.

I wouldn't suggest for a moment that some of the technical writings published in these and other publications is wrong or biased. It's as CAF Geoff Shepherd says in an interview in the latest Australian Aviation..."I think the more informed debate that we get on the aerospace agenda across civil and military aspects, it's probably more to the good of the country."

I personally believe CAF and his advisors ARE informed, but I also believe that Carlo, Peter Goon and others are as informed as they can be to their level of access and classification. My primary interest is in the divide between the two sides and how this can best be bridged.

Cheers

Magoo