With ageing F-111 airframes, the blow out in the JSF, and no feesable interim platform available, somebody has a decision to make. The cost of retiring the F-111 and removing all supporting infrastructure will be massive. We have the technology to build brand new F-111 airframes right now. How good would it be to build new airframes removing the flaws in the current design, such as D6AC, beryllium, depleted uranium, cadmium etc. An australian built aircraft that nothing in the world could touch.
F-111's until 2020
- Thread starter pnl3410
- Start date
- Status
There are a couple of proposals in the process of being resubmitted to ADF/RAAF re extending the Pigs.pnl3410 said:
I think they're highly unlikely to get up
- current frames are still tagged for a 2010 pull
- the people submitting the proposals are regarded as serial pests
- the frames out at AMARC have been cherried already
Operationally, there are still limitations to using them IMO. Great plane for their time - but are they worth SLEP in light of what we face in immediate battlespace terms?
Cootamundra
New Member
Great question and in my opinion they are not. Yes the F-111 gives us a strike platform unlike any other in the region, but at an increasing cost. I believe that when our new aircraft come online (whether that be JSF or another) combined with the tankers and Wedgtail Australia will retain much of its strike capabilities without having to maintain an 'orphan'. This may be hard for many Aussies to bear as the Pig has been very effective and has become much loved, but I think that the RAAF will be adequetly prepared and if 'deep' strike options are more of a requirement in the medium term then I think TacToms in the new AWDs will cover the capability hole. As for martime strike the Bugs, PC-3s or the new airframe (JSF or F-15) plus tankers will cover be able to fill the Pigs shoes.gf0012-aust said:
The time has come to cut the strings....
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Pouring money into the Pigs is a waste if you ask me. There are other ways to gain strike capabilities to the ranges the Pig provides, if it's absolutely essential that we require such a capability. The only real advantage them F-111 has over any other tactical aircraft is range. No matter how little airframe time it has, it's engines are of an old design, as are it's radar and it's weapon and EWSP capabilities.
An absolute minimum to keep the aircraft flying for another 30 years+ (which you'd need to justify the non-recurring expenses involved) would be to build new airframes, integrate new modern engines that are more reliable, provide more thrust and are cheaper to maintain,. plus a new modern radar system, preferrably an AESA system, given the developments to come over the lifetime of this "new" aircraft.
Everything about the F-111 costs a fortune. If you were going to the effort to build this new airframe, you might as well start from scratch and build a new aircraft. Do you think Australia has the $90 odd billion lying around that would be required to build an aircraft today that is as capable as the F-111 was when it was new, let alone the technical capacity? I don't... In addition even if we could it'd take nearly 30 years to get the thing into service anyway...
A cheaper quicker and arguably more capable option would be to dump the F-111 right now, use the money for additional interim upgrades to the F-18 (additional weapons, EW kit etc) and increase the tanker fleet. This would boost our strike capabilities particularly "throw weight" and our flexibility.
I don't see why reducing our F-111 fleet would cost much at all. The RAAF support personnel, pilots and navigators could be retrained, thus boosting our capability in other areas, and this would cost, but having to stop purchasing parts, maintaining support facilities, including Boeing personnel etc would massively compensate for this...
An absolute minimum to keep the aircraft flying for another 30 years+ (which you'd need to justify the non-recurring expenses involved) would be to build new airframes, integrate new modern engines that are more reliable, provide more thrust and are cheaper to maintain,. plus a new modern radar system, preferrably an AESA system, given the developments to come over the lifetime of this "new" aircraft.
Everything about the F-111 costs a fortune. If you were going to the effort to build this new airframe, you might as well start from scratch and build a new aircraft. Do you think Australia has the $90 odd billion lying around that would be required to build an aircraft today that is as capable as the F-111 was when it was new, let alone the technical capacity? I don't... In addition even if we could it'd take nearly 30 years to get the thing into service anyway...
A cheaper quicker and arguably more capable option would be to dump the F-111 right now, use the money for additional interim upgrades to the F-18 (additional weapons, EW kit etc) and increase the tanker fleet. This would boost our strike capabilities particularly "throw weight" and our flexibility.
I don't see why reducing our F-111 fleet would cost much at all. The RAAF support personnel, pilots and navigators could be retrained, thus boosting our capability in other areas, and this would cost, but having to stop purchasing parts, maintaining support facilities, including Boeing personnel etc would massively compensate for this...
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I agree, at least we should not be relying soley on JSF. Perhaps a split Typhoon/JSF purchase if the F-22 IS completely unaffordable, or at least unavailable...pnl3410 said:
Cootamundra
New Member
The single engine is fine, it has proven to be reliable. What do you mean by stripped avions and ECM? The Poms are playing politics, I don't think they'll opt out of the F-35 although only time will tell.pnl3410 said:
A mixed purchase though of F-35s and another platform might be the best option for us in terms of filling a nearing void (F-111 decom and ageing Bugs), tiding us over until we can make sure we get a top of the line JSF.
Australian readers may be interested to note that there is currently a Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade conducting an Inquiry into Australian Defence Force Regional Air Superiority.
at
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/adfair/index.htm
submissions can still be made - until 31/01/2006
who can submit, how to submit - just follow the links.
cheers
rb
at
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/adfair/index.htm
submissions can still be made - until 31/01/2006
who can submit, how to submit - just follow the links.
cheers
rb
I know of a few submissions going in to do a Lazarus on the Pig and for selection of an Interim platformrossfrb_1 said:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Dr Kopp and his mate, having another chop at it eh? He must be desperate not to see his life's professional work washed down the drain...gf0012-aust said:
and you can bet London to a brick that a proposal for:Aussie Digger said:
- re-engining the Caribous
- SLEP for the Orions in lieue of BAMs
There is the F-22....gf0012-aust said:
Also unsure what you mean regards cherried out?
Upgraded maybe. But without some price comparisons who's to know?gf0012-aust said:
All these people who say the F-111 is too expensive, worn out, not worth upgrading etc, have not cited anything that I have seen anyway.
cheers
rb
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I guess people are thinking that given the current JSF price "crisis" a few of these cheaper options may get selected over replacements, eh to try and free up funds?gf0012-aust said:
I guess the Kokoda foundation may be having some inflience afterall?
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Well the AGM-142 Popeye project should be an eye opener... It's taken over 4 years to integrate one single medium ranged standoff weapon, and one that has been in service with other airforces for years and on a number of other platforms.rossfrb_1 said:
This is despite assertations (from Dr KOPP) in particular, about how "easy" it would be to continue upgrade programs on the F-111 fleet... In addition, only our F/RF-111C fleet has been upgraded with modern avionics. Our F-111G hasn't and the fleet is almost totally useless for modern warfare, as are the remaining airframes at AMARC.
The F-111's would also require at least a radar upgrade to continue serving for many more years and this would be VERY expensive.
As I've (and others) have pointed out. There's other cheaper and more flexible ways to provide long range strike options, which is the only capability the F-111 truly offers, that can't be currently met by other platforms...
Yes the AGM-142 project did run into problems, though I don't know if Kopp said the integration would be easy.Aussie Digger said:
A quick google found this
http://www.f-111.net/CarloKopp/sow.htm
No offence, but I'd prefer to be pointed to a reputable source rather than be assured by a complete stranger regards the costs that may or may not be involved in a project. I said something similar to some Mormons who came a visting a while back!
cheers
rb
it's a damocles sword... Dr Kopp is a mobile ph engineer - and Peter Goon used to chair the DTC (where I was a member for 5 years). Goon also headed ATS before it was bankrupted.rossfrb_1 said:
Both were pushing the F-111 and Caribou barrow when I was involved with the AP-3C project - and that was before Adam was banished for eating apples..
Not to put too fine a point on it, IIRC Goon also was served with an AVO for harassing RAAF staff about his ideas for improving the RAAF. and without wanting to kerb your enthusiasm, the assessment team in RAAF was in far better position to come to a judgement than either Kopp or Goon as they (Kopp or Goon ) don't have the requisite security clearances to see the more important data made available to ADF. I estimate that Goons clearances would have lapsed approx 2 years ago. In light of the AVO he would be highly unlikely to get them back. Goon also had a vested interest in promoting F-111 upgrades as thats what ATS used to do as part of its corporate brief - make submissions on aircraft upgrades so as to generate revenue.
the reason why I add this to the mix is that their history is complicated by prev actions in the past - so they don't exactly have an ideal history to assist in promoting their cause. they're also motivated to a degree by self interest at the commercial level.
be that as it may, I have no doubt that Dr Kopp at least will continue to promote his model of F-111 infusion into the front line and Goon will stay in the background acting like the sleeper catcher in the perennial game of "two up" also known as "refurb the airforce"
There are thus some in RAAF/Russell who clearly think that both would qualify under your "Mormon" definition.
That's all good to know. I've wondered about Kopp's motivation, you've supplied a possible answer.gf0012-aust said:it's a damocles sword... Dr Kopp is a mobile ph engineer - and Peter Goon used to chair the DTC (where I was a member for 5 years). Goon also headed ATS before it was bankrupted.
Both were pushing the F-111 and Caribou barrow when I was involved with the AP-3C project - and that was before Adam was banished for eating apples..
and without wanting to kerb your enthusiasm, the assessment team in RAAF was in far better position to come to a judgement than either Kopp or Goon as they (Kopp or Goon ) don't have the requisite security clearances to see the more important data made available to ADF. I estimate that Goons clearances would have lapsed approx 2 years ago. In light of the AVO he would be highly unlikely to get them back. Goon also had a vested interest in promoting F-111 upgrades as thats what ATS used to do as part of its corporate brief - make submissions on aircraft upgrades so as to generate revenue.
the reason why I add this to the mix is that their history is complicated by prev actions in the past - so they don't exactly have an ideal history to assist in promoting their cause. they're also motivated to a degree by self interest at the commercial level.
be that as it may, I have no doubt that Dr Kopp at least will continue to promote his model of F-111 infusion into the front line and Goon will stay in the background acting like the sleeper catcher in the perennial game of "two up" also known as "refurb the airforce"
There are thus some in RAAF/Russell who clearly think that both would qualify under your "Mormon" definition.
I guess regards Kopp, for me, he has put his theories out there on the web for all to see. And they appear well presented and argued. I have yet to find anyone who can (or has bothered to) debunk/deconstruct his arguments.
cheers
rb
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
The RAAF HAS done so, to senate enquiry committee's for one. Unfortunately due to the nature of the information provided (ie: classified) it was done so behind closed doors. The Senate committee was however satisfied with the RAAF's response to the submissions made by Dr KOPP and Mr GOON.rossfrb_1 said:
Have you read ALL of Kopp's articles on f111.net?
I like his A2A refuelling article, where he outlines how Australia requires 18 "heavyweight" air to air refuellers and anything less than this is completely unacceptable. This may well be true, but is a perfect example of how KOPP lives in a different world to the rest of us and definitely to ACTUAL defence professionals (which he most certainly is not).
Britain is acquiring around 18 refuellers for a project cost of $30 Billion dollars!!! How could we possibly afford a sum like this for a single project? Our ENTIRE defence upgrade budget is only $52 Billion...
As to the F-111, KOPP asserts that fitting new radars would be simple and cost effective. He asserts that fitting modern weapon systems such as JDAM, JASSM, ASRAAM, AMRAAM etc would be simple.
He states this because the F-111 was upgraded under the AUP (avionics update project) and is already fitted with the necessary Mil-standard 1760 databus, which supposedly allows the carriage of J series weapons. However if this is true and the aircraft upgraded to such a high standard, why has Popeye presented such a large problem?
IF the Pavetack targetting system is so easily upgradeable and so cheaply done, WHY hasn't it been done?
Simple answer? On paper these things are easily achieved and can be easily done on time and on budget. In reality they prove exceedingly difficult. If you want another example of how easy it is to fit modern systems to old aircraft, go read up on the RAN's SH-2G (A) Super Seasprite project...
Cootamundra
New Member
And so to summarise....can the F-111 NOW!
It has been a venerable old warhorse and without a doubt has served the RAAF and Australia very well. But the time has come to give it the bullet. As AD has said there are other options that will give us much the same capability and punch and that won't be in need of a complete overhaul for years to come. Bring on the F-35s (US version if at all possible), and if that turns out to be too expensive, then new F-15s at a bargain basement price with UCAV to fill in the deep strike capability.
It has been a venerable old warhorse and without a doubt has served the RAAF and Australia very well. But the time has come to give it the bullet. As AD has said there are other options that will give us much the same capability and punch and that won't be in need of a complete overhaul for years to come. Bring on the F-35s (US version if at all possible), and if that turns out to be too expensive, then new F-15s at a bargain basement price with UCAV to fill in the deep strike capability.
I have read that article, some time ago. From memory, wasn't he advocating acquiring some flavour of 747, 2nd hand (on the cheap) for the job? Interestingly, the RAF are supposed to be getting between 15 and 20 a330-200s.Aussie Digger said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4303959.stm
Given that five a330-200s are going to cost the RAAF AUD 1.4 billion
(http://www.defence.gov.au/minister/Hilltpl.cfm?CurrentId=4460)
One would presume that tripling or quadrupling that figure would give the cost of acquiring 15 or 20 for the RAAF. Although I would have thought that the RAAF would get a better price if it were going to buy so many.
So tops, that would be 7 billion AUD. A lot of money, but nothing like what the RAF are paying. I presume that the RAF version is to be kitted out better or something.
Not sure of all the problems involved, but I have read that the missile is quite aerodynamically draggy and there were associated wing fatigue issues with F-111.Aussie Digger said:
No idea, however, one could suggest that there was no political will to do it and hence no $ thrown at it.Aussie Digger said:
Yes, I really had to laugh when then defence minister hill about 2 years ago claimed that the F-111s were so old and therefore needed to be retired, then about a week later was saying how great an acquistion the seasprites were going to be!Aussie Digger said:
cheers
rb
- Status