F-111's until 2020

[gf0012-aust]

Originally Posted by Aussie Digger:

"IF the Pavetack targetting system is so easily upgradeable and so cheaply done, WHY hasn't it been done?

If you get rid of Pavetack, you could slip a couple of Mk50's into the bomb bay. as well as external Harpoons.

Add a Litening pod, and a Searchwater pod and you could go plinking subs and skimmers.

 

[pnl3410]

dr copp

Some of Dr copps ideas are out there, and he doesn't hide the fact that he is probably the biggest advocate for retention of the F-111 in australia. I have read numerous articles concerning topics such as "The F-111 missileer", which saw F-111's fitted with multiple amraams to shoot down cruise missiles that would be attacking our assets off the northern coastline. Another was concerning the easy upgrades AD mentioned. You have to give him points for trying, but i think the conclusion we have all come to is the days of the pig are numbered. But the JSF is not the answer.

As for the F-111G having no capabilty???????
it is the FB-111A formerly used by the SAC during the cold war along the iron curtain. The F-111 is a bomb truck, no pavetack, no AUP, but still a very capable platform.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Some of Dr copps ideas are out there, and he doesn't hide the fact that he is probably the biggest advocate for retention of the F-111 in australia. I have read numerous articles concerning topics such as "The F-111 missileer", which saw F-111's fitted with multiple amraams to shoot down cruise missiles that would be attacking our assets off the northern coastline. Another was concerning the easy upgrades AD mentioned. You have to give him points for trying, but i think the conclusion we have all come to is the days of the pig are numbered. But the JSF is not the answer.

As for the F-111G having no capabilty???????
it is the FB-111A formerly used by the SAC during the cold war along the iron curtain. The F-111 is a bomb truck, no pavetack, no AUP, but still a very capable platform.

"IF the Pavetack targetting system is so easily upgradeable and so cheaply done, WHY hasn't it been done?

If you get rid of Pavetack, you could slip a couple of Mk50's into the bomb bay. as well as external Harpoons.

Add a Litening pod, and a Searchwater pod and you could go plinking subs and skimmers".

I never said the F-111G had no capability, I said it was just about useless for modern warfare, and is IMHO, rather useless for anything other than training.

No AUP, no targetting pod of any kind, no EWSP of any kind, the ability to carry un-guided Mk 80 series munitions ONLY, so therefore no PGM (which is all important nowadays), no Harpoon OR Popeye missiles, no recce capability, no self defence capability of any kind (ie: Sidewinder).

Not much to show for a large investment in sustaining the aircraft is it? Our Mk 127 Hawks offer more capability, given they too can drop Mk 80 series bombs, along with operating 30mm cannon, Sidewinder AAM's and CVR-7 rockets...

There was an un-solicited proposal to convert the F-111G's to a SEAD platform several years ago, which would have made them enormously useful to the RAAF. Of course this proposal went nowhere... Relegating the F-111G's essentially to a training and "public relations" role. I sure will miss those "dump and burns" when the pigs are gone... You could fit them out for a permanent maritime strike/sub hunting role too if you wished. Again it'd be an expensive way of gaining a capability, that could be achieved (and already is, just not supersonically :nutkick ) by other means...

 

[Magoo]

F-111s

Hey guys

As much as the F-111 is loved by me and many others, its days of relevance are numbered. Yes, it was once and possibly still is the pre-eminent low-level strike fighter ever, but the low level mission has largely been superceded by medium altitude low observable platforms which can shoort JDAMs and stand-off weapons almost at will. Low level 'paddle-pickle-pull' missions are no longer survivable.

And, don't be so quick to dismiss the JSF just yet. Ok, so the program may have had its funding and weight issues, but things appear to be largely back on track now and moving ahead. If it works as advertised, and there is currently no reason to suppose it wont, it will be the most advanced strike platform in service anywhere (including the F-22). Its comms suite and AESA radar will be better than anything around, and its ability to network with Wedgetail, AP-3C/MMA, other JSFs will be unparalleled. All for about A$90m a pop fly away.

The debate of platform vs platform is one which the ADF no longer feels the need to get into, as they are thinking bigger than that. Check out the interview with the RAAF's Air Commander, AVM John Quaife in March's Australian Aviation magazine, (specifically the last two questions) to see what he says about it. Also check out the article in that mag which raises the possibility of replacing the AP-3Cs with a UAV/JSF mix. Yes, that's right...it's an interesting concept!

Personally, I don't think we should retire the Piggies until we know for sure that the JSF is on the way and relatively on time. OR, we could park them in 2008 and go for a two-tiered solution, initially with 30-40 F/A-18Fs with APG-79s, all the good comms gear, the datalinked Litening AT, JASSM, SDBs...the works basically, for about US$53m each, plus 6-8 EA-18Gs, and flog the crap out of them. The transition would be a relatively quick one because of our corporate knowledge in operating the hugged 'classic' Hornets, plus it would mean we wouldn't need to do centre-barrels either, thus saving a couple hundred million in the process. We could then slow down our JSF acquisition and get the 'you beaut' Block II/III jets from about 2016 instead of LRIP planes, which should be both cheaper and a lot more effective, and then look to replace the Super Hornets with UCAVs in the early to mid 2020s.

Thoughts?

Magoo

P.S. - I've not met Goon, but Carlo is a pretty good guy who's heart is probably in the right place and who's brain is as big as a planet. That said, he could probably take some lessons in diplomacy...

 

[Aussie Digger]

Hey guys

As much as the F-111 is loved by me and many others, its days of relevance are numbered. Yes, it was once and possibly still is the pre-eminent low-level strike fighter ever, but the low level mission has largely been superceded by medium altitude low observable platforms which can shoort JDAMs and stand-off weapons almost at will. Low level 'paddle-pickle-pull' missions are no longer survivable.

And, don't be so quick to dismiss the JSF just yet. Ok, so the program may have had its funding and weight issues, but things appear to be largely back on track now and moving ahead. If it works as advertised, and there is currently no reason to suppose it wont, it will be the most advanced strike platform in service anywhere (including the F-22). Its comms suite and AESA radar will be better than anything around, and its ability to network with Wedgetail, AP-3C/MMA, other JSFs will be unparalleled. All for about A$90m a pop fly away.

The debate of platform vs platform is one which the ADF no longer feels the need to get into, as they are thinking bigger than that. Check out the interview with the RAAF's Air Commander, AVM John Quaife in March's Australian Aviation magazine, (specifically the last two questions) to see what he says about it. Also check out the article in that mag which raises the possibility of replacing the AP-3Cs with a UAV/JSF mix. Yes, that's right...it's an interesting concept!

Personally, I don't think we should retire the Piggies until we know for sure that the JSF is on the way and relatively on time. OR, we could park them in 2008 and go for a two-tiered solution, initially with 30-40 F/A-18Fs with APG-79s, all the good comms gear, the datalinked Litening AT, JASSM, SDBs...the works basically, for about US$53m each, plus 6-8 EA-18Gs, and flog the crap out of them. The transition would be a relatively quick one because of our corporate knowledge in operating the hugged 'classic' Hornets, plus it would mean we wouldn't need to do centre-barrels either, thus saving a couple hundred million in the process. We could then slow down our JSF acquisition and get the 'you beaut' Block II/III jets from about 2016 instead of LRIP planes, which should be both cheaper and a lot more effective, and then look to replace the Super Hornets with UCAVs in the early to mid 2020s.

Thoughts?

Magoo

P.S. - I've not met Goon, but Carlo is a pretty good guy who's heart is probably in the right place and who's brain is as big as a planet. That said, he could probably take some lessons in diplomacy...

Dr Kopp is an expert on mobile phones, and is a qualified Cessna pilot. He has never spent a day in a military force, let alone the RAAF or USAF. What exactly is his experience, AND his source of info that allows him to be better informed than the RAAF on their OWN platforms?

The JSF's radar will not be "better than anything around". It's based on the F-22's radar, and has a smaller module count. As such it is likely to be less capable than the APG-77.

It will be a better striker than the F-22 only insofar as it can carry 2000lbs class weapons internally (A/C models only) as opposed to 1000lbs class weapons in the F-22. Externally it's load carrying ability is inferior to basically EVERY other combat aircraft.

It's A2A missile load is extremely limited (internally) to 4 or at most 6. This is a significantly lower capability than our current gen F/A-18's possess now. On A2A missions, they routinely carry 8 AAM's and 3x drop tanks. When drop tanks aren't necessary they can carry up to 12. A JSF will be hard pressed to carry that many even when external pylons are fitted.

The JSF program like every other advanced military project will have doubts over it until aircraft are in operational service. Software is the biggest issue with any modern military project and none have EVER been "on time and on budget". Just because the JSF "is really badly needed" doesn't make the issues any easier to solve. Code won't write itself just because it's wanted...

My biggest problem with the JSF program for the RAAF, is the fact that the aircraft was selected off "paper" and any lengthy evaluation and comparison to other types was canned at the instigation of a Government seeking what appeared to be a "bargain". This bargain has not turned out to be quite as good as it appeared on paper.

It was advertised as $45 mil per aircraft at the time it was chosen. It's now up to $90 mil per aircraft, it's still 12 months before the first aircraft will even fly and 6 years before the RAAF will supposedly get it's first aircraft. It's also likely to be 10-12 years before we have an operational capability with this aircraft and this assumes that everything goes smoothly from here on in. History unfortunately is not on the side of this assumption...

Can anyone realistically see the price and capability remaining steady at it's current level? "Perhaps the Earth will stop and the sun will start rotating around the Earth too"...

 

[Jezza]

How about 100-120 new build F-15 and Strike Eagles with F-22 engines,avionics,
radar,missiles and most of the internal goodies.

Stuff JSF its going to be sooooo late.
This way more airframes more capability and sooner.

Just a thought

 

[gf0012-aust]

Hey guys
Thoughts?

Magoo

.............................

P.S. - I've not met Goon, but Carlo is a pretty good guy who's heart is probably in the right place and who's brain is as big as a planet. That said, he could probably take some lessons in diplomacy...

Good to see you back on deck. Sent you an email a month or so back. I assumed you were swanning around.

 

[Wooki]

Thoughts?

Magoo

I believe its a question of what you know and what you don't know. I think your solution sounds great, given what I know: .

But I find it strange that the USA has spent so much on passive stealth technology without looking at active technologies which are on the whole, cheaper. Its only just recently that DARPA has even started looking for proposals on these technologies.

All of the passive technologies to date (including the f-22) are aspect oriented, so when it comes to energy directed at the platform from a direction in which the platform was not designed for, it lights up like a beacon.

Perhaps active stealth doesn't do that?

So lets, for a moment, hold these 2 parameters to be true. Now Australia is faced with the distinct possibility that its investment in f-35 technology could lose significant value, if a Chinese Backfire suddenly becomes a stealthy platform.

What is to say that you cannot do the same yourself, without spending a huge amount of money? All of a sudden you are just looking for a bomb truck. Heck, buy a B-52 make it stealthy and you are good to go.

There is a lot at stake here. Commercially and politically, if the USA suddenly loses its lead in stealth because of being sold down the river so-to-speak on one approach to a global concept (stealth).

I've seen discussions on other boards about the ABL and podded laser weapons. Very nice but useless against a Mig 21 with a podded stealth system.

And there in lies the problem. Active stealth technology appears to be advancing just as fast, if not faster than passive tech, and it also seems easier to do.

Now weigh in with contract and delivery problems and you have the real scenario.

Selection of the f-35 should not be based upon its stealth characteristics, as this advantage could be easily lost.

 

[Magoo]

The JSF's radar will not be "better than anything around". It's based on the F-22's radar, and has a smaller module count. As such it is likely to be less capable than the APG-77.

Even with its smaller aperture, the APG-81 will actually as good if not a little better than the current APG-77. Northrop Grumman have compared the differences in the two radars as similar to the difference between an APG-65 and a -73. Many of the developments from the -81 will find there way back down to the -77.

It will be a better striker than the F-22 only insofar as it can carry 2000lbs class weapons internally (A/C models only) as opposed to 1000lbs class weapons in the F-22. Externally it's load carrying ability is inferior to basically EVERY other combat aircraft.

I'd be interested to know where you get your external loadout info from, as, as of last December, Lockheed Martin hadn't even finalised the aircraft's external loadout config, and haven't even designed the external weapons racks. If they borrow from an existing design, there's no reason why the aircraft shouldn't have a similar loadout capability to that of a legacy aircraft.

It's A2A missile load is extremely limited (internally) to 4 or at most 6. This is a significantly lower capability than our current gen F/A-18's possess now. On A2A missions, they routinely carry 8 AAM's and 3x drop tanks. When drop tanks aren't necessary they can carry up to 12. A JSF will be hard pressed to carry that many even when external pylons are fitted.

I think the A and C model JSFs are looking at up to eight AAMs internally as well (~6 x AIM-120C5 + 2 x AIM-9X/ASRAAM). ASRAAM will be a baseline weapon if the Brits stay in the program. LockMart are looking at up to seven external hardpoints (and possibly 9 for the C model), with the centreline and four inner wing pylons each with a 2000lb capacity, and the two outer wing points with 500lb. Each one of those heavier points should theoretically carry a drop tank, or one or two JDAMs, or 2 x AIM-120s each.

The JSF program like every other advanced military project will have doubts over it until aircraft are in operational service. Software is the biggest issue with any modern military project and none have EVER been "on time and on budget". Just because the JSF "is really badly needed" doesn't make the issues any easier to solve. Code won't write itself just because it's wanted....

Agreed, however, many of the software integration lessons have been learned from the F-22 program, although the JSF will be alot more integrated than even the Raptor. Time will tell I guess, and you'll notice I said we shouldn't get rid of the F-111s until we know the F-35 is on track and deliverable. By the way, the F/A-18E/F was fielded four months early and about US$300m under budget, and is now about eight months ahead of plan and about US$3m per aircraft under budget. And if "every other advanced military project has doubts", then what alternative do we have?

My biggest problem with the JSF program for the RAAF, is the fact that the aircraft was selected off "paper" and any lengthy evaluation and comparison to other types was canned at the instigation of a Government seeking what appeared to be a "bargain". This bargain has not turned out to be quite as good as it appeared on paper.

Yeah, but people keep forgetting, the aircraft has NOT been selected yet, and the decision on whether to do so has been put back to 2008. All we have done is commit US$150m to the SDD program, and possibly some more will be committed to phase 2 of that program later this year. NO JSFs have been ordered by anyone yet.

It was advertised as $45 mil per aircraft at the time it was chosen. It's now up to $90 mil per aircraft, it's still 12 months before the first aircraft will even fly and 6 years before the RAAF will supposedly get it's first aircraft. It's also likely to be 10-12 years before we have an operational capability with this aircraft and this assumes that everything goes smoothly from here on in. History unfortunately is not on the side of this assumption....

It's seven months before the first flight (August). That's $45 mil US dollars per aircraft in 2002 dollars and always has been, and as of early December last year, the F-35A was still being touted at that price by LockMart. The STOVL B model and CV C model are about US$55m each. That's about A$62 in 02 dollars for an A model (lets say A$68-70m in today's money), plus I was allowing for scope creep and inflation in my estimate. We've committed <$16bn to the Hornet and F-111 replacement (AIR 6000) program,so there is some slack built in. 2012 is the projected delivery of the first Block I aircraft (probably to an RAAF OCU based in the US for the first year or so), and LockMart has forecast we should be able to field an operational squadron of 18-24 Block II aircraft in late 2014.

Hey GF - don't remember getting your email sorry. Can you resend?

Cheers

Magoo

 

[Aussie Digger]

Even with its smaller aperture, the APG-81 will actually as good if not a little better than the current APG-77. Northrop Grumman have compared the differences in the two radars as similar to the difference between an APG-65 and a -73. Many of the developments from the -81 will find there way back down to the -77.



I'd be interested to know where you get your external loadout info from, as, as of last December, Lockheed Martin hadn't even finalised the aircraft's external loadout config, and haven't even designed the external weapons racks. If they borrow from an existing design, there's no reason why the aircraft shouldn't have a similar loadout capability to that of a legacy aircraft.



I think the A and C model JSFs are looking at up to eight AAMs internally as well (~6 x AIM-120C5 + 2 x AIM-9X/ASRAAM). ASRAAM will be a baseline weapon if the Brits stay in the program. LockMart are looking at up to seven external hardpoints (and possibly 9 for the C model), with the centreline and four inner wing pylons each with a 2000lb capacity, and the two outer wing points with 500lb. Each one of those heavier points should theoretically carry a drop tank, or one or two JDAMs, or 2 x AIM-120s each.



Agreed, however, many of the software integration lessons have been learned from the F-22 program, although the JSF will be alot more integrated than even the Raptor. Time will tell I guess, and you'll notice I said we shouldn't get rid of the F-111s until we know the F-35 is on track and deliverable. By the way, the F/A-18E/F was fielded four months early and about US$300m under budget, and is now about eight months ahead of plan and about US$3m per aircraft under budget. And if "every other advanced military project has doubts", then what alternative do we have?



Yeah, but people keep forgetting, the aircraft has NOT been selected yet, and the decision on whether to do so has been put back to 2008. All we have done is commit US$150m to the SDD program, and possibly some more will be committed to phase 2 of that program later this year. NO JSFs have been ordered by anyone yet.



It's seven months before the first flight (August). That's $45 mil US dollars per aircraft in 2002 dollars and always has been, and as of early December last year, the F-35A was still being touted at that price by LockMart. The STOVL B model and CV C model are about US$55m each. That's about A$62 in 02 dollars for an A model (lets say A$68-70m in today's money), plus I was allowing for scope creep and inflation in my estimate. We've committed <$16bn to the Hornet and F-111 replacement (AIR 6000) program,so there is some slack built in. 2012 is the projected delivery of the first Block I aircraft (probably to an RAAF OCU based in the US for the first year or so), and LockMart has forecast we should be able to field an operational squadron of 18-24 Block II aircraft in late 2014.

Hey GF - don't remember getting your email sorry. Can you resend?

Cheers

Magoo

The loadout info is from Lockheed Martin itself, from it's own website. Each JSF will have 2 bomb bays, each carying a single pylon which can carry a single 2000lbs class weapon or an A2A missile. It "may be possible" to fit a dual rail AMRAAM/ASRAAM/AIM-9X launcher in the bay, but to date no hard evidence has been provided publicly on this issue AFAIK.

Each bomb bay door will also mount a single rail that can carry a single WVR A2A missile. Again it may be possible to fit a dual rail, but that seems unlikely to me.

IF the internal bomb bay can mount a dual rail launcher AND the JSF can carry a dual rail launcher on the bomb bay door, the JSF could carry 8 AAM's internally.

Other combinations (and the most likely given the available info at present) are that the bomb CAN'T fit either dual rail launcher and the JSF will only be able to carry 4 AAM's internally a rather poor effort if you wish you're JSF to remain stealthy., or that a dual rail launcher can be fitted to the pylon, but not the bomb bay door. In which case 6 AAM's could be carried internally.

The external hardpoints issue is also a difficult one. Literature I have read indicates that only 4 external hardpoints will be fitted, however this is not definitive. It is difficult to see how 9 external hardpoints could be fitted with the side/bottom mounted internal bays the aircraft is designed with, even 7 seems a stretch, unless they are going to mount 3 under each wing, ala Super Hornet. No wingtip rails will be carried, IIRC, either.

As to the software issue delaying the entry of the aircraft, most, if not all of it's nearest competitors, (aircraft like Eurofighter Tranche 2, F-15E and SH with AESA radars) what you have said is true. One thing in their favour is that they have worked through their development problems. JSF is still to face them...

Being aware of a problem in advance doesn't necessarily make it easier to solve... The designers and the RAN knew the Seasprites were going to be a challenge too...

 

[rossfrb_1]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,18126992%255E31477,00.html

F-111's retirement 'unwise'
Sean Parnell
February 13, 2006

THE Defence Department has come under fire over the planned early retirement of Australia's fleet of F-111 fighter jets as part of a multi-billion-dollar replacement program that even the department admits is risky.
Amid uncertainty over the timing and cost of replacement F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, a parliamentary committee has been told the gradual decommissioning of the 21 remaining F-111s is unwise.

Retired group captain Milton Cottee, a former RAAF squadron commander, warned the demise of the F-111s would increase the threat posed by Australia's neighbours.
"There is now little doubt that Australia will have a significant deterioration in our defensive/offensive posture with serious gaps during which some belligerent may well be tempted to become aggressive," Mr Cottee told the inquiry in a submission.
Having been a project manager for the acquisition of Australia's F-111Cs, Mr Cottee said he knew their capabilities and believed the fleet should be kept in service until 2020.

Defence wants to withdraw the F-111s by 2010 and upgrade its fleet of 55 F/A-18s as it brings on line up to 100 F-35s, which are likely to cost almost $15 billion. They will not be operational before 2012.
The department, in its submission to the committee's inquiry into Australia's regional air superiority, said the "early retirement" of the F-111s in 2010 was largely dependent upon the upgrades to the F/A-18 fleet.
While the department stood by its decision to buy F-35s that have not yet been built, let alone flown, it conceded that the jet replacement program was "complex" because Australia had to keep its air power at a comparable level to other countries in the region and manage the risks cost-effectively.
"While Defence has confidence that the JSF will mature to meet the air force's future air combat capability requirements, it is clear that cost, schedule and capability risks associated with introduction of the JSF decrease the later we acquire the aircraft," the department said.
"It is also clear that cost, schedule and capability risks associated with the F/A-18 and F-111 increase the longer we keep the aircraft in service."
The Howard Government is likely to amend the jet replacement program if any of Australia's neighbours significantly increase their air power, or if the F-35 continues to run behind schedule and over budget.
The US is forging ahead with the F-35 project and the Quadrennial Defence Review, released by the Pentagon last week, has eased fears the project would be scaled back.

 

[Cootamundra]

More of the same. With due respect to ex-Squadron Commander Cottee, his opinion could be considered a little biased due to his heavy involvement with the Pig in it's earlier days. Also, nothing said here about the program risks is new. We know there is a (large) risk, however the ADF brass think that they have the risk contained.

 

[rossfrb_1]

More of the same. With due respect to ex-Squadron Commander Cottee, his opinion could be considered a little biased due to his heavy involvement with the Pig in it's earlier days. Also, nothing said here about the program risks is new. We know there is a (large) risk, however the ADF brass think that they have the risk contained.

With all due respect Coota, there are a couple of ways of looking at this.
Yes, one school of thought could be that he is biased due to his previous involvement with the F-111. But if you stick with that logic, then those involved with the F-18 can't be counted on for unbiased advice either.
Another could be that given his involvement with the F-111 and the fact that he was in the RAAF, he is in a very good position to know what the RAAF can do with the F-111 and with that knowlege, whether the 'RAAF's' descision to retire them ~2010 is a really good idea or not.
This topic has been thrashed around in a number of threads. The accusation of pro F-111 bias is not unique. What no one seems to consider is that there may be anti F-111 bias as well. Given that there are some who are passionate about the F-111, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that there is pro F-18 bias in the RAAF as well, by those involved with it? Are they going to idly sit by and see their precious F-18s lose out? Be it early retirement, upgrades or what have you. Can anyone who has kept an eye on Australian defence over the last decade or so say that they haven't noticed the politics creep into the ADF. Even Cosgrove became an adept pseudo politician.
The other assumption that makes me grit my teeth sometimes is that decisions are always made for the correct reason without political or some sort of other bias involved. It would be great if this were the case, but it isn't based on the real world. Especially the real world where Australian politics and defence collide. Children overboard anyone?
Who mandated the Aegis, JSF, Abrams, Raytheon RCS purchases for the ADF? Regardless of whether the hardware is good or not. There is absolutely no indication that any of these major defence hardware purchases were competively tendered. If the selection wasn't made on the best bang for buck, then on what grounds were they made?
OK, I've got that out of my system and I feel better.

cheers
rb

 

[Sea Toby]

My Aunt Clara used to say the strategic defense of Australia was that her F-111s could drop a package overnight at the President of Indonesia's bedroom..... Hee! Hee!

The F-111s have aged, and the new rave is the Tomahawk missile, which can do the same.....

 

[rossfrb_1]

My Aunt Clara used to say the strategic defense of Australia was that her F-111s could drop a package overnight at the President of Indonesia's bedroom..... Hee! Hee!

The F-111s have aged, and the new rave is the Tomahawk missile, which can do the same.....

.....loiter, retask?
That would explain why the US airforce has gotten rid of all its bombers then.

rb

 

[seantheaussie]

The F-111s have aged, and the new rave is the Tomahawk missile, which can do the same.....

Aren't there export controls on Thawk range cruise missiles?

 

[Aussie Digger]

I don't have a problem with the F-111 retirement per se. I have a problem with the planes being retired and replaced with nothing. A standoff missile and GPS guided bombs are capabilities F/A-18 should have ANYWAY in this day and age.

They should not be funded with the retirement of a platform that provides roughly half of RAAF's firepower. The F-111 is tired, expensive and difficult to upgrade (as witnessed by the problems with the AGM-142 Popeye integration). The F-111 should be retired but replaced by an equal number of aircraft to ensure our capability, at least numbers wise remains the same.

What is chosen to replace it is a matter for debate. I'd lean towards attempting to acquire additional "legacy" F/A-18's (ie: A,B,C,D models) simply due to economy and ease of entry into service reasons.

As to that article, Australia operates 71 F/A-18's, not 55. And a Wing Commander, who was involved in the initial F-111 acquisition (in the late 60's, early 70's) doesn't seem likely to be current with regards to RAAF thinking etc. I'd like to know how long he's been out of Airforce...

 

[rossfrb_1]

{snip}simply due to economy and ease of entry into service reasons.

As to that article, Australia operates 71 F/A-18's, not 55. And a Wing Commander, who was involved in the initial F-111 acquisition (in the late 60's, early 70's) doesn't seem likely to be current with regards to RAAF thinking etc. I'd like to know how long he's been out of Airforce...

Maybe they are referring to the single seaters? The RAAF apparently bought 57 of those. They've lost at least two (single seaters?). Not sure if the twin seaters are purely for training or can/have been tasked with combat capability.

http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/AWA1/501-600/walk506_F-18_Williamson/walk506.htm

cheers
rb

 

[rossfrb_1]

{snip}
I'd like to know how long he's been out of Airforce...

http://www.australiansatwar.gov.au/stories/stories.asp?war=KO&id=225

"..Milton Cottee saw his first aircraft in 1931 or 1932 when he was five or six..."

Can't be too many Milton Cottees who served in the RAAF. If this is correct, then if he retired at age 65, that would be around 1981.

rb

 

[Cootamundra]

Lets face it Ross, the old Pig's need to go, that means guys like you (the lovers of the venerable old bird) will need to let go ;-0

As I said the other day, there are risks involved with the retirement of the F-111, but they have been identified and risk mitigation strategies would no doubt be in place (that's what the Strategy planners in the ADF and RAAF do). Defence procurement and platform planning cannot be ruled by the heart. There are a range of viable alternatives, none of which are actually needed in today's threat environment. As stated previously, we have the option of Tomahawk cruise missles, new F/A-18's, an interim Striker platform like F-15's (ala Singapore) and in a few years despite the doom and gloom the new F-35 plus AWDs and maybe UCAV. Long range strike JASSM will also help bridge the long-range issues.

Show me one area where we have a real concern that warrants the PIG being retained for another 5 years (at a high maint cost), I argue that the cost exceeds the current risk level. And with the proposed solutions being discused, we will within the next 5-10 years be in a position to strike as far as we can today with the PIG but with a much more modern and lower ongoing cost strike arm.

Cheers, Coota