F-111's until 2020

[Magoo]

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.

The RAAF originally bought 75 Hornets, of which 18 were 'tubs' and 57 were single-seaters. We've since lost two of each, (all to human error) which is far less than the 11 we were forecast to have lost by half life of type (year 2000).

All tubs are fully combat capable but can carry about 15% less internal fuel. In the fast-FAC and buddy-lasing roles, the tubs are actually the preferred mounts.

A standoff missile and GPS guided bombs are capabilities F/A-18 should have ANYWAY in this day and age.

The RAAF's Hornets are now a much different animal to your fathers Hornets, and the mods they've been given are more than just "a stand-off missile and GPS bombs". The situational awareness tools that have come with HUGs 1, 2.1 and 2.2 (ARC-210, APG-73, GPS/INS, CIT, Link-16, colour displays, JHMCS, 19OFT, BOL CDS, AMRAAM C-5, ASRAAM), have given our Hornets a combat capability almost equal to that of the Block 1 Super Hornet. The new EW, Litening AT, JASSM and JDAM will only enhance this capability. Ok, so they haven't got the legs or the 'speed in the weeds' of an F-111, but the standoff stuff and tankers will address these issues. If I had a choice between 24 F-111Cs and 71 standard F/A-18A/Bs, or 71 F/A-18HUGs with tankers and Wedgetail, I know which way I'd go.

The F/A-18 and its systems was designed from day one to be upgradeable, so the HUG program has beena relatively pain-free one. On, the other hand, the F-111 wasn't, and the AGM-142 / C4 upgrade fiasco has only proved that further. For the F-111 to be relevant in the future, it needs new EW, CDS, radios, standoff sensors and weapons, datalinks, an engine upgrade, and GPS, not to mention the ongoing wing fatigue issues. Someone used the Seasprite as an example the other day of what can go wrong with software upgrades. The F-111 and the Seasprite were designed around the same time...

Elements within the RAAF actually wanted to let the Pigs go earlier than 2010 (around 08, which is when I think we'll see the Gs parked), but it was thought prudent to have JASSM, Litening AT, Wedgetail and A330MRTT in place first.

Incidentally, I heard a funny anecdote from a Hornet pilot mate of mine - he was dogfighting with an F-111 up at Delamere a couple of years back. He was in a tub, and still managed to bingo the F-111 even though they launched within 5 minutes of each other. In other words, yes the F-111 has range to burn...in a clean config at high-lo-high mission profiles, but get them turning and burning, and that advantage soon dissipates.

BTW - A report from a friend of mine at Red Flag. The Pigs are doing really well in the exercise, regularly hitting targets even the GR.4 Tonkas can't hit, but are suffering badly in the EW and unescorted SEAD missions. The Hornets (not 2.2 standard yet) are kicking a$$, but also have EW issues!

Magoo

 

[Aussie Digger]

The RAAF originally bought 75 Hornets, of which 18 were 'tubs' and 57 were single-seaters. We've since lost two of each, (all to human error) which is far less than the 11 we were forecast to have lost by half life of type (year 2000).

All tubs are fully combat capable but can carry about 15% less internal fuel. In the fast-FAC and buddy-lasing roles, the tubs are actually the preferred mounts.

The RAAF's Hornets are now a much different animal to your fathers Hornets, and the mods they've been given are more than just "a stand-off missile and GPS bombs". The situational awareness tools that have come with HUGs 1, 2.1 and 2.2 (ARC-210, APG-73, GPS/INS, CIT, Link-16, colour displays, JHMCS, 19OFT, BOL CDS, AMRAAM C-5, ASRAAM), have given our Hornets a combat capability almost equal to that of the Block 1 Super Hornet. The new EW, Litening AT, JASSM and JDAM will only enhance this capability. Ok, so they haven't got the legs or the 'speed in the weeds' of an F-111, but the standoff stuff and tankers will address these issues. If I had a choice between 24 F-111Cs and 71 standard F/A-18A/Bs, or 71 F/A-18HUGs with tankers and Wedgetail, I know which way I'd go.

The F/A-18 and its systems was designed from day one to be upgradeable, so the HUG program has beena relatively pain-free one. On, the other hand, the F-111 wasn't, and the AGM-142 / C4 upgrade fiasco has only proved that further. For the F-111 to be relevant in the future, it needs new EW, CDS, radios, standoff sensors and weapons, datalinks, an engine upgrade, and GPS, not to mention the ongoing wing fatigue issues. Someone used the Seasprite as an example the other day of what can go wrong with software upgrades. The F-111 and the Seasprite were designed around the same time...

Elements within the RAAF actually wanted to let the Pigs go earlier than 2010 (around 08, which is when I think we'll see the Gs parked), but it was thought prudent to have JASSM, Litening AT, Wedgetail and A330MRTT in place first.

Incidentally, I heard a funny anecdote from a Hornet pilot mate of mine - he was dogfighting with an F-111 up at Delamere a couple of years back. He was in a tub, and still managed to bingo the F-111 even though they launched within 5 minutes of each other. In other words, yes the F-111 has range to burn...in a clean config at high-lo-high mission profiles, but get them turning and burning, and that advantage soon dissipates.

BTW - A report from a friend of mine at Red Flag. The Pigs are doing really well in the exercise, regularly hitting targets even the GR.4 Tonkas can't hit, but are suffering badly in the EW and unescorted SEAD missions. The Hornets (not 2.2 standard yet) are kicking a$$, but also have EW issues!

Magoo

I know the Hornets are good, the head of Boeing, recently described the RAAF's Hornets, as the best "legacy" Hornets in the world.

My point is, simply purchasing new GPS equipped tailkits and a standoff missile, does not allow you to strike more targets, than you could previously with 30 odd more aircraft. JDAM does not allow you to carry more munitions, SDB would have, but the RAAF has not chosen to acquire it as yet...

JASSM will allow Hornets to strike further, but the Hornet fleet is going to be extremely heavily taxed in a wartime role covering ALL the capabilities that were formerly (post 2010) covered by F-111 AND HUG bugs...

Hence my call for additional Hornets to help the legacy fleet with it's mission requirements...

 

[Magoo]

My point is, simply purchasing new GPS equipped tailkits and a standoff missile, does not allow you to strike more targets, than you could previously with 30 odd more aircraft. JDAM does not allow you to carry more munitions, SDB would have, but the RAAF has not chosen to acquire it as yet...

You're right, JDAM doesn't allow you to carry more weapons and therefore hit more targets specifically...

However, what JDAM and JASSM do give you is an assurance that the target you want to hit WILL be hit, therefore instead of sending a couple of aircraft with half a dozen 'dumb' bombs each to ensure a target gets bracketed enough to destroy it, those dozen bombs can be employed against a dozen separate targets.

Magoo

 

[Aussie Digger]

You're right, JDAM doesn't allow you to carry more weapons and therefore hit more targets specifically...

However, what JDAM and JASSM do give you is an assurance that the target you want to hit WILL be hit, therefore instead of sending a couple of aircraft with half a dozen 'dumb' bombs each to ensure a target gets bracketed enough to destroy it, those dozen bombs can be employed against a dozen separate targets.

Magoo

The RAAF has had this capability since the early 80's with the GBU-10/12 series anyway. All the JDAM's will give us is an all-weather near precision strike capability, whereas we are limited to "clear weather" precision strike at the present.

RAAF had no GPS guided weapons in GW2 and still only fired PGM's. Not a single dumb bomb was carried...

Hence my argument, that the acquisition of JDAM alone does not make up for the loss of firepower brought about by the retirement of the 36 strong fleet of F-111's.

JASSM doesn't either unless the RAAF is going to purchase thousands and thousands of rounds, enough to cover all long range strike missions, that we previously would have used F-111's on. Even then we are limited by F/A-18's ability to carry only 2 JASSM's and by our reliance again on F/A-18 to conduct EVERY single air combat role the RAAF will be required to conduct in wartime.

Bringing in the AP-3C's, is ridiculous too. They are simply unable to be operated in an environment with an enemy fighter threat, of any kind. They are also arguable in their ability to operate in an environment with a capable long range SAM system, particularly given the RAAF's total lack of SEAD capability...

The only way to maintain even close to the capability we currently possess is to purchase additional aircraft, capable of filling the role our F/A-18's currently do as an absolute minimum, anything less has to result in less capability.

 

[rossfrb_1]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,18456365%255E31477,00.html
" Defence to outsource F-111 unit
Sean Parnell
March 14, 2006

THE Defence Department has been forced to call in private operators to maintain the engines of its ageing F-111 fleet and stop key ground crew taking jobs elsewhere at a time of uncertainty over the future of the planes.

As the aviation sector expands in southeast Queensland and companies search for more skilled workers, the Defence Materiel Organisation has moved to commercialise the F-111 engines business unit to keep staff at the Amberley air base.

Engine maintenance survived the privatisation push of the late 1990s when Defence opted for a $200million in-house arrangement over competing tenders from Air New Zealand Engineering Services and Qantas Defence Systems.

But a Defence spokesperson yesterday confirmed DMO had begun negotiations with Tasman Aviation Enterprises over the future of the engines business unit.

TAE is a subsidiary of Air New Zealand and holds the contract for the F-111 workshop's business unit.

The company, which will continue to be based at Amberley, plans to pursue other military maintenance work in the Asia-Pacific region if it secures the maintenance contract.

As part of the commercialisation process, Defence asked interested companies whether they could provide work for staff at the engines business unit beyond the F-111's planned withdrawal from service in 2010-2012.

The unit employs 160 people at Amberley.

"Defence is conducting the commercialisation project in order to mitigate possible loss of staff by establishing arrangements which should provide employment opportunities beyond F-111 withdrawal," the spokesperson said.

TAE general manager Andrew Sanderson yesterday said the company already had 85 staff at Amberley and expected to take on more than 100 from the engines business unit, raising the prospect of some job losses.

Mr Sanderson said TAE would provide support for the F-111s and, at the same time, pursue contracts to maintain military equipment for other clients in the region in the belief southeast Queensland was well positioned to become an aviation service hub.

The Defence spokesperson said the decision to outsource the business would not increase costs for the department. The spokesperson said the contract, likely to be signed later this year, would be "tailored to the withdrawal of the F-111 through the use of options".

The RAAF operates 17 F-111C strike aircraft, four RF-111C reconnaissance aircraft and five F-111G training aircraft.

The training aircraft are being decommissioned as they need deeper maintenance. There are now nine F-111Gs in storage or being used for spare parts.

The F-111Cs are being upgraded ahead of their planned withdrawal and Defence will rely on beefed-up F/A-18 fighters ahead of the new-generation joint strike fighters being brought online.

The Commonwealth plans to buy up to 100 Joint Strike Fighter F-35s, perhaps as late as 2020, at a cost of more than $12billion but has been criticised for abandoning the successful F-111s without having fully tested the new aircraft."

rb

 

[pnl3410]

re:legacy hornets

if they are so good, why cant they pick up the pig on radar any more?


ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

 

[gf0012-aust]

if they are so good, why cant they pick up the pig on radar any more?


ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Not sure what you're referring to here?

do you want to be a bit more specific so that we can tighten the debate a little?

 

[Occum]

Parliamentary inquiry

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.

In trying to pick up on this thread (as a Newbie), I am a little confused. If this be the case, then why has the senate called for a specific inquiry into air superiority and referred it back to the joint standing committee on defence?

 

[Aussie Digger]

In trying to pick up on this thread (as a Newbie), I am a little confused. If this be the case, then why has the senate called for a specific inquiry into air superiority and referred it back to the joint standing committee on defence?

Because Senator's LOVE their committee's and enquiries? And because some of them listen to "fools" like Carlo Kopp and Peter Goon?

Seriously though, I agree with this decision. RAAF and Government have decided that the F-111 can be retired and it's role taken on by Bugs with new smart bombs and standoff missiles (and yes, a whole suite full of new avionics capabilities, EWSP, targetting sensors etc).

However they have not addresses any concerns about Air force's ability to conduct concurrent operations with this reduced fleet, The effects that this greater tasking will have on Hornet availability, particularly in light of the fact that up to 43 Hornets are going to need "centre barrel replacements" which are expected to take roughly 9 months PER AIRCRAFT, as they involve a virtual re-build, IIRC. (Magoo or GF might be able to clarify that).

I daresay it's these sorts of issues that the Senate intends to address in this enquiry..

 

[Occum]

Aussie Digger -

Thanks for this. Hopefully others will be able to shed some more light on the points you make.

In the meantime, have found the site and am working through the submissions. Interesting one from a Dr Stephens, particularly comments on air warfare destroyer!

By the way, not the Senate but Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade - see
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/adfair/index.htm

 

[gf0012-aust]

hanks for this. Hopefully others will be able to shed some more light on the points you make.

I've got some info via Magoo on the centre barrel issues. I'll let him post details first.

If he doesn't within the next 48hrs then I'll rebuild what I have and post it here.

 

[Magoo]

I've got some info via Magoo on the centre barrel issues. I'll let him post details first.

The Canadian centre-barrel delay has been due more to budgetary issues rather than technical. They plan to do 80, and Bombarider's Mirabel facility is maxed out for the next few years. Should be completed by 010.

The USN has been going at a slower rate (about 10-12 a/c per year I believe), and these are being done in-house at NAS North Island in San Diego. They're only doing early build C models and haven't decided on how many they'll do.

We're going to do ours in a purpose built hangar at W'Town with the work to be done by Boeing, L-3 and BAES, and its possible we'll do more than the 43 which are currently budgeted for...I think about 60 is the latest I heard.

The first RAAF Hornet heads off to Canada in an Antonov or a C-5 in mid April for prototype development work, and the first one done here should start late next year. The whole RAAF Fleet should be done by end 011.

Magoo

 

[Occum]

Hornet Centre Barrel Replacement

We're going to do ours in a purpose built hangar at W'Town with the work to be done by Boeing, L-3 and BAES, and its possible we'll do more than the 43 which are currently budgeted for...I think about 60 is the latest I heard.

The first RAAF Hornet heads off to Canada in an Antonov or a C-5 in mid April for prototype development work, and the first one done here should start late next year. The whole RAAF Fleet should be done by end 011.

If this takes 9 months per aircraft and there are 43 aircraft to do, that's about 32 years on a nose to tail program. Presumably, there will be a number of aircraft in work at the same time.

How many sets of tools (jigs & fixtures) are going to be used?

I have been reading up on this (on USN site) and this does not sound like a simple job.

 

[Magoo]

If this takes 9 months per aircraft and there are 43 aircraft to do, that's about 32 years on a nose to tail program. Presumably, there will be a number of aircraft in work at the same time.

How many sets of tools (jigs & fixtures) are going to be used?

I have been reading up on this (on USN site) and this does not sound like a simple job.

We'll probably only get one or two jigs based on the number of aircraft to be done, but people see that it takes 10 months per aircraft to do a centre-barrel and freak out about that. That doesn't mean the aircraft will be in the jig for 10 months.

The strip down and rebuild process takes a large proportion of that time, and the actual 'jig time' is likely to only be a matter of a couple of weeks. The centre-barrel work will likely be done to conicde with scheduled maintenance periods and other upgrade work as well, so the number of aircraft offline at any one time wont be too much more than usual.

Magoo

 

[south]

Hey everyone, long time lurker first time poster but I think a few of you will know me from other boards.

The company that I (after Friday used to) work for designed a work platform for the FA-18's for Boeing. The platform almost completely surrounds the jet.

We also bid on the contract to supply the work platform, Original requirement was for 8 workplatforms with an option for a further 4.

I wonder what the platforms will be used for?

 

[rossfrb_1]

We'll probably only get one or two jigs based on the number of aircraft to be done, but people see that it takes 10 months per aircraft to do a centre-barrel and freak out about that. That doesn't mean the aircraft will be in the jig for 10 months.

The strip down and rebuild process takes a large proportion of that time, and the actual 'jig time' is likely to only be a matter of a couple of weeks. The centre-barrel work will likely be done to conicde with scheduled maintenance periods and other upgrade work as well, so the number of aircraft offline at any one time wont be too much more than usual.

Magoo

This is contradicted at
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/adfair/subs/sub20_1.pdf
last paragraph, page 28 of the document (pdf page number 31).
Given that this document is from messrs Kopp & Goon, I'm already putting on the flame retardent long johns
Having skimmed through most of the submissions, I can see where the public support appears to be. Having little understanding (or interest) in accounting, the costings models put forward by Kopp and Goon have gone over my head. I wouldn't be able to differentiate BS from true fact.
cheers
rb

 

[gf0012-aust]

The platform almost completely surrounds the jet.

We also bid on the contract to supply the work platform, Original requirement was for 8 workplatforms with an option for a further 4.

I wonder what the platforms will be used for?

are you talking about a locked jig or a carousel/rotisserie?

eg on the armoured cars we stuck them on a rotisseries to ease complex welding - it also means that you don't have to use ticketed overhead welders (who are more valuable than their weight in gold)

rotisseries (HA welding jigs) and carousels (perimeter welding jigs) are designed to cut down the maint and build time. In the case of armoured cars we managed to cut build times by 70% and the welders costs by 40%.

 

[410Cougar]

Sorry to go a little off topic here, but does Australia really require a strike aircraft?

Would seem to me that when they purchased the Hornets that they were doing away with any type of strike airframe - otherwise they perhaps would have purchased some Tornados..??

Attila

 

[gf0012-aust]

Sorry to go a little off topic here, but does Australia really require a strike aircraft?

Would seem to me that when they purchased the Hornets that they were doing away with any type of strike airframe - otherwise they perhaps would have purchased some Tornados..??

Attila

The Hornets weren't the major taskers for strike. That was primarily the role of the F-111's. You also need to look at the reasons for the F-111.

• in the 60's australia was actually striding towards developing her own nuke capability - the F-111 was at the ultimate end game envisioned as taking a nuke all the way to Jakarta and back. (this was when Indonesia was heavily under communist influence, so there was a real concern that we would have a major communist (and already demonstrated) aggressive regional neighbour.) we actually did have a nuke weapons programme but its still rather buried in detail. its very hard to get public info on it.
• when australia agreed to drop nuclear options and join the NPT (along with Germany), the nuke option went away, but the strike option didn't.
• as recently as 1999 we had F-111's grumbled up to go to jakarta if the Indonesians had escalated the ET situation. Hornets (esp without adequate AAR) would have been useless to send the same message.

 

[Sea Toby]

Back during the late 1960s and early 1970s before Australia converted some of the Qantas 707s to air tankers, the F-111s were needed to deliver as my Aunt Clara used to say a package overnight to the President of Indonesia's bedroom. Today, with the air tankers, they aren't needed so much, as the F/A-18s are quite capable of striking along with dogfighting. It also wouldn't surprise me any if the Australians were interested in air launched Tomahawk are similar long range land attack missiles for their Hornets, not to mention to fill some of the Mk 41 VLS tubes of the AWD. These new missiles are more than likely a lot cheaper than another expensive upgrade of the F-111 cockpit.