You'd be suprised how quickly the crews took to the F-22. While she is a much more sophisticated aircraft than even the F-35 the maintenance will be similar. The crews get IMIS Portable Maintenance Aids which are plug-and-play. Not only does it diagnose the problem it tells them how to fix it step by step. There are courses that run through the IMIS tutorials and of course proper stealth maintenance but you can get a crew transitioned in a relatively short period of time.Aussie Digger said:
F-111's until 2020
- Thread starter pnl3410
- Start date
- Status
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I guess, but my point was that there needs to be a "headspace" between the 2 capabilities, because simply possessing the technical skill to fly and maintain a platform doesn't confer mastery of the platform. You need to learn from a doctrinal POV how to "fight" the aircraft too and this is going to take time, as is weapon integrations etc.Big-E said:
That's more or less right AD. It's not as simple as 'plug and play', but the integration issues are made much simpler by the new software combined with the situation awareness enhancements brought to the jet with JHMCS, new colour displays, MIDS and the new Litening AT pods.Aussie Digger said:
Cheers
Magoo
Yeah, you'll need a certain amount of transition for pilot training. I think doctrine will come afterwards. You know how commands are with their new toys. There will already be untested stuff thought up by desk-jockies that will diseminate thru the ranks. The same was the case for transition to the Super Bug, although not as transformational as this will be. Weapons integration shouldn't be a problem at all. They are the standard weapons we're already using. The only thing we have to deal with is a weapons bay.Aussie Digger said:
Last edited:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
True, supposedly the first RAAF F-35A's (if the plan goes through as proposed) will be based in the USA and the initial RAAF pilots will convert to and learn to operate the F-35A's there.Big-E said:
These pilots will be (mostly) former 1 and 6 Sqn F-111 pilots and the RAAF will have the benefit of it's corporate knowledge of "internal" weapons bays to assist it "learning" about the new platform...
Still, weapons such as the AIM-132 ASRAAM will need some work to operate from the F-35A as I don't believe the US or any other nation will operate it with the "A" model...
2006 in Review
Some sobering thoughts here -
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2006-03.html
"We don't know what we don't know"
AM Geoff Shephard, CAF, 31 March 2006
Would it not be reasonable to expect them to find out and, then, do something about it? After all, that is one of the things they are being paid to do by the Australian tax payer.
nfloorl:
Some sobering thoughts here -
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2006-03.html
"We don't know what we don't know"
AM Geoff Shephard, CAF, 31 March 2006
Would it not be reasonable to expect them to find out and, then, do something about it? After all, that is one of the things they are being paid to do by the Australian tax payer.
nfloorl:I thought that quote was from Rummy
'tis a Worry
This is very true and maybe that is where CAF, AM Geoff Shephard (and the Chief Defence Scientist, Roger Lough) got it from. What is surprising is how proudly they said it. Truly amazing.
:shudder
Big E,
This is very true and maybe that is where CAF, AM Geoff Shephard (and the Chief Defence Scientist, Roger Lough) got it from. What is surprising is how proudly they said it. Truly amazing.
:shudder
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
It is more than reasonable but Dr Kopp's arrogance is perfectly displayed here. His assumption that HE understands Force structure issues better than Air Marshall Sheperd is simply outrageous.Some sobering thoughts here -
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2006-03.html
"We don't know what we don't know"
AM Geoff Shephard, CAF, 31 March 2006
Would it not be reasonable to expect them to find out and, then, do something about it? After all, that is one of the things they are being paid to do by the Australian tax payer.
I LOVE his referral the the 39 submissions to JSCFDT. How many by chance came from Air Power Australia members???
The fact that the Committee publicly stated that they were more than satisfied with the evidence provided by Defence (behind the closed doors that so irks Dr Kopp) obviously shows the complete incompetence of the Committee too no doubt.
I guess we're all doomed unless we immediately change tact and kowtow to the inestimable military genius of Dr Kopp...
nfloorl:Karlo Kopp
I was always fairly neutral about this guy but not any more, suddenly because we are going down the F-35 path he calls into question our technical and tactical ability as professional airman and asserts that he knows more about doctrine than we do,the arrogance of the man is incredible.I have been around Russell a bit myself and have never heard that the RAAF is to far gone to fix or is a basket case in fact the opposite if anything.To be on the record i am a member of the RAAF,rant over.
I was always fairly neutral about this guy but not any more, suddenly because we are going down the F-35 path he calls into question our technical and tactical ability as professional airman and asserts that he knows more about doctrine than we do,the arrogance of the man is incredible.I have been around Russell a bit myself and have never heard that the RAAF is to far gone to fix or is a basket case in fact the opposite if anything.To be on the record i am a member of the RAAF,rant over.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Yes he completely disregards RAAF's undisputed tactical expertise, it's superb operational and exercise performance (including Red Flag's etc) in favour of a rather overinflated opinion of his own brilliance and "strategic insight".
HE is rapidly becoming the "bad joke". NOT the RAAF...
Time To Reflect On You Own Words
Are these not your words?
Are they not even more critical of the parlous state of affairs in the Australian Department of Defence?
At least Dr Kopp is prepared to not only identify the problems (risks) in the Department in an analytical and objective way (as opposed to the emotional and ad hominem approach of some) but he also proffers solutions backed by reasoned argument. Moreover, he is prepared to put his name to what he says.
Are you prepared to do same?
AD,
Are these not your words?
Are they not even more critical of the parlous state of affairs in the Australian Department of Defence?
At least Dr Kopp is prepared to not only identify the problems (risks) in the Department in an analytical and objective way (as opposed to the emotional and ad hominem approach of some) but he also proffers solutions backed by reasoned argument. Moreover, he is prepared to put his name to what he says.
Are you prepared to do same?
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Hardly. I prefer to spend my time more productively than "banging it against a brick wall" in a futile attempt to change the status quo.AD,
Are these not your words?
Are they not even more critical of the parlous state of affairs in the Australian Department of Defence?
At least Dr Kopp is prepared to not only identify the problems (risks) in the Department in an analytical and objective way (as opposed to the emotional and ad hominem approach of some) but he also proffers solutions backed by reasoned argument. Moreover, he is prepared to put his name to what he says.
Are you prepared to do same?
I stand by my earlier words and nor am I am naive enough to think there are not any problems within the Australian Defence Organisation.
As to reasoned arguments, I accept that Dr Kopp does OFTEN make a very good argument. Particularly when it's he's discussing a technology based issue.
Equally AND regrettably I find he OFTEN makes very poor or unrealistic ones, a perfect example of this is his "rationale" indicating Australia requires 17 "wide body" AAR aircraft. I've said it before, it may well do, but WHY can't he accept the reality that this will NEVER happen short of a war of national survival occuring?
In a situation such as now where he is obviously getting increasingly frustrated with Defence and Defmin Nelson failing to listen to him, publicly denigrating such persons is doing NOTHING to help with his credibility or his standing within the debate.
Publicly denigrating "tax payer funded think tanks" is rich too. Didn't he write a paper for ASPI only just last month or so? Pretty sure it's a tax payer funded "think tank" and ASPI hasn't always agreed with HIS view of the world, particularly when Aldo Borgu was in charge. Apparently he only has a problem with "publicly funded thinktanks" that don't employ or differ in opinion to him...
A wonderful way to meaningfully contribute to the Australian defence debate...
Happy New Year all...
Thought as much. From my readings, a true 'Aussie Digger' would not accept the 'status quo' when it meant dumbing down one's air force and refusing to fight for getting the best for one's fighting men and women. Shame on you for misrepresenting such a proud national icon as the 'Aussie Digger'.
Here is what some senior folks in the US think about Dr Kopp's summation of the situation -
**********
Wishing all of you Happy New Year, and to leave you with this sage point from Australian Carlo Kopp, one of our most trenchant airpower analysts:“Professional mastery in the core business of air power is not measured by ‘stick and throttle’ flying skills. It is measured by the ability of an air force to deliver its product - air power in support of national interests - and its ability to maintain and develop the operational, technological and strategic planning machinery required to deliver that product. It matters not if Australia has the most skilled combat pilots in this region, if its lacks suitable aircraft, weapons, systems and software support base, planning capability, doctrine, and management and strategic expertise to apply and maintain these capabilities.”
His year-end summary can be found at:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2006-03.html and is well worth reading.
We should consider what Carlo views as a crisis in Australian airpower affairs, and to contemplate the USAF’s current situation. In an era where both the ability to control airpower targeting through the JFACC was lost to the JFC (Army) staff since 2001, in which the USAF lost control over its major acquisition programs to OSD and one man in Congress, and its major developmental acquisition program recapitalizes the F-16, we should be asking some fundamental questions. What is the state of the USAF’s “operational, technological, and strategic planning machinery”? Have we reverted to pre-Kasserine Pass airpower employment, and if so, should we wait for a Monty to snap us out of it? What has become of centralized control (BY THE SENIOR AIRMAN), centralized execution? What is the Air Force’s strategic future, and what are its core competencies (e.g., cyberspace)? When the Air Force is stuck (which happens with stunning regularity in the press and published articles) does it bleed? Does the Air Force have anything meaningful to say about US military power in the 21^st century other than “we support others”? Perhaps at the core of this, is the Air Force a service, or is it a collection of people wearing the same uniform?
Perhaps 2007 should be the* Year of Air Force Re-Militarization*, a year where Airmen decide they really are warriors with something to say, that they’ve had enough, and decide to recapture the spirit of our Founding Airmen who understood that real Airpower involves three essential principles:
*1. The essence of aerospace power is the control of air and space, which has its own strategic effect and remains the essential precondition for all US military operations. *
*2. The exploitation of air and space, i.e., aerospace options that become available when one establishes control, continue to be of increasing importance to US national security at every level of war, relative to, and in concert with other military means. *
*3. These two propositions present a threat to legacy,
surface-centric worldviews, and as such, require energetic advocacy to expedite their full incorporation into a more enlightened, progressive, and effective means of conducting American warfare and diplomacy.*
Airpower, with all deference to Dr Kopp, isn’t just a product; it’s an alternative, a disruptive idea, a revolutionary American perspective that has continuous, increasing importance to US national security. It retains that increasing importance EVEN WHEN IT’S REJECTED. But, in order to be either accepted or rejected, it must be injected. There are only two real measures of merit—whether American Airmen have a unique, meaningful, relevant perspective, and whether they make it a part of the debate. We need a lot of work on the former, and need to at least register a pulse on the latter.
Airpower must inevitably be presented as a counterpoint, that is, as a meaningful alternative that springs from its nature. A counterpoint has relevance only in contrast to another perspective, which implies conflict. Airpower cannot be presented in an environment of consensus or comity because the theologians of the dominant paradigm won’t allow it. This is the essence of the Billy Mitchell Syndrome—if you present an Airpower alternative forcefully enough to make an impact, you are branded as divisive; but if you are timid or circumspect, you will be ignored. They leave us no middle ground, although the more timid among us have been searching for it in vain since 1903.
Thus, to re-militarize, we must find courage. That is my wish for all of us in 2007.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
So you've "read" all about being an "Aussie Diggers" have you?Thought as much. From my readings, a true 'Aussie Digger' would not accept the 'status quo' when it meant dumbing down one's air force and refusing to fight for getting the best for one's fighting men and women. Shame on you for misrepresenting such a proud national icon as the 'Aussie Digger'.
Bully for you. Your expertise is obviously un-parallelled then and ALL of us who have ACTUALLY served in the Army should just shut out traps shouldn't we?
Tell you what. Try signing up as a Dig. I did. I enjoyed it so much I stayed for 6 years. Do a ROSO, do a couple more years and you'll be as experienced as me. Then I might start to listen to your OPINION.
Then I'll think a bit more of it then I do your CURRENT opinion's...
AD, BY HIMSELF without needing to ask other people for HELP with my responses...
Anyhow. Time to get back to talking about F-111's and associated matters guys.
Cheers.
I'm somewhat amused by this "Carlo Kopp thinks this," "Carlo Kopp thinks that," I was corresponding with him last night in fact. I've known him off and on for about 15 years. We've sparred many times. Carlo is well aware of "just how parlorous" the RAAF is. Its one of the reasons why he is so unpopular with the RAAF heirachy at the moment.
Occum, a "true Aussie digger" puts up with an awful lot before he or now, she, speaks out. Like Aussie Digger, I've done my time. I'm somewhat amused though, that Aussie Digger believes "five years" makes him an authority. I wonder what my ten years makes me?
The reality is that the Aussie digger/airman/sailor has usually been at the bottom of the food chain as far as finances go in government ever since federation. They make do. As Donald Rumsfield famously put it, "you go to war with the armies you have, not the ones you want." It must be admitted that things for the army at least are changing for the better however, with equipment deficiencies and shortfalls being made good. Thats to be expected, with the Army having both been the "poor man" of the ADF for several decades and now being the premier fighting force in "The Long War"(tm). That though has been the cyclical nature of Australia's defence strategy, with the continental versus the forward defence schools, fighting for supremacy.
Occum, a "true Aussie digger" puts up with an awful lot before he or now, she, speaks out. Like Aussie Digger, I've done my time. I'm somewhat amused though, that Aussie Digger believes "five years" makes him an authority. I wonder what my ten years makes me?
The reality is that the Aussie digger/airman/sailor has usually been at the bottom of the food chain as far as finances go in government ever since federation. They make do. As Donald Rumsfield famously put it, "you go to war with the armies you have, not the ones you want." It must be admitted that things for the army at least are changing for the better however, with equipment deficiencies and shortfalls being made good. Thats to be expected, with the Army having both been the "poor man" of the ADF for several decades and now being the premier fighting force in "The Long War"(tm). That though has been the cyclical nature of Australia's defence strategy, with the continental versus the forward defence schools, fighting for supremacy.
Well put. I wonder what he would say about 15 or 22 or 25 or, even, 33 years times many?
Sadly, he still does not get it. As has been said before -
Accepting the status quo when it means the dumbing down of one's air force which will put one's fighting men and women at risk, along with one's Nation is not, IMHO, what a true Aussie digger would, or even, should stand for.
More's the pity.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
When did I say I was an "authority"? I merely mentioned that unlike many of Occum's "brethren" (who post under the pseudonym "Occum" hence the 33 times comment) I DO have military experience. 6 years in fact. Not five, but anyhoo, I did not intend for this to become a pi**ing contest.
Here we have people publicly denigrating service people (with a LOT more than 10 years, so WHAT kind of authority are they by your standards???) without themselves having served a single DAY in uniform. I take issuye with that, particularly when they start criticising the ADF heirarcy's tactical and strategic nous.
It is not a conspiracy, just because more than 1 person happens to disagree with some of the thoughts and opinions of the members of Airpower Australia. If that WERE the case then it is an awfully big conspiracy because it is one that many people inside AND out of ADF share.
Once again Occum, YOU seem to fail to understand me, rather than the opposite. If I didn't care about the "tools of trade" those in the ADF have to use, why the hell would I be here? To simply slag off at people? I cared about our "tools" when I was in and I still do.
I most certainly do care about the ADF, I want the best possible equipment for ALL our service personnel. I simply don't subscribe to a LOT of the idea's of your organisation, and I try to be as realistic about this as possible. The greatest failing of APA, IMHO. APA seem to forget that ADF is required to deliver a level of capability which is directed by Government. Why then should the "venom" be directed mostly at ADF? Government are responsible for deciding WHAT capability ADF will maintain and to what level it will be funded.
As to APA's written comments on these matters, (I cannot comment on Dr Kopp's "private thoughts" obviously) I think the F-111's ARE shagged and need to be retired. I am not convinced that A) it would be economical to upgrade them and B) that they would provide a high level of capability in years to come if they were, even if it WERE economical to do so.
I think the F-35A IS the best fighter for Australia in coming years, I ALSO think that ADF SHOULD look at acquiring F-22A at some point, IF it can be done so affordably. I do NOT think a sole F-22 based fleet is the answer to RAAF's strategic problems in years to come. I DO think that ADF should immediately move to acquire Super Hornets to "bridge the gap" between the current generation aircraft and the "next generation of aircraft" and allow the F-111 to be retired as quickly as possible.
I do NOT think the Air Warfare Destroyers should be cancelled so as to allow greater funding for the RAAF nor do I think RAAF requires 17x "wide body" tankers.
Now, as before and I as I have done here, please start discussing the thread topic, before Webs decides enough is enough.
I'm more than happy to continue this discussion via PM, if you want to hear my thoughts any further and in greater clarity...
What is the real beef here?
As far as I'm concerned the F-111 is a great platform for "doing stuff" (e.g. stealth) because of its size, more than anything else. Not too big, not too small, but just right.
Anyway, Australia has gone the route of purchasing MOTS in the form of the F-35 and really, who can blame them?
Some of the "stealth" tech you could develop on the F-111 platform could be done with a PC-3 and to be honest, it may be more appropriate to that aircraft's mission anyway. For one, it is a hell of a lot easier to make a prop driven plane quiet then a jet.
cheers
w
As far as I'm concerned the F-111 is a great platform for "doing stuff" (e.g. stealth) because of its size, more than anything else. Not too big, not too small, but just right.
Anyway, Australia has gone the route of purchasing MOTS in the form of the F-35 and really, who can blame them?
Some of the "stealth" tech you could develop on the F-111 platform could be done with a PC-3 and to be honest, it may be more appropriate to that aircraft's mission anyway. For one, it is a hell of a lot easier to make a prop driven plane quiet then a jet.
cheers
w
- Status