RAAF Stopgap air plan is 'dumb'

[gf0012-aust]

Gerard McManus 05mar04

DEFENCE chiefs have begun shopping for stopgap fighter jets to fill a growing hole in the nation's defence.

The phase-out of the RAAF's ageing jet fighter fleet and the likelihood that the replacement F-35 Joint Strike Fighters will not be ready when due in 2012 has created a vacuum in air combat and strike capabilities.
Defence sources say attempts to patch up our decrepit fleet of 71 F/A-18s and 33 F-111s will prove too costly and difficult.

At the top of the shopping list are F-15E Strike Eagle combat jets, used extensively during the Iraq war, and more modern F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets, which are the US Navy's primary attack jet.

Under a stopgap plan being devised by the RAAF, an unspecified number of second-hand aircraft would be leased until the Joint Strike Fighter is ready.

Defence sources say the F/A-18s, due to be phased out in 2012, have serious structural fatigue problems and will not last the distance.

But leading defence analyst Dr Carlo Popp said the stopgap plan was a "dumb idea".

"The F-111 (due to be scrapped in 2010) could be stretched to 2020, but defence apparently wants something shiny and new instead," Dr Popp said.

"It always seems easier to buy something off the shelf than to take on the complex jobs of upgrading and stretching the life of existing aircraft."

Dr Popp said the F-15s, commissioned in the early '70s, were also at the end of their production life, and Australia might have trouble re-selling them.

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute has warned defence to be prepared for long delays in the arrival of the JSF.

At up to $16 billion, the fighter is the most expensive purchase ever made by the Commonwealth -- $800 for every Australian man, woman and child.

The Strike Eagle is recognised as a top-of-the-line fighter bomber designed for air-to-air and deep-strike bombing missions; it dropped 2300kg "bunker buster" bombs in the Iraq war.

The Super Hornets are equipped with stealth capabilities and can carry bombs of up to 8700kg, including so-called smart bombs.


http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,8869781%5E662,00.html

-----

This one is a bit of a giggle for people in the RAAF, the journalist has misspelt the proponents name - he's called Dr Carlo Kopp and he is considered to be a pain in the rear. An academic armchair analyst who has been promoting tactical solutions that usually have minimal sense and logic.

Be that as it may, the RAAF will have to consider a solution - whether it is a stopgap is another issue. The last aircraft we leased were the F-4 Phantoms. Both sides of Govt are resistant to leasing.

 

[Aussie Digger]

This was an issue before the latest Defence Capability Plan was released. The Defence Minister has now announced the $250 Million structural upgrade program for the FA-18A/B's plus the continuing Hornet Upgrade Program. The Defence Minister Mr HILL and the Chief of Air Force, Angus Houston have both categorically stated that an interim aircraft WILL NOT be released and the F-111's WILL be retired in the 2008 - 2010 timeframe. Both have also publicly stated that the upgraded FA-18's will have sufficient life left in them to allow them to serve until the JSF is ready. Dr Carlo KOPP for all his obvious intellectual prowess, does not live in the real world. In a recent article of his, he stated that Australia's force structure requirements required no less than 16 air to air refuelling tankers. This may well be the case, but it is totally unrealistic. Great Britain is leasing 16 tankers for a project cost of $30 Billion. How could Australia ever afford to spend $30 Billion on ONE defence project? Our entire Defence Capability plan is proposing to acquire $50 Billion worth of equipment etc for the ENTIRE force... This is one example of how out of touch with reality he is. The other thing about him is he consistently champions lost causes. The F-111 is gone, he should focus his intellectual abilities on project's that are worthwhile. For whatever reason both sides of politics in Australia want to get rid of the F-111. It simply will not be retained nor upgraded much further than it is now. Additional examples of whatever type of F-111 will NEVER be acquired. The sooner he realises this and diverts his attention to other projects, the better off the Australian defence debate will be.

 

[Winter]

The subject RAAF component a 'decrepit fleet.' :roll

So strong a word.

The whole article seems to be nothing but hot air...From what I can see, is the passage raising no other serious objection to a stopgap design anyway other than Aus. 'might have trouble reselling' these supposedly leased aircraft? If so, than there are better subjects for a news article.

Indeed, a quick scout around does reveal Kopp to have an apparent 'affiliation' of sorts with the F-111...Though I won't hold it against him.

:frosty

 

[Aussie Digger]

The original plan was to lease either FA-18E/F Super Hornets or F15E Strike Eagles from the USA to cover the gap until the JSF was ready for service. If this was undertaken we would not have to sell them to anyone at the end of the lease anyway. Like all leases in the world, the country leasing them does not own them, it only uses them for a certain period before handing them back to their actual owner. The real reason this plan was never followed through was cost. It would have cost far more than all the planned Hornet and F-111 upgrades combined and left us with less capability due to the number of platforms we could have acquired. THAT's why it was never followed up. Australia media organisations as a general rule are unbelievably ignorant of defence related matters, either here in Australia or of overseas matters. Anything stated by them should be taken with the greatest of skepticism unless supported by reputable sources.

 

[umair]

Dumb! I say the author of this piece is dumb if he believes that Dr whoevers comments.Out of sync with reality thats why I don't like journalists with little defence experience writing on defence topics.Case in point the Pakistani journalist who turned the Darter into a bomb and the MUPSOW and Raptor into BVRAAMs
:roll

 

[Aussie Digger]

Dr Carlo KOPP does make some very valid points. Unfortunately they are also futile quite often. He is obsessed with the F-111. He even did a series of articles a few years back about turning the F-111 into an AMRAAM carrying interceptor to defeat the regional SU-30 fleet... The US Navy looked at using the F-111B years ago as a carrier borne interceptor and while it was fast, it was simply not designed for air to air combat. That's why they chose the F-14 and Australia chose an aircraft like the F-18, though the F-15 it was up against would have been a better choice. They could then have replaced the F-111 during the mid nineties with new-build F15E's and our current RAAF force structure problems wouldn't exist...

 

[gf0012-aust]

You also have to consider the climate in which the F-111 was ordered, At that stage there was real concern that Indonesia would go communist.

Australia at point in time was internally starting to be committed to having our own nukes. This was reinforced by the UK's refusal to provide us with 2 Blue Steels during Konfrontassi, and that we would only be able to rely on ourselves (rather than alliances at some levels).

The F-111 was the only high speed nuke carrier on the drawing boards that we could get. There was no way that we were going to go back to a strategic bomber force (after having Lincolns and then Canberras).

So the F-111 was purchased with a number of motives in play.

Up until the advent of the Su-27 as a potential OPFOR interceptor it was the most capable nuke hi speed carrier in the west - and in some respects still is. It still is the fastest low level sprinter in the world for its throw weight.

Unfortunately at one stage Kopp was also proposing Su-34's as a replacement - hence why they made a concerted effort to have their Aircraft at Avalon Air show in 1999 and 2001. They failed to meet australian air safety standards however and were not allowed to bring them into Aust air space.

Kopp has become obsessed at the expence of some essential reality and tactical sanity checking.

Hence his arguments are somewhat flawed at times.

 

[boylde]

If We (Australia) started to cut down time on the F111 and F18 Fleets from patrols and instead of sending 4-6 send 2-4 and started to rotate them in and out of storage and the one's in storage went through minor upgrades and refits I'm shore we could keep the F111 up till 2014 and the F18 till 2018-2022 and in the extra time till the JSF came in We rented USAF/USN F18 Super hornets.

 

[adsH]

Did Dr Carlo propose a Lease hire on the Tanker fleet or was it an Indigenous Project. From My prospective he has a valid point, extend the Life span of your Exhausted fleet till your JSF arrive and improve your Air refueling Capabilities, which would allow you to Maximize whatever you're left with from your existing fleet. It makes sense to me since the Lease solutions are not the most effective one, i Do appreciate that the Airforce thinks that the people that have no experience in the real world can be a pain in the Arse, But they have to understand that people that take a back-seat sometimes have the foresight "the Larger picture" that people involved in the Field don't have.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The best argument that KOPP has going for him is the detriment to RAAF firepower that will be suffered by the retirement of the F-111 in 2010. Unfortunately he does not press this issue. The RAAF plan is to acquire the F-35 JSF to replace both the F/A-18A/B and R/F-111C/G aircraft. The White Paper in 2000 outlined that "up to 100 aircraft" will be acquired to replace the current fleet (107 strong in terms of actual numbers of platforms, in terms of operational strength, Australia would be lucky to be able to deploy 70 aircraft at any one time...)

Our plan then, is to retire our 36 strong fleet of F-111's in 2010. The Hornet will then take on the F-111's roles including maritime strike, deep penetration strike and battlefield strike. This is fine and the F/A-18 is capable of conducting these roles. The problem is that the Hornet cannot carry the payload of the F-111, and has less than half the range of the F-111.

In addition our F/A-18A/B Hornets (on strike missions) will in fact only ever be capable of carrying 2 precision guided munitions (of the weapons types currently available) as opposed to the 4 (or more) that the F-111 is capable of carrying. The small diameter bomb will change this, but the F-111 could carry greater numbers again of this weapon.

In order to offset the retirement of the F-111, the Hornet is to be upgraded (new radar, mission computers, helmet mounted sight, electronic warfare self protection suites etc) and fitted with new weapons including AIM-120C-5 AMRAAM and AIM-132 ASRAAM missiles, new satellite guided munitions (as per the Bomb improvement program, either Enhanced Paveway II munitions or JDAM) and new standoff missiles (either JASSM, SLAM-ER or Taurus KEPD-350 standoff missiles). These additional capabilities for the 71 strong Hornet fleet are meant to replace 36 world class strike aircraft that already deploy guided and unguided bombs and standoff missiles (AGM-84 Harpoon and AGM-142 Popeye)...

The basic maths simply don't add up. The Hornet will not be able to carry any more munitions than it can now, the type of munitions is irrelevant, and it will not be able to replace the capability it currently possesses.

As to our tanker fleet. The contracts have just been signed (January 2005) to acquire 5 new A330 air to air refuellers for the RAAF, for delivery from 2008. Leasing does not apply to them. (Probably due to similar problems that Britain is facing with such a deal).

Carlo KOPP's biggest problem is that he is an Academic with a vested (Academical) interest in the F-111. If this aircraft were retired, half his life's work would become immediately irrelevant...

 

[adsH]

Carlo KOPP's biggest problem is that he is an Academic with a vested (Academical) interest in the F-111. If this aircraft were retired, half his life's work would become immediately irrelevant...

I wouldn't of put it any-other way Aussie, He Want's the Gov to Spend the leasing Budget on R&D, I must say i agree with him :lol . i would rather see that Massive Lease Sum be spent on R&D. this would only help the Australian R&D industry. this research would in the future Help. I'm sure the research conducted would be easily transferred to other Programs. Stress testing and Hull fatigue repair methods developed for the F-111 have been employed for other AC too.

 

[Capt. Picard]

A few points.

1/Pure load carrying ability is not necessarily as relevent as it once was. If the taget can be destroyed with 1 or 2 smaller, accurate munitions then who needs to dumps tons of bombs on a target.

2/I really hope they don't get the F/A-18E...really only because it seems rather slow and not much of a match for the latest russian fighters.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Mr Picard, load carrying ability is probably more relevant than it ever was. Have a brief look at the major air campaigns over the last 15 years. What characteristic would you say particularly stands out? The ability to destroy targets on the ground or in the air?

Add to this the current paradigm of time sensitive targeting: ie attempting to attack highly mobile ground forces who give you minutes at best to take your shot. Unfortunately in this situation you can't sortie an aircraft from an airfield to undertake the task. The target will be gone before you get your aircraft gets anywhere near it. This is why the USA couldn't stop the Scuds in Western Iraq in the first Gulf war. If you are loitering over a battlefield for an extended period you're going to want more than 1 or 2 guided munitions or else you will have wasted your time. Your aircraft could have been more profitably employed elsewhere.

What air forces in combat tend to do now (if they are sufficiently capable) is to loiter aircraft over the battlefield waiting for the opportunity for targets to reveal themselves. Unfortunately to make it capable and worthwhile employing an aircraft over the battlefield, it needs one major thing: persistence.

The best way to get this is to use a large fighter/strike aircraft (examples: F-15, F/A-18E/F, SU-30, Tornado or F-111). These aircraft possess inherent endurance and payload capabilities necessary for this type of warfare. Aircraft such as F-18A/B/C/D, F-16, MiG29 and the Mirage series do not.

I never mentioned anything about unguided or "dumb" munitions. I was talking purely about guided munitions, . Aircraft such as F-18, F-16 Mirage series etc can normally only carry 2, 2000lbs class weapons, unless the range they plan to carry such weapons is extremely short. Other aircraft (F-111, Tornado, F-15E etc) can carry 4 or more such weapons, to a lot further range...

In addition to which I purposely didn't mention the small diameter bomb as it isn't even in USAF inventory yet, let alone the RAAF. It isn't even on the drawing board yet for the RAAF, which is only looking at acquiring JDAM (or equivalent) from 2008 onwards, 10 years+ since IT was deployed operationally by the USAF!!! The RAAF's precarious funding situation means that it can't acquire such a weapon until the Government specifically pays for it, despite this weapon costing a fraction of the RAAF's current inventory of LGB's...

As to the F/A-18E, you said, "2/I really hope they don't get the F/A-18E...really only because it seems rather slow and not much of a match for the latest russian fighters."

As opposed to our current F/A-18A/B's I suppose? The F/A-18E/F is demonstrably superior in almost every area of the A/B/C/D series of fighters (including "speed", due to it's more powerful GE F404 engines) yet you seem not to have a problem with them?

I'll tell you what. I'd back an AESA (APG-79) equipped F/A-18E against an Su-30 in air to air any day of the week, given everything else being more or less equal. Outright top speed is not really all that important these days in my view, as opposed to load carrying ability.

Cheers.

 

[SABRE]

AD why do u need some thing that can take on Su-30??? Ur not planning on invading Russia or India are u?
Only country that seem to have problems with Australia is Indonesia & they too go for American ACs like F-16s.

 

[pasukangeraktjepat]

AD why do u need some thing that can take on Su-30??? Ur not planning on invading Russia or India are u?
Only country that seem to have problems with Australia is Indonesia & they too go for American ACs like F-16s.

With the condition in Indonesia border with Malaysia, the Parliament maybe will agree the budget for a complete squadron of Su-27 SK and Su-30 MK.This time complete with the armament

 

[Aussie Digger]

Sabre, The Indonesian Government has plans to acquire up to 48 SU-27/30 aircraft and has already purchased a training fleet of 4. Malaysia has already ordered 18 SU-30MKM aircraft. Australia requires an aircraft that provides a sufficient level of capability to ensure we can "over-match" any possible regional adversary. There are significant doubts that even upgraded F/A-18A/B's (and JSF's) can achieve this...

 

[pasukangeraktjepat]

There are significant doubts that even upgraded F/A-18A/B's (and JSF's) can achieve this...

Don't JSF has stealth ability? I think before Indonesia acquired more sophisticated radar to deploy in Papua,our airforce must take care abt the threat.Btw,in latest news i saw, the 48 Sukhois is a project for a next 5 years

 

[Aussie Digger]

Yes JSF will have a stealth capability, however there are significant questions emerging now over the level of Stealth capability that will be provided to non-US users of this aircraft, there are also large question marks over the basic performance of the aircraftm in terms of range, speed, maneuverability. On top of this the cost is dramatically escalating.

If (and probably when) it continues to rise, it won't be long before it's no longer cost effective, the greatest lure to the Politicians who decided to pick this aircraft (as opposed to the airmen who will actually have to operate it and put their lives on the line!!!)

 

[highsea]

... On top of this the cost is dramatically escalating.

Well, AD, if the price goes high enough, you guys can just get some Raptors instead!

 

[Aussie Digger]

Well, AD, if the price goes high enough, you guys can just get some Raptors instead!

That'd be nice... Though the Politicians have invested heavily in the JSF for whatever reason and they'll suffer politically if forced to back away from the JSF due to unreasonable cost increases.

Ironically this would probably be a good thing for the RAAF. An interim fighter would be required and the F-22 which would be very mature (ie: all the bugs ironed out) and well into the production run, thus minimising costs...