RAAF Stopgap air plan is 'dumb'

[Pursuit Curve]

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.

Hey Aussie Digger, just thought I would show you that we here in Canada are in the same boat.

"The CF-18s are being modernized to ensure they remain combat ready and interoperable with coalition forces until at least 2015. Among the planned upgrades are improved communication and navigation systems, structural modifications and the ability to carry advanced medium range air-to-air missiles and full complement of GPS-guided air-to-ground weapon systems."

It seems that the pruchasers of the Hornet really wished and hoped that the airframe would keep on going and going, just like the Energizer Bunny from the TV ads.

Really don't know what I am trying to say here, it is just that maybe Canada and Australia should get together and get a wholesale discount on future combat aircraft!

 

[Aussie Digger]

Hey Aussie Digger, just thought I would show you that we here in Canada are in the same boat.

"The CF-18s are being modernized to ensure they remain combat ready and interoperable with coalition forces until at least 2015. Among the planned upgrades are improved communication and navigation systems, structural modifications and the ability to carry advanced medium range air-to-air missiles and full complement of GPS-guided air-to-ground weapon systems."

It seems that the pruchasers of the Hornet really wished and hoped that the airframe would keep on going and going, just like the Energizer Bunny from the TV ads.

Really don't know what I am trying to say here, it is just that maybe Canada and Australia should get together and get a wholesale discount on future combat aircraft!

I agree, Canada and Australia will continue to operate roughly similar Air forces ( and roughly similar levels of capability) into the future. The F/A-18 upgrade programs of both Countries are basically identical, and the weapons fits (with the short range air to air missile being the main exception) are also identical (Australia announced it's JDAM acquisition only a couple of days ago).

Question: "Is the F-18 or even a JSF any more likely to succeed in similar circumstances?"

Who knows? The RAAF certainly thinks they will and they have ALL the available data. Not the "open source" material that KOPP relies on.

I have stated my opnion on KOPP ad naseum. The biggest problem I have with him, is that he is considered (by some) an "expert", when he has never spent one single day as a member of a military force.

He doesn't have any REAL experience with an Air force. He doesn't need to provide, equip and support an air force. He bases his theories on possible force structures that "may" exist one day. In almost EVERY article, he talks up potential "regional capabilities" as opposed to our REAL capabilities. He completely disregards the fact that if Australia were attacked by some as yet non-existant superpower, that we WOULD be supported directly by the US, along with other countries.

The problem with additional F-111 upgrades in my opinion, is it will take away money from other worthy projects. The F-111 (despite it's outstanding capabilities) is not irreplaceable, as Kopp would have us believe. Other platforms are capable of conducting the role it was previously used in. The USAF, for instance has done just fine without it AND seems happy with to use it's F-15E's in the role that it once used F-111's.

While the F-15E "might" be slightly inferior as a bomb truck (it is only slightly inferior in tonnage and range. It's ability to penetrate hostile air space, un-accompanied is arguably far superior compared to F-111's), it is massively superior to any F-111 variant in A2A missions and this provides greater utility from a single platform.

I too have severe reservations about a JSF only force structure for the RAAF and have discussed these concerns at length. One thing that does interest me though, is that Kopp and his engineering Croney (your mate, GF) went to great lengths to explain their belief's about the relative abilities and shortcomings of the JSF, F-18's and F-111's to a Senate enquiry a couple of years back.

The RAAF shot these comments down, to the Senates satisfaction (though obviously not Kopp's) every single time...

 

[Pursuit Curve]

The F15 is as good a bomb truck as the F111 because if needed, it can fulfill the Air superiority mission and also parts are still available as well as the advances in radar and weapon stations available.

 

[Pursuit Curve]

I agree, Canada and Australia will continue to operate roughly similar Air forces ( and roughly similar levels of capability) into the future. The F/A-18 upgrade programs of both Countries are basically identical, and the weapons fits (with the short range air to air missile being the main exception) are also identical (Australia announced it's JDAM acquisition only a couple of days ago).

Question: "Is the F-18 or even a JSF any more likely to succeed in similar circumstances?"

Who knows? The RAAF certainly thinks they will and they have ALL the available data. Not the "open source" material that KOPP relies on.

I have stated my opnion on KOPP ad naseum. The biggest problem I have with him, is that he is considered (by some) an "expert", when he has never spent one single day as a member of a military force.

He doesn't have any REAL experience with an Air force. He doesn't need to provide, equip and support an air force. He bases his theories on possible force structures that "may" exist one day. In almost EVERY article, he talks up potential "regional capabilities" as opposed to our REAL capabilities. He completely disregards the fact that if Australia were attacked by some as yet non-existant superpower, that we WOULD be supported directly by the US, along with other countries.

The problem with additional F-111 upgrades in my opinion, is it will take away money from other worthy projects. The F-111 (despite it's outstanding capabilities) is not irreplaceable, as Kopp would have us believe. Other platforms are capable of conducting the role it was previously used in. The USAF, for instance has done just fine without it AND seems happy with to use it's F-15E's in the role that it once used F-111's.

While the F-15E "might" be slightly inferior as a bomb truck (it is only slightly inferior in tonnage and range. It's ability to penetrate hostile air space, un-accompanied is arguably far superior compared to F-111's), it is massively superior to any F-111 variant in A2A missions and this provides greater utility from a single platform.

I too have severe reservations about a JSF only force structure for the RAAF and have discussed these concerns at length. One thing that does interest me though, is that Kopp and his engineering Croney (your mate, GF) went to great lengths to explain their belief's about the relative abilities and shortcomings of the JSF, F-18's and F-111's to a Senate enquiry a couple of years back.

The RAAF shot these comments down, to the Senates satisfaction (though obviously not Kopp's) every single time...

Here here Aussie Digger, I support your view point regards the F111. As a civillian my knowledge of the internal workings of the Military way of making decisions is negliglible to say the least, but I have always had a keen ineterst in Aircraft.

My take on keeping the F111 force vialble has one over riding point, keep it viable only as a mud mover and harpoon platform. other than that it should be replaced ASAP, as I doubt its future ability to be able to successfully penetrate modern air defenses un escorted ( Also depending on the opposition of course)

The F15E vs F111 debate is as far as I am concerned a non starter, the F15E, as you have pointed out and I agree with, is a multi purpose system that can self escort and penetrate air defenses as well as a swing role fighter or as a Air Defense Fighter too. its ability to carry toonage, in my opinion, as much or more than the F111 is an active debate, but no one can presume to keep patching up aging aircraft such as the F111 and hope to retain a viable force.


The one plane fits all scenario ( F35) is a dangerous road to go down, in Canada we did have a healthy mix of airframes and types before the CF18 came along, and frankly I am a fan of specialised aircraft for specialised roles, ground attackers are ground attackers, and fighter types are fighter types.

The F35 I believe was never intended to be a jack of all trades, it is designed to operate with the F22 and later versions of the F18(E, F), and if that presumption is true then Australia as well as Canada better choose wisely a mixed bag of fixed wing aircraft to do the tactical air job.

 

[rossfrb_1]

Here here Aussie Digger, I support your view point regards the F111. As a civillian my knowledge of the internal workings of the Military way of making decisions is negliglible to say the least, but I have always had a keen ineterst in Aircraft.

My take on keeping the F111 force vialble has one over riding point, keep it viable only as a mud mover and harpoon platform. other than that it should be replaced ASAP, as I doubt its future ability to be able to successfully penetrate modern air defenses un escorted ( Also depending on the opposition of course)

The F15E vs F111 debate is as far as I am concerned a non starter, the F15E, as you have pointed out and I agree with, is a multi purpose system that can self escort and penetrate air defenses as well as a swing role fighter or as a Air Defense Fighter too. its ability to carry toonage, in my opinion, as much or more than the F111 is an active debate, but no one can presume to keep patching up aging aircraft such as the F111 and hope to retain a viable force.
snip

The thing is, the RAAF already have the F-111 and all its supporting infrastructure. They don't have F-15s. That defence $ are in such short supply, it seems a shame to suddenly ditch an airframe that still has some legs left in it. I believe that the F-111 airframe is viably patchable. That's what spares are for - otherwise you'd have to get rid of a whole aircraft anytime any one part needed replacing. The airframe integrity of the F-111 as far as I can tell is not really an issue - the RAAF has already spent the $ addressing those issues.
Regards the F-111 survivability - back at Red flag 2002 - the F-111 performed admirably. Better than any other aircraft (F-15 included) in some respects. http://www.defence.gov.au/news/raafnews/editions/4418/topstories/story01.htm
also
http://www.f-111.net/images/redflag2002.htm
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"RED-HOT Air Force F-111 crews have returned from Exercise Red Flag with a perfect record. The F-111 ground and aircrews from No. 82 Wing at RAAF Base Amberley achieved a flawless sortie rate during Red Flag, planning and flying 118 out of 118 missions in the month-long exercise conducted at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada. The Australians were the only crews to boast a 100 per cent sortie success rate at the end of the exercise. In addition, there were no losses caused by SAMs - an extraordinary feat in such a complex exercise."

No one is suggesting that the F-111 be turned into a fighter. But an A2A capability would be useful, both for self defense and also against patrol/surveillance/tanker type aircraft.

cheers
rb
[/FONT]

 

[pepsi]

Not sure if this is the best thread for it, but its quite relevant

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17724213-421,00.html

Just a news report so don't expect much info

I'm increasingly paranoid about this entire situation, i'm sure the F-35 will be a good plane, but i just think it might have been a rushed decision..

A rushed decision wouldn't be SO bad if it wasn't for the fact that this plane is to replace our entire air combat capability, i wonder if the pressure increases on the government and it becomes likely that the project may cost more or be late or both, will they simply slash the number of jets, or something less ridiculous, like look to other companies or something

 

[rossfrb_1]

Not sure if this is the best thread for it, but its quite relevant

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17724213-421,00.html

Just a news report so don't expect much info

I'm increasingly paranoid about this entire situation, i'm sure the F-35 will be a good plane, but i just think it might have been a rushed decision..

A rushed decision wouldn't be SO bad if it wasn't for the fact that this plane is to replace our entire air combat capability, i wonder if the pressure increases on the government and it becomes likely that the project may cost more or be late or both, will they simply slash the number of jets, or something less ridiculous, like look to other companies or something

Yes, I too have been wary of the 'all eggs in one basket' scenario that the current government have put the RAAF in.
Lockheed Martin must be laughing all the way to the bank. Once they became prime contractor, they were effectively a monopoly. Is there any incentive for them to behave in a fashion other than what they are doing now? They have had shitloads of money thrown at them, much more than if they'd been lean and efficient. The US were never going to buy offshore, so that's the main market sown up. Howard has made sure that the RAAF has no options.
So.... with a buy of only 50 JSFs a possibility, is it still a good idea to junk the F-111s so quickly?
cheers
rb

 

[Aussie Digger]

Is the F-18 or even a JSF any more likely to succeed in similar circumstances?

The F/A-18 has demonstrated it's performance as one of the best air to air and air to ground fighters in the world over the last 15 odd years in a wide variety of operational environments. The JSF is designed to be better. What do you reckon?

 

[gf0012-aust]

I've got little problem with the platform.

My major concerns have always been:

• abandonment of the proper assessment process - thus effectively becoming hostage to whatever price LockMart imposes
• failure to risk mitigate on platform transfer
• failure to overlap capability until we have platform and systems overmatch.

 

[rossfrb_1]

The F/A-18 has demonstrated it's performance as one of the best air to air and air to ground fighters in the world over the last 15 odd years in a wide variety of operational environments. The JSF is designed to be better. What do you reckon?

That may be the case with the the US use of F-18s - that's because they've got all the utility assets (EA/EW etc) that complement the F-18. RAAF F-18s haven't (unless working with the US). A2A wise, up until recently, RAAF F-18s have struggled against regional competitors (MIG 29/Archer). I don't know how much APG-73 and AMRAAM have levelled the field in that regard.
For the US, the JSF will probably be an excellent replacement for what they want them for. They will also be well supported by F-22s, AWACS, AAR etc.
But the RAAF will have limited support assets to complement their JSFs.
Any such assets (Wedgetail, AAR) would also be available for F-111s.
The F-111 has range on its side versus the front on stealth of a JSF. In some cases one will be more valuable than the other.
cheers
rb

 

[rossfrb_1]

I've got little problem with the platform.

My major concerns have always been:

• abandonment of the proper assessment process - thus effectively becoming hostage to whatever price LockMart imposes
• failure to risk mitigate on platform transfer
• failure to overlap capability until we have platform and systems overmatch.

Amen!

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17732961%255E31477,00.html
" AUSTRALIA is facing a further cost blowout on its purchase of next-generation fighters, with Britain threatening to pull out of the US-led joint strike fighter project..."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17725359%255E31477,00.html
" AUSTRALIA may halve its order for US F-35 joint strike fighter jets to 50 planes because of continuing cost blowouts..."

rb

 

[gf0012-aust]

RAAF F-18s have struggled against regional competitors (MIG 29/Archer). I don't know how much APG-73 and AMRAAM have levelled the field in that regard.

the reason for the HUG upgrades was from lessons learned from the RMAF/RAAF DACT exercises. I'd now be putting my money on a HUG-Bug over an Su-27 or Su-30 - and certainly over a Mig-29 OPFOR

 

[Aussie Digger]

That may be the case with the the US use of F-18s - that's because they've got all the utility assets (EA/EW etc) that complement the F-18. RAAF F-18s haven't (unless working with the US). A2A wise, up until recently, RAAF F-18s have struggled against regional competitors (MIG 29/Archer). I don't know how much APG-73 and AMRAAM have levelled the field in that regard.
For the US, the JSF will probably be an excellent replacement for what they want them for. They will also be well supported by F-22s, AWACS, AAR etc.
But the RAAF will have limited support assets to complement their JSFs.
Any such assets (Wedgetail, AAR) would also be available for F-111s.
The F-111 has range on its side versus the front on stealth of a JSF. In some cases one will be more valuable than the other.
cheers
rb

The F-111 is also a maintenance Hog, I know people quote it's performances at Red Flag etc, but that is a special effort for a short duration. Normal availability rates for the F-111 are VFO and it's becoming harder to achieve them. Out of our 35 strong fleet, about 6 are actually available at present.

I bet that'll strike fear into the heart of any potential enemy...

As per Gf's comments, RAAF F/A-18's were tested against Malaysian MiG-29's in A2A combat exercises in the mid to late 90's, with the RAAF stating it was "surprised" by the miG's performance. Nowhere (AFAIK) was it stated that the MiG was superior, only that it performed very well against the Hornet.

Since the HUG program they are an entirely different kettle of fish. At the time of the Malaysian exercises they were still operating 80's standard EW software as one example of the capability improvements...

With the APG-73 radar, ASMRAAM, AIM-120C5 AMRAAM, JHMCS, the Litening AT pod, new EW kit (including a new internal jammer, RWR, BOL chaff/flare dispensers due to come on line soon, etc) and new flight control software, the "HUG BUG's" have moved into an entirely different league as an A2A combat aircraft.

Boeing have publicly described the RAAF's Hornets as the best "classic" Hornet in the world. I don't think we need to worry about their capability for a few years yet...

 

[cherry]

Would it be a viable concept to replace the F-111 long range strike ability with TacTom missiles based on the new AWD and Collins Class subs? If you had 32-40 TacToms per AWD and around a dozen missiles per sub this would bring an amazing long range strike capability with a relatively low cost. The cost per TacTom missile is only around $1.6m (AUD). We are likely to purchase the JASSM which is just over $1.2m (AUD) which is apparenlty affordable, so I don't see any reason why a purchase of around 300-400 TacTom missiles with the associated equipment, training etc couldn't be achieved. $2B might achieve this, and this money could be taken from the AIR6000 budget, approx. 10 x JSF worth. Thoughts?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Would it be a viable concept to replace the F-111 long range strike ability with TacTom missiles based on the new AWD and Collins Class subs? If you had 32-40 TacToms per AWD and around a dozen missiles per sub this would bring an amazing long range strike capability with a relatively low cost. The cost per TacTom missile is only around $1.6m (AUD). We are likely to purchase the JASSM which is just over $1.2m (AUD) which is apparenlty affordable, so I don't see any reason why a purchase of around 300-400 TacTom missiles with the associated equipment, training etc couldn't be achieved. $2B might achieve this, and this money could be taken from the AIR6000 budget, approx. 10 x JSF worth. Thoughts?

I reckon it's a good idea. DFAT might have some problems with it though. Our neighbours bleated when we announced the FoSoW project to acquire SLAM-ER or JASSM (still hasn't been decided) and it is only relatively short ranged. Tomahawk would have them screaming the roof down.

If we purchased it we might be able to carry out those "pre-emptive" strikes our illustrious leader mentioned several years ago...

 

[knightrider4]

I reckon Tac Tom is a great idea although I wouldn,t be putting them on our subs they are far to valuable an asset and lack the ability to leave the launch area at speed and twelve hardly makes it worthwile. However the AWD's are a different story. AD any idea when the decision on the FOSOW will be made and which product looks likely to be chosen in your view?

 

[cherry]

Is there any room on the ANZAC frigates for TacTom? I am guessing there probably isn't but I feel that only 3 AWD armed with TacTom wouldn't be quite enough to fill the gap left by the retirement of the F-111. I guess the other option would be to purchase a mix of F-35 and another platform that can deliver TacTom.

 

[pepsi]

I could be wrong, but aren't the new 'JASSM' missiles supposed to slightly fill the gap left by the departure of the F-111?

 

[rossfrb_1]

The F-111 is also a maintenance Hog, I know people quote it's performances at Red Flag etc, but that is a special effort for a short duration. Normal availability rates for the F-111 are VFO and it's becoming harder to achieve them. Out of our 35 strong fleet, about 6 are actually available at present.

I bet that'll strike fear into the heart of any potential enemy...

{snip}
...

If that's the case, then I'd have a sneaking suspicion that that is because that is what the current federal government wants it to be. Harder to kill off something that is performing an absolutely sterling job.
Sometime around the late 90s I think it was, the F-111s suffered from lots of problems, leading to low availability. Money was thrown at the problem and availability rates perked up markedly. If the situation has changed, then it must be because that is what it is supposed to be.

cheers
rb

 

[gf0012-aust]

If that's the case, then I'd have a sneaking suspicion that that is because that is what the current federal government wants it to be. Harder to kill off something that is performing an absolutely sterling job.
Sometime around the late 90s I think it was, the F-111s suffered from lots of problems, leading to low availability. Money was thrown at the problem and availability rates perked up markedly. If the situation has changed, then it must be because that is what it is supposed to be.

cheers
rb

actually they're on average at between 87% and 93% availability. which wrt their age is very good. Red Flag was 100% availability, but that was a 6 section flight.