Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates

[Tasman]

I can't see any major defence purchases being announced before the election. Although the election date has not yet been set the 'phoney campaign' has already begun, so the government is effectively in caretaker mode and convention will prevent costly new commitments being made in any area accept in an emergency and even then it would need clear bipartisan support. Any decision on further purchases will have to wait until the next government is determined. If the government changes the F-35 program will be reviewed but I expect that advice from Defence will ensure that Australia will remain in the program. As I said before I would only expect additional SH orders if the F-35 program runs into serious trouble. Another scenario that could lead to consideration of additional Super Hornets would be a problem with the CBR program but I haven't heard any suggestions that there is a problem there. Magoo would be in a better position to comment on this.

I would like to see the ADF media unit respond to the allegation in the Age article that the RAAF had advised that the SH was "outclassed by Russian planes being purchased by Asian air forces" as this was clearly not the case.

Tas

 

[barra]

Australia's existing order was made despite RAAF advice that the Super Hornet was not needed and was outclassed by Russian planes being bought by Asian air forces.

This quote was the one that immediately caught my eye. I strongly doubt that anyone in the RAAF would make such a statement. The journo has possibly got them mixed up with classic hornets.
The RAAF set up a team to study future options when it was clear that JSF was sliding to the right. The selection of the Super Hornet was the result of this appraisal.
If there has been interest shown in Growlers, and it could just be Boeing PR trying to drum up business, it would be good for the RAAF's combat capability to purchase some. I can't see 24 extra being ordered though.
As far as CBR goes, I understand it involves the replacement of roughly 25,000 parts in the core section of the aircraft. So it is a substantial modification with plenty of scope for time delays.

On annother note do you think the F111 guys from No 1 & 6 spdn will have a hard time converting into fighter pilots??? New tactics, new platforms, new way of thinking??? The F18F is an F111 replacement but it will be our primary (most capable) air superiority platform untill the F35 arrives, so you would have to assumbe it will fill that role in ernest.

They are a multi-role aircraft and I am sure the current -111 crews and classic Hornet jocks are lining up to fly them. It is interesting that we ordered all -F models with a ACO in the rear, to me this indicates they will be optimised for the strike role. Also the fact that they will be operated by 82WG whose traditional role has been strike points to a predominately strike mission.

Hooroo

 

[Aussie Digger]

This quote was the one that immediately caught my eye. I strongly doubt that anyone in the RAAF would make such a statement. The journo has possibly got them mixed up with classic hornets.
The RAAF set up a team to study future options when it was clear that JSF was sliding to the right. The selection of the Super Hornet was the result of this appraisal.
If there has been interest shown in Growlers, and it could just be Boeing PR trying to drum up business, it would be good for the RAAF's combat capability to purchase some. I can't see 24 extra being ordered though.
As far as CBR goes, I understand it involves the replacement of roughly 25,000 parts in the core section of the aircraft. So it is a substantial modification with plenty of scope for time delays.



They are a multi-role aircraft and I am sure the current -111 crews and classic Hornet jocks are lining up to fly them. It is interesting that we ordered all -F models with a ACO in the rear, to me this indicates they will be optimised for the strike role. Also the fact that they will be operated by 82WG whose traditional role has been strike points to a predominately strike mission.

Hooroo

But the HUG program is due to be completed by 2014. If another 24 or 30 SH's are ordered, can they be delivered by this date?

Unlikely...

I would suggest this might be a backup plan should the HUG run into unforseen problems...

 

[barra]

But the HUG program is due to be completed by 2014. If another 24 or 30 SH's are ordered, can they be delivered by this date?

In one word, yes. The USN is giving up its production slots to the RAAF so we can get them when we want them. I am sure the same arrangement could be worked again. Could be a different story for Growlers though.
I reckon this suggestion of extra SH's is just Boeing trying to drum up business still.

Hooroo

 

[Magoo]

But the HUG program is due to be completed by 2014. If another 24 or 30 SH's are ordered, can they be delivered by this date?

Unlikely...

I would suggest this might be a backup plan should the HUG run into unforseen problems...

Unfortunately, HUG 3.2B/C has run into some problems.

The first aircraft (3.2A) has now returned from Mirabel in Canada and is due to return to the air in October sometime. However, it was found that the number of parts required to perform the CBR was far more than originally thought, and the tooling and spares kits acquired for the work to be done locally have been found to be inadequate. Consequently, a further nine RAAF CBRs will be done at Mirabel before work is supposedly switched to Williamtown.

Trouble is, one of the three main partners in the Hornet Industry Coalition (HIC) has no interest in being involved in CBR work, and unless there is a large influx of skilled workers from Canada, the other two have neither the resources nor the expertise to perform the work. It's safe to say Phase 3.2 of HUG is probably at a bit of a crossroads right now, hence the interest in a second batch of Supers and the possibility of a two-tiered force of about 48-each of Supers and F-35s being operated down the track.

The other option with the Classics is to re-certify the 'classics' for 8000-9000 hours each, and continue to perform HUG 3.1 type work on the them until they expire. Canada did 13 CBRs but has stopped work on that project, instead opting to do this instead of CBRs for their fleet.

Cheers

Magoo

 

[Magoo]

Do i detect sarcasim in that remark magoo or should i take said article a bit more seriosly???????

If so i have a few questions. An additional 24 SH's would equipe a single (?) hornet squadron. Weres the requirement? i.e. which squadron would need replacement, i was under the impression all 3 were the same age and same capablity post HUG. Or would this be an additional squadron to be formed?????

Also what about the growler kits???

i understand if you cant discuss it.

No, no sarcasm. I've heard about interest in additional Supers from a couple of sources.

If an additional batch of 24 were to be ordered, it's likely the 48 or so aircraft would be spread 16-each between three squadrons, although they're probably along way from this level of detail yet. Barra may be able to qualify this...

Purely speculative here, but I'd imagine if this happened, the oldest 24 or 32 or so Classics may then be retired (from 2012) rather than do CBRs, and the remainder of the fleet re-distributed amongst one or two active squadrons and one training unit. The Classics were delivered between 1984 and 1990, and although the fleet has been well-managed (in recent years at least) there are some high-time jets around.

My understanding is there have been no formal questions asked about Growlers, however the RAAF has been well briefed on the G's capabilities and how it would fit into the future networked environment, so I'm sure there's at least a low level of interest there.

However, some things to consider before spending US$150m+ each on a few Growlers: If we were to be involved in a high-intensity conflict that would require the capability offered by the G, then that would likely be as part of a coalition with the US anyway. Any lower level conflicts such as those currently being fought in Afghanistan, Iraq etc can quite happily be handled by the 'standard' EW kits carried by the Supers and currently being put on to the Classics. Also, G models would likely be operated as a niche capability more or less separate to the 'standard' Super fleet, a luxury which the RAAF may find difficult to resource and justify.

Again, Barra may be able to clarify...

Cheers

Magoo

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Re more SH's:

If a second batch were ordered it would be a huge investment that would be wasted by replacing all of them in the next 10 years. It would then indicate that we would probably not replace them with F35's. That i'm not happy about. if however it does not effect the JSF buy, or possibly allows us to purchase later Blocks at a lower price then i'm all for it.

So if a further squadron is purchased would the idea of an RAAF orbat consisting of 100 F35A's evaporate?????

RE growler kits:

I was under the impression they were easilly removable, something like 3 days IIRC??? So in that case wouldnt it be prudent to buy a few kits, say 4 or 5, to be used if needed. I agree in a large scale, high threat war vs PROC or the like we would be in a coalition with the USN envolved so EW would not be needed, and the taliban arnt sophistocated to require the G's capabilities. However in the event of a regional conflict with one of our neighbors, without US envolvement, the EW cabailities of a few G's would be invaluable. Still $800m-$1b for this capability may be a bit steep.

 

[barra]

I was aware of the problems with CBR, among other things, but as nothing had been said publicly I was reluctant to say anything. Like you Magoo, I can see the early build A/C and those with fatigue problems being retired early if CBR turns out not to be viable. Most of these may be the duals that 2OCU operates, as the training unit they fly more hours then the Sqn's and boggy pilots are less forgiving on the airframes. Hopefully we won't get to the stage the Macchis were at with wings folding up in flight. Could make for some interesting times for the residents of Port Stephens.
I am hoping that an extra SH order does not mean less F-35's down the track, I like the 100 F-35's model. As for Growlers I don't think it is as simple as a kit addition and in three days your -F has been converted to a -G. Although they would be nice to have, a dedicated EW Squadron may be just a little to rich for the ADF. Certainly the money would be better spent on extra KC-30s, C-17s, HARM capability for our current fighters and more choppers for Army. You could probably name a dozen projects were the money could be better spent on extra capability.
I am certainly not privvy to any inside information regarding future capabilities and projects, outside of my current duties anyway. Even if I was I wouldn't post such details. I can only speculate along with the rest of you.

Hooroo

 

[Magoo]

If a second batch were ordered it would be a huge investment that would be wasted by replacing all of them in the next 10 years. It would then indicate that we would probably not replace them with F35's. That i'm not happy about. if however it does not effect the JSF buy, or possibly allows us to purchase later Blocks at a lower price then i'm all for it.

So if a further squadron is purchased would the idea of an RAAF orbat consisting of 100 F35A's evaporate?????

I think the idea is to operate roughly 48 of each, then retire the Supers in the late 2020s in favour of whatever the next gen aircraft is, but again, that's only speculation on my part.

RE growler kits:

I was under the impression they were easilly removable, something like 3 days IIRC??? So in that case wouldnt it be prudent to buy a few kits, say 4 or 5, to be used if needed. I agree in a large scale, high threat war vs PROC or the like we would be in a coalition with the USN envolved so EW would not be needed, and the taliban arnt sophistocated to require the G's capabilities. However in the event of a regional conflict with one of our neighbors, without US envolvement, the EW cabailities of a few G's would be invaluable. Still $800m-$1b for this capability may be a bit steep.

All Fs are plumbed for but not with the G kit, and although I think three days may have been a goal at some stage, I'm not sure how practical this is in reality. I understand the rear cockpit of the G is quite a bit different to that of the F, even in Block II form.

Re the CBRs, it's my understanding that, if they go ahead with the project in its full form (i.e. 42-49 upgrades), many of the jets to be CBR'd will be Tubs, while some of the later build singles A21-40ish onwards will be able to go right through to life of type without a CBR. I think it's the early single seaters that may go first.

Magoo

 

[Tasman]

I am hoping that an extra SH order does not mean less F-35's down the track, I like the 100 F-35's model.

Unless there is a major change in Australia's strategic outlook I think it is unlikely that the government (whichever one it is) will authorise more than approx 100 frontline air combat aircraft. The RAAF is one of the few Western airforces that is replacing its present generation of combat aircraft on a one for one basis so I would expect that a second Super Hornet order would mean that the initial F-35 order would be limited to approx 50 and that a follow on order would only occur as a replacement for the Supers. Of course there may be other contenders available by that time if we are talking late 2020's as Magoo has suggested. I also like the 100 F-35 model but not at the expense of a capability gap developing in the meantime if it proves impossible to keep enough classic Hornets on line until the F-35 is available.

Thanks Barra and Magoo for your input - it is greatly appreciated.

Tas

 

[rjmaz1]

It seems Australia got itself into a bit of a pickle.

I'd say the problem began in 1998 when Australia began the HUG program. Instead of upgrading the classic hornets, they should have bought two squadrons of Super Hornets. If the classic hornets were not upgraded then there would have been little reason to start the CBR program. By upgrading the classic hornets its forced us to rebarrel the aircraft as they are now quite modern in terms of their avionics.

A good way to put it would be placing a brand new 2005 model engine into an old 1984 car. If the car then developped rust you'd be forced to repair it due to the value and performance of the engine. Putting the engine into the 1984 model car may have seemed good value at the time. However once taking into account the cost of the rust repairs it would have been better to just buy a 2005 model car that came with the engine you wanted.

If the CBR, APG-73 radar and system upgrades cost for example 5 billion for 50 clasic hornets, and that 50 brand new superhornets cost 10 billion for 50 aircraft, then to see which one is better is fairly simple. If the classic hornets had 50% of their life left while the superhornets would have 100% of their life left then you are getting twice as many flight hours for twice the money by going with the Super Hornets. You'd get better performance too so the Super Hornet would be the better option. However if the HUG's cost less than half or had less than 50% of their life left then the Classic hornets being upgraded would have been a decent option. As this wasn't the case the HUG program was a bad choice and in hind sight we should have purchased Super Hornets.

Ordering the super hornets in 1998 would have allowed the Classic hornets to be shared amongst a fewer squadrons. Resulting in them never having to be rebarrelled. They would have retained the APG-65 and could have performed the low end missions. Australia would then have recieved the APG-73 which they wanted but instead they would be in a new super hornet airframe.

Its not too late to avoid the centre barrel replacement program completely. If a third squadron of Super Hornets were purchased to be used by one of the classic hornet squadrons, then the Classic hornets could be shared and they would then last until the F-35 arrives.

I also dont see why purchasing a third squadron of Superhornets would affect the F-35 purchase. The money to purchase a new aircraft does not come from a singler years budget. It is included in many budgets across the years. By purchasing a third squadron of Super Hornets it would indeed use up some of the money budgeted towards the F-35. However you must remember that we would be able to delay our purchase of F-35's by as much as 5 years. The money saved in that extra 5 years would be more than enough to allow us to still pay for the original total of 100 F-35 aircraft.

If i was in charge right now. I'd cancel the CBR program, order an extra squadron (24) superhornets and allow the classic hornets to be flown less and last until the F-35 arrived without the CBR program.

It may be too late.. which is good because i'd be out of a job

 

[Navor86]

As The article staes an evtl. SH purchase would occur with a budget plus.
And if they reall get add 24 SH that would easily mean 1 SH Growler Sqn+1 SH Sqn+4JSF Sqn witch each 18 Aircraft per Squadron quite a bite

 

[barra]

Two things
1. The APG-65 was replaced because it was compromised by a foreign power.
2. CBR may be cancelled because of the complexity of the task, lack of skilled workers to carry it out and havoc it wreaks on the amount of airframes available for service.

The reason a RAAF Fighter Sqn hasn't been deployed to the "stan yet is possibly due to the brass waiting for HUG to be completed. If aircraft were deployed there would be even less airframes available for training. Patience must be wearing thin.

Hooroo

 

[StingrayOZ]

I think the SH options are looking better all the time rather than a CBR.

I don't think Australia will save any money by buying later blocks of F-35, I think the program has been set up to have more or less fixed price from block 1 to block 3 or something (unconfirmed). They would more likely get a aircraft quicker to bring to operational status and more capable.

However, the government is keen to reduce any gap or drop in capability. Remember the F-18F's are ment to actually replace the F-111 strike capability. Perhaps a combination, some (~16xCBR), SH and a early batch of F-35's will solve the problem.

I like navor suggestion. Australia needs aircraft numbers because look at the area we need to cover and look how involved Australia is in international operations.

F-35 replacing the H and the SH replacing the F-111's (with EW capability). Then tack onto that 18 F-35B's when they are sorted and all other major military spending is complete around 2020. These would help make up some of the lost capability of a all F-35 force, not to mention give Australia more aircraft to share flight hours on, be able to reduce Australia's need for refueling aircraft and long endurance flights. Not to mention increased sortie rates for regional missions (and shorter supply lines). Navy would be keen, Airforce might support it if it got to operate them and after its other aircraft have been delivered, army would have to support such a purchase as well.

 

[Magoo]

I don't think Australia will save any money by buying later blocks of F-35, I think the program has been set up to have more or less fixed price from block 1 to block 3 or something (unconfirmed). They would more likely get a aircraft quicker to bring to operational status and more capable.

Yeah, we will. There's a linear curve in unit cost which is quite steep early in a build program but which flattens out as the program matures.

F-35 replacing the H and the SH replacing the F-111's (with EW capability). Then tack onto that 18 F-35B's when they are sorted and all other major military spending is complete around 2020. These would help make up some of the lost capability of a all F-35 force, not to mention give Australia more aircraft to share flight hours on, be able to reduce Australia's need for refueling aircraft and long endurance flights. Not to mention increased sortie rates for regional missions (and shorter supply lines). Navy would be keen, Airforce might support it if it got to operate them and after its other aircraft have been delivered, army would have to support such a purchase as well.

Oh great, three major types (F-35A, F/A-18A/B, F/A-18F) and five sub-types (F-35B, EA-18G) of fast jets - just what the RAAF needs! Lets keep it simple guys - one or two types with as little cross-over as possible.

Magoo

 

[StingrayOZ]

The EA-18G and the F-35B share a real significant amount with the other jets.

I don't see how you can go through a transisition period with out operating more types of jet unless you decommission all one day and fly the other tomorrow.

Atleast Australia would always be in a better position than it is today at all times. With no drop in capability at any stage.

I thought Australia's purchase was already pretty late in the program. Hence the savings would be marginal.

It might actually save money to jump ahead in the que and buy earlier builds.

 

[Navor86]

F35A and F-18F and G. I just count 3 and iirc F anf G Rhino have 75% in common. There was no reak talk about JSFB for LHD and the Hornets will be phased out

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Yeah, we will. There's a linear curve in unit cost which is quite steep early in a build program but which flattens out as the program matures.

&StingrayOz2

IIRC block 4 was the first fully combat capable block to be produced, with all the A2G & A2A capabilities einstalled. Blocks 1-3 are all development and training blocks i think? hense the fixed cost. Early build block 4's will cost a lot more than later build block 5's or 6's (whatever they are). We are damn early in the cue allready! IWUI that before the rhino buy we were set to buy Block III's when they were still in the development phase, thats how early we are! in general terms the latter in the build the lower te price and the better value for money.

Oh great, three major types (F-35A, F/A-18A/B, F/A-18F) and five sub-types (F-35B, EA-18G) of fast jets - just what the RAAF needs! Lets keep it simple guys - one or two types with as little cross-over as possible.

Magoo

& StingrayOZ

I've got to agree with Magoo on this one, the last thing we need is several types of platforms. Allthough one way or annother the RAAF will be operating F18F, F18HUG & F35 at the same time during the transition. However this would be a bad idea for a long time soloution. The last thing we need is to look like some south american air force (my appolagies) with 5+ individual types of fast jets like some sort of hodge podge orbat. One type with a sub type is the go i'd think, i'm just praying its F35 + F35b rather than F18F + F18G. This SH talk is oninous news IMO, something i'm not at all liking.


If CBR's are unviable whats the timeframe on service life for the older bugs then? Could the oldest bunch last until (god willing) 2013 when we get our first batch of F35's???? What are the options????

The APG-65 was replaced because it was compromised by a foreign power.

Really??? Can you elaborate??? What do you mean by compromised, Elint or espionage???? Either way thats entreging.

 

[Magoo]

The EA-18G and the F-35B share a real significant amount with the other jets.

You'd be surprised. The F-35A & B airframes and avionics may have commonalities, but the propulsion system and the way the jets are operated would be quite different.

I don't see how you can go through a transisition period with out operating more types of jet unless you decommission all one day and fly the other tomorrow.

Atleast Australia would always be in a better position than it is today at all times. With no drop in capability at any stage.

That's why I said...

...with as little cross-over as possible...

I thought Australia's purchase was already pretty late in the program. Hence the savings would be marginal.

It might actually save money to jump ahead in the que and buy earlier builds.

The earlier the aircraft, the more expensive it is due to low rate production (before MSN400-odd) and the need for further Block upgrades. Better to buy late in an already operational configuration and once full rate production has kicked in.

Re the Super Hornet, I'm actually a fan of having a two-tiered combat force, with Supers bringing in some of the 5th gen elements early and taking on the strike side of things, and F-35s being taken a little later and taking the higher ground and deeper penetration strikes. I know some out there will say we would have an aerodyamically inferior orbat at both tiers, but I think from an electronic and avionics point of view, both aircraft will likely be superior to anything in the region in the next two decades.

My fear with putting all our eggs in the F-35 basket is if something goes wrong with that aircraft resulting in a fleet-wide grounding (as has happened with most combat aircraft at some stage in the past few decades). It also gives the benefit of reducing the chance of block obsolescence in the mid 2030s like we are experiencing at present - better to roll the two types over a decade apart.

Magoo

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

All Fs are plumbed for but not with the G kit, and although I think three days may have been a goal at some stage, I'm not sure how practical this is in reality. I understand the rear cockpit of the G is quite a bit different to that of the F, even in Block II form.

Sorry didnt get to this before.

So it is possible to to aquire the kits without the extra airframes to be installed when needed???? Even if it took a week it may not be a bad idea. However you would need the trained personell and therefore leaving the kits in a werehouse somewere may not be a realistic option, unless the RIO's are intended to have on the job training. As far as the rear seat looking different in the G, i would have thought that the major modifications (apart form the external ones) would have been software. Is there extra LCD dispays or contoll pannels???