Just curious. As Wedgetail is $1 billion in the hole with Boeing payback to Wedgetail interested customers. One may hope but that could go the way of many other famous Defence programs that didn't pan out. JASSM is on the stool with a noose around it's neck waiting for a call from the governor to save it. We will see. I don't understand your comments on the SU as I didn't ask.
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
The most recent announcement on the Wedgetail I read was it's being used during a Red Flag Alaska exercise recently. Seems like the problems are being sorted...
As to the SU's. You are one of the critics. Every bit as negative as APA and the rest of the people in that "documentary". I've read your blog, and a more ill-informed read would be hard to find, regrettably...
FutureTank
Banned Member
The advantage of the Sukhois is range. That is why they are based at Hasanuddin, Sulawesi and not with the rest of the fighter fleet on Jawa.
The longest ranged fighter from Jawa is the F-5E/F Tiger II.
If the Chengdu Jiān 10 is purchased, it will provide a combat range of the F-16.
The longest ranged fighter from Jawa is the F-5E/F Tiger II.
If the Chengdu Jiān 10 is purchased, it will provide a combat range of the F-16.
Hi GF.I'm committing the sin of double posting...
Some of the points conveniently missed by Andrew Fowler.
- We need an interim aircraft as well because the centre barrel program has gone a little pear shaped
- the F-111 cannot go into contested airspace under current RAAF doctrine without an escort - as it can't survive. Its a strike platform - not a fighter
- that one of the big issues is that there are no spare parts for the rocket ejection systems. the current stocks decay at 2010-2012. After that if there is a catastrophic event, then there's no guarantee that the pilots can eject
- that their cute 2012 scenario wasn't gamed out with the F-111 where they definitely would not last - even against a short flight of Sooks (and that assumes that the indons have weapons)
- that the only country that is on our immedoate threat matrix is Indonesia - and they don't have the weapons for them, they don't get the requisite hours, and they certainly don't have more modern weapons (if any at the moment)
The CBR going bad wasn't an original reason for procurement of the Super Hornet.
As for the F-111. Sad, yes. It is most likely going to go away unless there is some divine intervention. However the F-111 staying around into the future is part of the Koop/Goon plan. Air 6000 competition being killed off early, we'll never know. But had that plan been selected in an Air 6000 competition, it would need the F-22 to work. The F-22 and F-111 under that plan are linked and not separate. Keeping F-111 around a while longer? Well now with the CBR going bad and using justification after the fact, I would think getting rid of it before JSF shows up might not be such a hot idea. Seems there is a risk of running real low on airframes if JSF drags on. You did state that the threat was minimal for a while. A few SUs can't be everywhere and something that can go 780~790 knots on the deck in egress isn't too terrible.
The infamous wing test. That is a shame that doesn't have much of a leg to stand on to use as ammo to get rid of the F-111. Beryllium scaremongering wasn't too hot either.
The escape capsule rockets. Probably poor form there to bring that up as a reason. Submission No. 29 kind of answers that to the point were it isn't an absolute unworkable problem. Quote:
Page 45, Dr Lough: “There are other aspects in terms of managing it past that in terms of the life of type of replacement parts, and Air Commodore McPhail can give you a list of issues regarding how parts will or will not be replaced or can or cannot be replaced. I can give you one example from my technical expertise. It is the rocket motor for the ejection system. The F-111 does not have an ejection seat. The whole crew module gets ejected and there is the rocket motor underneath that does that. Rocket motors are very well produced to very exacting quality assurance standard and, in this case of course, it is a safety critical system so it is a very high safety and reliability standard. The rocket motors have a safe life of 20 years. The last one that we have was manufactured in 1997 but most of the ones that we have were manufactured in 1994 or 1995. That means that they run out of life in 2015. If we want to take it beyond that-and that is the real extreme-we would have to go and start up a defunct production line, and who knows what the cost would be even if they could do it. ”
The existing stockpile and currently established shelf life of rocket motors is adequate to permit operation until 2017. The re-manufacture/manufacture of replacement rocket motors is feasible and practical. The feasibility of extending the storage shelf life of existing stocks should be explored, considering such activities as recertification and/or different storage techniques. To test the Chief Defence Scientist’s testimony to the Committee, Air Power Australia undertook a trade study, a summary of which is outlined below under the section on Cartridge Activated Devices/Propellant Activated Devices (CAD/PAD). The outcome of this study was passed to the Industry contractor responsible for maintaining the CAD/PAD system for the F-111 fleet. The study determined that a re-manufacture program for rocket motors to take the F-111 fleet
through to 2020 would be achievable within the budgetary envelope of $US7.5 million, including project management costs. Such a program could be established to be ongoing, beyond 2020, with the cost dependent on the number of rocket motors required, when and in what quantities. In perspective, the evidence presented by Defence to the Committee on the issue of upgrading and supporting the F-111 is replete with errors of fact, non sequitur conclusions, and permeated with an unquestioning acceptance of extant improper engineering practice, despite this issue being raised
repeatedly in evidence during 2004 hearings.
I would be worried more about some lefty/greeny politicos that see all of the wonderful praise of the Super Hornet. More than a few Defence people have come out to say that the Super Hornet can match the big SU and other threats, no problem. JSF isn't signed off on yet. Defence will have to convince people that up to $16 billion for the JSF is even justified on any measure. Defence did state that Super can manage just about any threat did they not?
So basically there are people trying to undermine or diss the Australian Air Force, is it just good old ‘make money from controversies – and make a controversy if there is none’ schemes that journalists use, or is it a grand plan to get Australia on board the Superior, Supermaneuverable, Sleek, & Slender planes from the Father Land.
These ausairpower guys of yours have flooded the net with lots of data on everything, does any one of you actually know ‘em.
These ausairpower guys of yours have flooded the net with lots of data on everything, does any one of you actually know ‘em.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Several people on the boards here know them. Whether they choose to reveal that fact or not, I'll leave to them.
The APA guys are ALL critics of the RAAF's plans, that don't involve the F-22 or F-111.
This is for a number of reasons, but is basically driven by the "creators" of APA desiring to be awarded a nice DoD contract, yes the same "corrupt and incompetent" DoD they speak so negatively about, to upgrade the F-111 on behalf of the RAAF.
They don't like the fact that RAAF have ignored them, that Government has dismissed them and that the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Trade and Defence has dismissed them as well and are increasingly forced to use the media to try and keep their campaign going. The general media ever in need of a "doom and gloom" story to push up ratings or sell newspapers follow along for the ride.
Which is how such shoddy reporting ends up on our television screens...
The one "attempt" at being "impartial" (Group Captain Stephen Robertson) was heavily edited because (in the words of the producer) "they didn't have time" for it...
Plenty of time for ridiculously unrealistic scenario's produced by some bitter men though...
Hi AD. Hope you are doing well. . Wedgetail working? or just flying? That is amazing. Would like to hear about a working Wedgetail.
My blog. Sorry. I'm not perfect. Then again, I'm not that important. Small time. Of little interest. However, I have seen some Defence press releases; ill informed would go good there too.
As for the big SU. Funny that some think of the jet as still being locked back in it's early cold war SU-27 setup. That just isn't so, you may want to go over the list of stuff that is being delivered on them today. Not perfect but certainly a bad enough threat to be a problem. Yet I guess not if some have their head buried in the sand. Maybe it will go away if one wishes for it to be so. There just seem to be more of them showing up. I sure hope JSF works as advertised, whenever it shows up.
Of course then there is the interesting public consumption information available on the Super. Not the avionics stuff, but things that haven't changed- The engines, airframe and basic performance limits. The following graphics should be of interest. Even more interesting is they are for an E model and not the dragger family model with about 900 or so pounds less fuel. This really doesn't inspire confidence. It is disturbing that a pilot with 3ooo hours feels comfortable using Super in such limits. Then again, how much of a career would he have if he said otherwise?
Super curves
Fuel and drag- 4AIM92AMRAAM1ATFLIR1CLtank
Then you may also ask why the USN runs the jet with no tank on the left inboard sometimes. Answer- so as not to block the field of view of the ATFLIR.
http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/070403-N-0336C-277.jpg
Hmmm. What one would do better at is looking into all of the faulty Defence decisions that have come down the pike on this issue. Opinions and criticism seem to be looked at as the enemy. Yet, such decisions are of a serious nature.
F-111 going away
F-18 HUG CBR not going so well. Maybe a Canadian final solution ( flight limits by each airframe?) BTW CBR was a fluke. The jet was originally made to be thrown away after a certain amount of hours. CBR has in fact saved USN some money, but only in that very ugly way of money being this color of money fundsite vs. that color of money fundsite.
JSF- Such a program like this in history has never come in on time and on budget and one has to believe in faith for it to arrive. Add to that a lot of software that has to work, be delivered on time and lash up everything. Sorry to be such wet blanket but risk on this one is piling up. Worse since Air 6000 was cut off at the kneecaps, the Australian taxpayer doesn't have a complete competitive package to fall back on in case the first selection failed to deliver.
Super Hornet-For the USN at least; anything is possible if you are willing to lower your expectations. Having a financial gun pointed at your head and expectations of a mafia like ship building lobby, are hardly great conditions to develop a fighter with the goal to put something with a new car smell on the carrier deck. If we are all lucky, GF is right and there will never be a threat that will test this. Important because if JSF doesn't measure up, guess what may fill out the rest of the ranks? Certainly there is a possibility of half of the ranks being filled by Super. As we know that idea was tossed around.
It won't be a pretty picture if some lefty/greeny type politicians get elected. All the wonderful hype and low cost of Super will make the decision for them and make the thought of signing the dotted line for JSF, difficult.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Well that was a fun hours viewing wasnt it boys and girls. 
(AD... ) I too have been a vocal "critic" of the SH, argueing that in a one on one a SH would have a very hard time against an SU 30 MKI (or equivelant). But as a "critic" (i guess i could be labled that because i dont believe the platform can walk all over anything out there) i spent most of the time cringing and yelling at the TV for that lovely hour this evening, for most of the stupid reasons listed above. There was no ballanced, logical, contructive critisism of the platform, there was no consideration for the effect of the realistic working environment and there was no realistic discussion on how the platform fits into the RAAF's wider orbat, and how it will function as such. i.e. like the way an offenceive electronic warfare capability will fit into a realistic air superiority or strike campaign with passive BVR missile launch (fed by wedgetail) and complete information dominance.
I guess the whole thing can be summed up by a single quote from the transcript posted by AD.
(AD...
) I too have been a vocal "critic" of the SH, argueing that in a one on one a SH would have a very hard time against an SU 30 MKI (or equivelant). But as a "critic" (i guess i could be labled that because i dont believe the platform can walk all over anything out there) i spent most of the time cringing and yelling at the TV for that lovely hour this evening, for most of the stupid reasons listed above. There was no ballanced, logical, contructive critisism of the platform, there was no consideration for the effect of the realistic working environment and there was no realistic discussion on how the platform fits into the RAAF's wider orbat, and how it will function as such. i.e. like the way an offenceive electronic warfare capability will fit into a realistic air superiority or strike campaign with passive BVR missile launch (fed by wedgetail) and complete information dominance. I guess the whole thing can be summed up by a single quote from the transcript posted by AD.
perhaps the first time in history a dedicated strike aircraft has maintained air superiority?
Well we pretty much got what we expected. Personally I lost interest during the hypothetical strike against Indo and went to bed. What was that supposed to prove anyway? The "phantom" flight of F-111s at Tindal during Timor was an open secret. Their main role was to provide recon flights for Aus forces, remember the Indo's complaining about high and fast flights over their territory. They failed to mention that they were backed up by two full sqn's of Hornets with AAR.
The Indo's have just a handfull of SU's and their ability to maintain any aircraft is abysmal. You only have to go to any Indo air base and you can see the u/s airframes all over the place.
The statement that we could keep the -111 flying forever was laughable. People like to quote a 100% successful sorty rate but when you look at how that is achieved it is less impressive. If you have 6-8 -111s on deployment and schedule only 2-4 sorties per day than it is easy to achieve a near perfect sorty rate.
I guess the crux of the matter is that yes a SH cannot do what an F-111 can do but by the same token a -111 cannot do what a SH can do either. They both excel in different areas but the -111 is old tech and the cost of running and upgrading old tech increases with every year that passes. IMO it is time to move on and embrace the advantages of NCW that the ADF is building towards with L-16 capable fighters and ships and ground forces with VMF.
Hooroo
They failed to mention that they were backed up by two full sqn's of Hornets with AAR. The Indo's have just a handfull of SU's and their ability to maintain any aircraft is abysmal. You only have to go to any Indo air base and you can see the u/s airframes all over the place.
The statement that we could keep the -111 flying forever was laughable. People like to quote a 100% successful sorty rate but when you look at how that is achieved it is less impressive. If you have 6-8 -111s on deployment and schedule only 2-4 sorties per day than it is easy to achieve a near perfect sorty rate.
I guess the crux of the matter is that yes a SH cannot do what an F-111 can do but by the same token a -111 cannot do what a SH can do either. They both excel in different areas but the -111 is old tech and the cost of running and upgrading old tech increases with every year that passes. IMO it is time to move on and embrace the advantages of NCW that the ADF is building towards with L-16 capable fighters and ships and ground forces with VMF.
Hooroo
Just don't start saying "Cooee" or we'll all be very worried!
nfloorl:Please don't lump us all in the same boat as the joker who presented that story...PLEASE!!!
:I'm going to stay out of the 4 Corners program debate for now as, as tempting as it may be, I'd prefer not to comment adversly on the efforts of fellow media (but those who know me can probably ascertain my feelings towards the show!)
As for Wedgetail, it is coming along well now and will be ready for service entry in 09. The integration issues are well on their way to being resolved, and the radar is performing better than expected.
JASSM is also coming good, thanks in part to RAAF and DSTO engineers who have a far better understanding of the weapon than their USAF counterparts and who helped to get the program back on track. I can't elaborate but hopefully we'll hear more about this good news story one day. Don't forget though, unless there is a change of direction with the RAAF's Supers, JASSM won't be integrated with that jet.
Cheers
Magoo
Last edited:
Hello to all our foreign clientele, if you think this is just a bunch of aussie wank*rs taking apart a doco, watch this:
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/s2070484.htm
Its on the same network as playschool...guess the "reporter" got lost on the way to rehersal, cause PS shows more facts through the round window then they did through the Square one/
Nah, some can actually do it without the hocuspocus and doom and gloom. Mcpherdan does have a good read at times and can be considered an "ally" of the troops, in that he won't shoot them down when a purchase is made and try to make it seem like your riding shotgun in a FJ Holden with bar armour.
There are a few more in it for a better ADF, and how can you create so many doom and gloom stories when we have one of the largest increases in spending in a somewhat, peace time. Look at our allys around the world, the Brits have morale comparable to the Sri Lankan Navy(and the ships to match), The Yanks are tearing each other apart over contracts, combat and connie Europes much the same with a greeny based push for less platforms and less combat for troops, which leads to less capability and less preperation....
OMG i just saw the Four Corners motto..."investigative Journalism at its best"...well, it beats Today Tonight
And a shout out to mill, Kopps, Fowler...we know your out there, peace my brothers, peace!
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/s2070484.htm
Its on the same network as playschool...guess the "reporter" got lost on the way to rehersal, cause PS shows more facts through the round window then they did through the Square one/
I make no promises!
Nah, some can actually do it without the hocuspocus and doom and gloom. Mcpherdan does have a good read at times and can be considered an "ally" of the troops, in that he won't shoot them down when a purchase is made and try to make it seem like your riding shotgun in a FJ Holden with bar armour.
There are a few more in it for a better ADF, and how can you create so many doom and gloom stories when we have one of the largest increases in spending in a somewhat, peace time. Look at our allys around the world, the Brits have morale comparable to the Sri Lankan Navy(and the ships to match), The Yanks are tearing each other apart over contracts, combat and connie
Europes much the same with a greeny based push for less platforms and less combat for troops, which leads to less capability and less preperation....OMG i just saw the Four Corners motto..."investigative Journalism at its best"...well, it beats Today Tonight
Oh...hes THAT ELP, yeah Clancy Scenarios are more relevant to ADF policy then a 20-40 C-17 fleet for the RAAF.:nutkick
And a shout out to mill, Kopps, Fowler...we know your out there, peace my brothers, peace!
FutureTank
Banned Member
Barra, isn't L-16 an ADF-wide standard for the OF supposedly to be implemented by the 2020 time? Wasn't it even part of the Soldier Systems project?
Its part of the interoperability specs.
FutureTank
Banned Member
AD, Kopp had been in this debate for a while, and earlier in the year was 'engaged' by Gubler from a rival publication, including on Crikey
http://www.crikey.com.au/Comments/20070720-Comments-corrections-clarifications-and-cckups.html
http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20070712-Air-power-and-historys-lessons-are-far-from-fantasy.html
peterAustralia
Member
I with to refer to the 4 corners tv show on abc last night
It may have had a degree of bias, however it did make some good points, especially to the 99% of Australians who are not defence aviation experts. In regards to the bias, well Brendon Nelson and the head of the RAAF chose not to appear on the program.
If the F111 wing failure was the result of a wrongly performed test as opposed to a structural problem with the wing, then to spend $6.6 billion dollars based on that is awful. Bendon Nelson should have delved more deeply into the wing failure in question, and not just assumed that the fleet was unsound. It is scandalous to have a defence minister misinform cabinet on such an important issue because he did not do proper research or consultation.
6.6 billion dollars so far, and no doubt more. In the longer term there will be upgrades that will cost big money. So the figure in question in all probability will be more than $6.6 billion. To commit to spend so much money (including my tax dollars!) based on a flawed test is disgraceful.
The tv program had a fellow on it that said the F111 could fly indefinitely. There is a huge store of airframes in SW USA that can be used for spares. If that fellow was correct then we (Australia) could keep on having the F111 for decades and decades. Sure it costs a bit to keep maintaining, but so do all planes. The benefit in the longer term of a plane that has first class performance, is known the RAAF, has a huge store of spares, that can have it's avionics upgraded over time is immense, and we have thrown it all away.
The fact that the F18F was chosen as an interim without proper consideration of an alternative is disgraceful. Maybe a F35 - F18F mix is the ideal longer term solution for Australia, but let the experts decide which aircraft is best rather than one individual (non expert).
As to the ejector cartridges having a finite lifespan. I would suggest that a technically advanced country like Australia with 20 million people could make some more. Perhaps the original specifications for their manufacture can still be had by asking the original manufacturer.
peterAustralia
It may have had a degree of bias, however it did make some good points, especially to the 99% of Australians who are not defence aviation experts. In regards to the bias, well Brendon Nelson and the head of the RAAF chose not to appear on the program.
If the F111 wing failure was the result of a wrongly performed test as opposed to a structural problem with the wing, then to spend $6.6 billion dollars based on that is awful. Bendon Nelson should have delved more deeply into the wing failure in question, and not just assumed that the fleet was unsound. It is scandalous to have a defence minister misinform cabinet on such an important issue because he did not do proper research or consultation.
6.6 billion dollars so far, and no doubt more. In the longer term there will be upgrades that will cost big money. So the figure in question in all probability will be more than $6.6 billion. To commit to spend so much money (including my tax dollars!) based on a flawed test is disgraceful.
The tv program had a fellow on it that said the F111 could fly indefinitely. There is a huge store of airframes in SW USA that can be used for spares. If that fellow was correct then we (Australia) could keep on having the F111 for decades and decades. Sure it costs a bit to keep maintaining, but so do all planes. The benefit in the longer term of a plane that has first class performance, is known the RAAF, has a huge store of spares, that can have it's avionics upgraded over time is immense, and we have thrown it all away.
The fact that the F18F was chosen as an interim without proper consideration of an alternative is disgraceful. Maybe a F35 - F18F mix is the ideal longer term solution for Australia, but let the experts decide which aircraft is best rather than one individual (non expert).
As to the ejector cartridges having a finite lifespan. I would suggest that a technically advanced country like Australia with 20 million people could make some more. Perhaps the original specifications for their manufacture can still be had by asking the original manufacturer.
peterAustralia
I was getting at the fact that F-111 does not have L16 and the cost to fully integrate it onto the platform would be prohibitive and it is to late at this time anyway. Better to move on and get the all singin and dancin SH which is a much more capable package as a whole then those idiots on 4corners will ever understand.
In an interesting aside, the planned withdrawl hasn't stopped the 111 world from wanting L16 though, I have heard of a push to have L16 installed in a stand alone receive only capability.
To have it fully integrated would require replacement of the mission system. Surely just a few minor wire mods!!! Coooeeee!(just for you Magoo)
The following is a snippet from the Royal Australian Navy thread where I posted about the SH-3 Sea King:
Look, a brilliant airframe. It is a real workhorse and we love them. I've been in one and it was awesome. I've seen them do some hellishly cool stuff. They are built like Hercules himself - the sheer size of some of the components boggles the mind. They were built for strength-strength-strength.
Only thing is, they ain't new. The constant on/off status is simply a reflection of the age of the airframes and components. If they made these things brand new, several of us would go out on a personal crusade to get the NRH-90 booted. The trouble is, we have to let them go soon, regardless of how good they are.
The US F-14's had to go for a number of reasons similar; for every hour of flying, those aircraft required 40-odd hours of ground maintenance towards the end of their flying life. We can't let the Sea Kings get to that stage.
The issue is one of maintenance. As each airframe ages, you still need to perform intensive checks and maintenance to the rest of the airframe, unless you purchase a complete airframe from the US and rebuild it. Cost is a huge factor ther, and you are still getting a very old airframe for your money. It is unfortunately not as simple as just replacing the worn-out bits.
That said, the F-111 still has a fair amount of life in it, and 2020 is certainly not unreasonable, so I'm unsure as to why it was canned so early.
And such has been the way recently, not just with this but with other Defence aquisitions. Sometimes the choice is remarkably obvious, and yet the choice seems to be based on marketing and company hype rather than simple tests, comparisons and capability assessments. Can't really point fingers, and I can't suggest which choices were bad (you'll have to figure those out
). But I think the Department of Defence should resume complete control and get the engineers, officers, maintenance crews and especially the end user operators who will be working with the aquired systems to completely tear it to peices, as critically as possible.peterAustralia
Member
Hi McTaff,
Some very good points that you make there.
As a taxpayer and an Australian I do get upset that we are spending X billion on an interim aircraft. I would prefer to keep the F111 for a few years more before letting it go. I know that F111 cannot go on forever, I would just like to see it replaced with the best aircraft for the job.
I do wonder if the F18F is the ideal. From an airframe point of view it seems quite inferior to an Su30 Mk II. No doubt it has a superior radar and avionics that may well give it the edge. However avionics can be upgraded. Maybe in 10 years the Su30 will have upgraded avionics and radar, then there will be problems, with a better airframe and competitive avionics then the F18-F may have big problems. My point is that avionics can be upgraded, whereas it is harder to upgrade range, speed, maneuverability etc.
As to the longer term as to what aircraft would best be a good fit for the F35 that is a different story, maybe is Eurofighter, maybe Rafael, maybe F22(but they wont sell it to us?), maybe F18-F, but let the experts work all that out.
I do suspect that the liberal government is a fraction pro US, this seems to have affected their procurement policies. Personally I would prefer we get the best aircraft that suits us, rater than the best US aircraft available. This paragraph is just my rant..thus no need to give it huge credence, just venting my spleen.
Some very good points that you make there.
As a taxpayer and an Australian I do get upset that we are spending X billion on an interim aircraft. I would prefer to keep the F111 for a few years more before letting it go. I know that F111 cannot go on forever, I would just like to see it replaced with the best aircraft for the job.
I do wonder if the F18F is the ideal. From an airframe point of view it seems quite inferior to an Su30 Mk II. No doubt it has a superior radar and avionics that may well give it the edge. However avionics can be upgraded. Maybe in 10 years the Su30 will have upgraded avionics and radar, then there will be problems, with a better airframe and competitive avionics then the F18-F may have big problems. My point is that avionics can be upgraded, whereas it is harder to upgrade range, speed, maneuverability etc.
As to the longer term as to what aircraft would best be a good fit for the F35 that is a different story, maybe is Eurofighter, maybe Rafael, maybe F22(but they wont sell it to us?), maybe F18-F, but let the experts work all that out.
I do suspect that the liberal government is a fraction pro US, this seems to have affected their procurement policies. Personally I would prefer we get the best aircraft that suits us, rater than the best US aircraft available. This paragraph is just my rant..thus no need to give it huge credence, just venting my spleen.