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

[Grand Danois]

I find the scenarios presented, just a TAD unrealistic.

It assumes that the ONLY way to fight is to attack enemy aircraft in the air. China meanwhile is fighting assymetrically, targeting USAF airfields, but USAF is not doing the same to China. WTF?

They also base their information on, wait for it:

Air Power Australia's statistical information...

No wonder the JSF Program office was so upset....

It's meant for provoking thought and has a focus on logistics and basing.

And for this reason it works on worst assumptions all the way.

So it's purpose is to question a supposed over-reliance on technology rather than numbers - it asks the question of what makes up projection, power, persistence.

The four last pages that focuses on T/W and wingloading use a classic fanboy approach to comparing fighters and also does not discuss the impact of HOBS/HMCS. It is meant as input for discussion and is not analysis.

One can discuss the metrics, but I think that all things being considered, it is a healthy approach.

But can the press or APA or Dr Jensen use it as substantive material for a critique of the F-22A and F-35? No, of course not. There is no real assessment of fighting qualities and the context and background of the exercise is a test of what happens if all assumptions are wrong... a worst worst worst case... And it is embarrasing to see detractors use it as supposedly substantive material and leak snippets like "The F-35 were clubbed like baby seals!"

That being said, with the F-22A sortie generation available, and same conditions, I could think up a few more clever ways to use them, rather than setting them up for a massed melee on PRC initiative...

The pre-brief is also a good jumping off point for discussing statistical methodologies for gauging impact of BVR missiles. Do you include kills where BVR was never an option into the statistics?

 

[Aussie Digger]

It's meant for provoking thought and has a focus on logistics and basing.

And for this reason it works on worst assumptions all the way.

So it's purpose is to question a supposed over-reliance on technology rather than numbers - it asks the question of what makes up projection, power, persistence.

The four last pages that focuses on T/W and wingloading use a classic fanboy approach to comparing fighters and also does not discuss the impact of HOBS/HMCS. It is meant as input for discussion and is not analysis.

One can discuss the metrics, but I think that all things being considered, it is a healthy approach.

But can the press or APA or Dr Jensen use it as substantive material for a critique of the F-22A and F-35? No, of course not. There is no real assessment of fighting qualities and the context and background of the exercise is a test of what happens if all assumptions are wrong... a worst worst worst case... And it is embarrasing to see detractors use it as supposedly substantive material and leak snippets like "The F-35 were clubbed like baby seals!"

That being said, with the F-22A sortie generation available, and same conditions, I could think up a few more clever ways to use them, rather than setting them up for a massed melee on PRC initiative...

The pre-brief is also a good jumping off point for discussing statistical methodologies for gauging impact of BVR missiles. Do you include kills where BVR was never an option into the statistics?

I could be wrong, but the AMRAAM assumptions they are using do not actually pertain to the AIM-120-C variant that is in-service.

It has not been fired in anger against a modern high performance jet to the best of my knowledge. Therefore it's PK is entirely equivalent to the modern Russian AAM's... :

ALL AMRAAM shots that I am aware of are with earlier A and B models.

If we are going to make assumptions, than the 43% increase figure in BVR kills since AMRAAM's introduction should be telling...

Or are we to assume that C and D model AMRAAM's are going to somehow be inferior to A/B models?

As to the report. I agree it's basis is NOT expected to be a realistic assessment of likely combat. Even a "human wave" shows more tactics than the USAF was employing in these scenarios...

It also does not address modern runway repair capability, nor other "reactive" measures designed to address the very concerns raised within the report.

It uses performance data gleaned from Janes and Air Power Australia and makes unrealistic assumptions about the capability of the Chinese air power. (Does one really think Russia will sell the SU-35 to China? For instance?)

It assumes the USN is too busy to have a CBG in the pacific, no subs, no B-2 or any other bomber capability, no offensive strike capability and no intent to deploy such from elsewhere, despite US military bases being struck.

Sorry, I fail to see the point of this exercise...

It provokes the thought in me, that if we don't use the combat power we have, but instead utilise only 6 aircraft, will that be enough to defeat a modern opponent who outnumbers us 12 to 1 and has done the VERY thing to us, that we actually do to our opponents on operations?

Namely attacking C4ISR assets and infrastructure prior to engaging in "biggles style" aerial battles...

 

[Grand Danois]

I could be wrong, but the AMRAAM assumptions they are using do not actually pertain to the AIM-120-C variant that is in-service.

It has not been fired in anger against a modern high performance jet to the best of my knowledge. Therefore it's PK is entirely equivalent to the modern Russian AAM's... :

ALL AMRAAM shots that I am aware of are with earlier A and B models.

If we are going to make assumptions, than the 43% increase figure in BVR kills since AMRAAM's introduction should be telling...

Or are we to assume that C and D model AMRAAM's are going to somehow be inferior to A/B models?

My observation is EXACTLY the same - the C/D models have never been used in combat - they have never had the opportunity. It's 43 fold by the way, not 43%.

On top of that, in most cases of non-BVR kills, BVR was NEVER an option as the jets was not euipped for that type of engagement. If the numbers are cleaned up, I would wager the impact of BVR missiles on air-air combat will look a lot different.

As to the report. I agree it's basis is NOT expected to be a realistic assessment of likely combat. Even a "human wave" shows more tactics than the USAF was employing in these scenarios...

It also does not address modern runway repair capability, nor other "reactive" measures designed to address the very concerns raised within the report.

It uses performance data gleaned from Janes and Air Power Australia and makes unrealistic assumptions about the capability of the Chinese air power. (Does one really think Russia will sell the SU-35 to China? For instance?)

It assumes the USN is too busy to have a CBG in the pacific, no subs, no B-2 or any other bomber capability, no offensive strike capability and no intent to deploy such from elsewhere, despite US military bases being struck.

Sorry, I fail to see the point of this exercise...

It provokes the thought in me, that if we don't use the combat power we have, but instead utilise only 6 aircraft, will that be enough to defeat a modern opponent who outnumbers us 12 to 1 and has done the VERY thing to us, that we actually do to our opponents on operations?

Namely attacking C4ISR assets and infrastructure prior to engaging in "biggles style" aerial battles...

The participants in the exercise will know it is unrealistic - but it forces them to think what they will do if assumptions are wrong.

And it kinda makes it obvious why such exercises are restricted information - it may not be that militarily sensitive, but it has potential to be of use to those with malicious purpose and unsubtantiated attacks in mainstream media.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I could be wrong, but the AMRAAM assumptions they are using do not actually pertain to the AIM-120-C variant that is in-service.

It has not been fired in anger against a modern high performance jet to the best of my knowledge. Therefore it's PK is entirely equivalent to the modern Russian AAM's... :

ALL AMRAAM shots that I am aware of are with earlier A and B models.

If we are going to make assumptions, than the 43% increase figure in BVR kills since AMRAAM's introduction should be telling...

Or are we to assume that C and D model AMRAAM's are going to somehow be inferior to A/B models?

You cant automatically assume C and D models will have a higher PK than the A & B; this has to be viewed in the contemporary countermeasures environment. Modern EWSP & TRD technology is a mile ahead of where it was in the mid 90's, if you took a shot at a Typhoon with an AIM-120A within the NEZ i'd say the PK would be low, much lower than the same shot vs an F-15A which has the comparable performance characteristics. I'm not saying PK's wont be higher with the more advanced models but again this is subjective because it relys on the capabilities of the threat platform.

And guys the increase in BVR kills has a lot more to do with IFF technology and theater wide SA than the missiles used, add to that the wider array of platforms that can engage in BVR combat due to its introduction (F-16C).

As to the report. I agree it's basis is NOT expected to be a realistic assessment of likely combat. Even a "human wave" shows more tactics than the USAF was employing in these scenarios...

It also does not address modern runway repair capability, nor other "reactive" measures designed to address the very concerns raised within the report.

It uses performance data gleaned from Janes and Air Power Australia and makes unrealistic assumptions about the capability of the Chinese air power. (Does one really think Russia will sell the SU-35 to China? For instance?)

It assumes the USN is too busy to have a CBG in the pacific, no subs, no B-2 or any other bomber capability, no offensive strike capability and no intent to deploy such from elsewhere, despite US military bases being struck.

Sorry, I fail to see the point of this exercise...

It provokes the thought in me, that if we don't use the combat power we have, but instead utilise only 6 aircraft, will that be enough to defeat a modern opponent who outnumbers us 12 to 1 and has done the VERY thing to us, that we actually do to our opponents on operations?

Namely attacking C4ISR assets and infrastructure prior to engaging in "biggles style" aerial battles...

I agree the whole thing was unrealistic, but obviously that was the point. IMO there's nothing wrong with the exercise itself, as long as its conclusions are viewed in context. Obviously it wasn't a realistic evaluation of platform or system capabilities.

 

[StevoJH]

I think it is the future munitions and upgrades that will be developed for the F-35 that has got the Israeli's interested, they are allowed to purchase the F-35 to keep a technological edge over the other who are part of the US military exports to the Mid East, Kingdom of Saud etc.

Technological Edge? Saudi Arabia have ordered a massive number of Eurofighters, 72 to start with and a possible follow on order of another 80.

The Syrians and Iranians will be flying Russians aircraft, so the Israelis are not to concern about the Rand report. The are getting the F-35A and the F-35 B so they can disperse their air assets, similar to how the harrier was deployed during the cold war, the ability to operate from small independent bases yet be networked into a mush larger air defense strategy.

Umm, the fake Rand report? They are buying F35 because when it comes out, their current fleet will be up for replacement and F35 will be the best aircraft available.

If I was Australia after the purchase of the 80 to 100, I would buy another 25 to 45 to be tasked to the Army Aviation Regiment.

Why? The airforce can do Air support just as well as the army, and the army has its Tigers already. If by any chance, extra F35's were purchased (unlikely) they'd be more likely to either be additional aircraft for the air force, or enough F35B's for a Navy Squadron off the LHD's.

Now the RAAF have the C-17 I would take at least for of the C-130's and have them converted to AC-130 Spooky gunships cost around 60 to 80 million for the conversion if the DOD gives approval.

I would also have them tasked to the Army Aviation Regiment, they last forever and earn their keep even in peace you can use them against FFV and pirates.

The C-17's were purchased due to a shortfall in Air Lift capability, whether the shortfall is still there or is covered, any reduction in Air Transport Assets would likely lead to an increase in that shortfall. Four of the RAAF's C130H's have been removed from service already, and the other 8 probably only have a few years of life before they need replacement, leaving only the 12 Valuable C130J's for conversion, unlikely. You can also add onto this that the Caribous are operating on borrowed time and will soon be retired.

 

[thorpete1]

I think stryker was trying to point out that the number of airbases suitable for aerial operations in central Australia is very low. And the ability to disperse 20-45 fighters into central Australia that don't require long prepared airstrips would have advantages. It would also have advantages for the army to be able to call in there own air support.

I don't think the RAAF would give anyone permission to go fixed wing. Bit of a pissing match there. Anyway it makes sense for the RAAF to have all variants of the F-35 due to logistic and maintenance concerns.

I think a good course of action would be to buy 20-45 F-35B's on top of the F-35A's. Put the F-35's under control of the RAAF and then make them available to the ARMY in the Close Air Support and Tactical role and also available to the NAVY to be placed on the new Canberra class ships. RAAF still controls and fly's the planes but it gives the ARMY and NAVY organic air support.

 

[Stryker001]

I was talking about the US upgrades to the fighters, missiles etc.
www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/washington/28weapons.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&fta=y&adxnnlx=1222578031-CqXC771ZrBr/GqkXyzbFtQ&pagewanted=all

Just trying to keep the Army happy as with the propose navy expansion and the new planes, the army may have to take a back seat.They always do when big ticket items are on the agenda.

I prefer stand-alone elements hence the F-35 B to the Army and the AC-130’s. No point putting F-35 B’s on one of the two LHD’s.We don’t go anywhere alone without US air power, so there is no need if we need to invade a neighbor would have seized the airport for fighters after the initial assault.

If you want planes on a ship, you need a carrier those planes would be operated by the RAAF. With the two new LHD’s it is possible for the conversion of 4 C-130’s to Spooky gunships, why the Army they are airborne tanks basically.

Re: the Tigers the Iraq war have proved that attack helicopters on their own without fighters are vulnerable.

 

[Aussie Digger]

You cant automatically assume C and D models will have a higher PK than the A & B; this has to be viewed in the contemporary countermeasures environment. Modern EWSP & TRD technology is a mile ahead of where it was in the mid 90's, if you took a shot at a Typhoon with an AIM-120A within the NEZ i'd say the PK would be low, much lower than the same shot vs an F-15A which has the comparable performance characteristics. I'm not saying PK's wont be higher with the more advanced models but again this is subjective because it relys on the capabilities of the threat platform.

My objection though is using irrelevent performance data to make a claim about a completely different system.

Why not compare 120mm tank guns to 12.7mm machine guns?

I agree the whole thing was unrealistic, but obviously that was the point. IMO there's nothing wrong with the exercise itself, as long as its conclusions are viewed in context. Obviously it wasn't a realistic evaluation of platform or system capabilities.

Again it seems like a waste of time. It's a forgone conclusion when the odds are stacked SO heavily in the red force's favour.

Would you bother wargaming how 6x infantry soldiers would perform, when tasked to charge two full platoons of infantry that are dug in?

Of course not. The results are entirely predictable.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I was talking about the US upgrades to the fighters, missiles etc.
www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/washington/28weapons.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&fta=y&adxnnlx=1222578031-CqXC771ZrBr/GqkXyzbFtQ&pagewanted=all

Just trying to keep the Army happy as with the propose navy expansion and the new planes, the army may have to take a back seat.They always do when big ticket items are on the agenda.

I prefer stand-alone elements hence the F-35 B to the Army and the AC-130’s. No point putting F-35 B’s on one of the two LHD’s.We don’t go anywhere alone without US air power, so there is no need if we need to invade a neighbor would have seized the airport for fighters after the initial assault.

If you want planes on a ship, you need a carrier those planes would be operated by the RAAF. With the two new LHD’s it is possible for the conversion of 4 C-130’s to Spooky gunships, why the Army they are airborne tanks basically.

Re: the Tigers the Iraq war have proved that attack helicopters on their own without fighters are vulnerable.

No it hasn't. It has proven that poor tactics and planning is a sure fire way to fail in battle.

It also demostrates once more, that battle must be a combined arms affair. Attempting to employ discrete elements individually is a receipe for failure.

Would the "30 odd" Apaches have been shot down if they had been supporting an armoured battle-group as intended, at the time?

No weapon system is invulnerable, but blanket statements such as this, don't hold up to scrutiny...

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I prefer stand-alone elements hence the F-35 B to the Army and the AC-130’s. No point putting F-35 B’s on one of the two LHD’s.We don’t go anywhere alone without US air power, so there is no need if we need to invade a neighbor would have seized the airport for fighters after the initial assault.

As thorpete1 said the logistical constraints of having F-35's in the army and Air force is a total waste of time. The whole point the ADF is moving toward is seamless joint operations. Thus who gives a flying poo if the F-35B's are army, air force or navy, it doesn't matter. It would be total waste of resources duplicating the whole R&M and logistical train just so the Amry can have fixed wing CAS and call it there own. In real terms it provides no operational benefit while significantly limiting flexibility.

As for the F-35B being useless well that's a big stretch. Conducting a peace enforcement mission without the US (she wont always be there) in a theater with well armed combatants is a very realistic possibility in the next 25 years, and the firepower F-35B brings to the battlespace should not be underestimated. Mk 84's delivered precisely will have a dramatic effect on an enemies will to fight and save Australian lives. I would say that if the government can afford them they are most definitely worth it. Remember we did operate fixed wing naval aviation of a carrier for 25 years so obviously in the past we have not been content with the notion that US foreign policy will always be consistent with ours and hence provide air power to deployed forces.

If you want planes on a ship, you need a carrier those planes would be operated by the RAAF. With the two new LHD’s it is possible for the conversion of 4 C-130’s to Spooky gunships, why the Army they are airborne tanks basically.

In a small to medium sized defense force with very limited resources why on earth would you invest in something as specialized as a spooky? It is a niece capability addressed by a tool that can do nothing else, and then that's 4 airframes that when CAS is not needed are useless.

If you want planes off a ship you do need a carrier, or an LHD, have a look at this one it seems to have planes on the big flat part on top, dont think its a carrier though:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasp_class_amphibious_assault_ship

Re: the Tigers the Iraq war have proved that attack helicopters on their own without fighters are vulnerable.

Attack Helo's are vulnerable if used incorrectly, this was a known fact before Iraq (although some significant mistakes were made in OIF). That fact alone however proves nothing in the case for Army fixed wing CAS assets, any deployed ADF formation would include the RAAF and fixed wing air.

In any case you just illustrated the need for deployable air assets used in conjunction with the LHD's. If the ADF intends to use deploy a brigade group in a hostile theater there will be some jobs the ARH simply can not do, that the F-35B will.

 

[Stryker001]

That is correct the US is not going to be around.

45 F-35 B allows you to task the LHD’ solely for maritime operations, but then you no longer can disperse the aircraft in Australia. (The dispersal of air assets is done once the maritime operation have failed and the hostile force is on route an you will be a direct attack of the mainland)

If you use the two LHD's for air operations you lose the capability of what the LHD's were purchased for moving troops and equipment even establishing a forward operating air base off-shore in the time of emergency becomes problematic, if the LHD’s need to be used solely for maritime operations.

Converting one for solely air assets, you are limiting the size of what you can deploy in the initial assault. If you have hostile forces coming on both sides of the country then you do not even the capacity for any maritime counter using the LHD's.

I give that it is good to be able to bash the neighbors, but they cannot replace a carrier and you cannot build a carrier battle group around the LHD's. You cannot compare it to the US as that is not their stand alone element, it complements a larger force.

What you have at the moment is a Labour doctrine of the DOA and part of the Liberal DOAAI.

I call it the DOH.

Re: the Spooky it would be very useful, especially as the movement of artillery can be difficult in the jungle. It a conversion so you are not buying the hole unit. That is all it is artillery in the air, it means that you do always have to establish a fire base, and the munitions are cheaper than using the armaments of a F-35.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

That is correct the US is not going to be around.

45 F-35 B allows you to task the LHD’ solely for maritime operations, but then you no longer can disperse the aircraft in Australia. (The dispersal of air assets is done once the maritime operation have failed and the hostile force is on route an you will be a direct attack of the mainland)

You don't need to use LHD's solely for fleet air ops, if we bought a third one (which is still on the books) then you could task one as an aviation support vessel and still put 2 combined arms battalion groups in the theater. Even if you only have two just putting a single flight on one of them gives the commander a much wider range of options to respond to threats. That LHD can then still move a reduced amount of troops and materiel.

Simply because you have a short squadron of F-35's does not automatically mean you loose the use of your LHD's as LHD's, i don't think those two assets are mutually exclusive in terms of role.

If you use the two LHD's for air operations you lose the capability of what the LHD's were purchased for moving troops and equipment even establishing a forward operating air base off-shore in the time of emergency becomes problematic, if the LHD’s need to be used solely for maritime operations.

Why would you need to use the LHD's solely for maritime ops? The only time i can see one needing to deploy fixed wing aviation is in support of deployed forces.

Converting one for solely air assets, you are limiting the size of what you can deploy in the initial assault. If you have hostile forces coming on both sides of the country then you do not even the capacity for any maritime counter using the LHD's.

Yeah but you also drastically increase the aviation capability. Point is that with the F-35 you have the option.

The LHD's would be of literally no use in a DOA situation, you don't need a carrier for defensive ops, they are intrinsically tools of power projection. The RAAF has the basing infrastructure, the ISTAR & AAR capability and tac air assets to punish any maritime force 1000~3000km off the coast, even if there are two, one on each side. It would take 36 hours to redeploy the tac air and AAR assets from RAAF Amberly to RAAF Learmouth. Look at the basing map (just ignore all of the PLA stuff), the RAAF has the basing infrastructure to deal with any maritime threat off the coast.

Even our dedicated carrier HMAS Melbourne would have been of no use in a DOA situation, that is land based aviation's forte. Carriers are tools of power projection, that is their hole point. If you want to use them defensively off the coast they're a gigantic waste of money, just building a few bases (which we have already done) fully addresses that problem.

I give that it is good to be able to bash the neighbors, but they cannot replace a carrier and you cannot build a carrier battle group around the LHD's. You cannot compare it to the US as that is not their stand alone element, it complements a larger force.

That is the whole point of an LHD, why did you think we are buying them? As some sort of floating RAAF air base that can sit off the coast with a few F-35B's? No way.

I was simply pointing out that the US deploys fixed wing air assets of its LHD's, illustrating that you don't always need a carrier.

Re: the Spooky it would be very useful, especially as the movement of artillery can be difficult in the jungle. It a conversion so you are not buying the hole unit. That is all it is artillery in the air, it means that you do always have to establish a fire base, and the munitions are cheaper than using the armaments of a F-35.

We've been deploying arty in jungles for 50 years and with the introduction of the c'hooks moving 155's (especially an M777) around the battle-space is as easy as pie. In any case simply because you have a spooky doesn't mean you wont deploy arty, no commander on earth would rely solely on a single airborne platform to provide his men with arty, again its a supplementary not a replacement asset. Thus this is a moot point.

As for the cost if we wanted any sort of operational life we wouldn't use any of the C 130H's, and pretty soon the 'Js will be on short time too. I'm not sure what the cost of a conversion would be but a brand spanking new one costs $200m USD AFAIK, now that's extremely expensive. 4 would cost almost $1bn AUD, how many saved JDAM's do you think it would take to pay one off? 5000? In any case this is also a moot point because the ADF would deploy F-35's to the battlespace, again these two platforms are complementary not mutually exclusive. Even if you have a spooky is support F35 delivers firepower a spooky can not, so you would still want to use tac air.

Spooky's are incredibly optimized platforms that are expensive and do a job that can effectively be completed with much more versatile assets. For the ADF they would be a gigantic waste of money and misuse of valuable resources IMO, it makes about as much sense as acquiring an F-117.

 

[Stryker001]

An Island base on the East and a carrier naval battle group for the West coast, it all depends were you want to intercept an invasion for force projection also includes targeting the enemy far from home. As soon as you come out of the Gulf of Aden I would hit them or as they emerge around the cape of Good Hope.

The same goes for the Venezuala base as while they come through the Panama Canal I would hit the carriers group. Which is difficult from an Island base in the East.

That were my wolf packs will be with striking distance of those location the ones not provide force protection to the battle groups.

At each stage of engagement the more chance you have of defending the mainland directly.

The RAAF countering a threat off the coast with air to air refuellers is a long way back to rearm, and that if all the missiles hit their mark or are not countered by the carrier fleet. I know US missiles are used in battle and it is easier to gauge the the success rate, however you look who we fight these days the broken Iraqi army, that cannot counter.

After all of that then we fall back and the RAAF works from the Australian mainland.

The Spooky is about 60 million to 80 million each for conversion.

 

[Aussie Digger]

That is correct the US is not going to be around.

45 F-35 B allows you to task the LHD’ solely for maritime operations, but then you no longer can disperse the aircraft in Australia. (The dispersal of air assets is done once the maritime operation have failed and the hostile force is on route an you will be a direct attack of the mainland)

If you use the two LHD's for air operations you lose the capability of what the LHD's were purchased for moving troops and equipment even establishing a forward operating air base off-shore in the time of emergency becomes problematic, if the LHD’s need to be used solely for maritime operations.

Converting one for solely air assets, you are limiting the size of what you can deploy in the initial assault. If you have hostile forces coming on both sides of the country then you do not even the capacity for any maritime counter using the LHD's.

I give that it is good to be able to bash the neighbors, but they cannot replace a carrier and you cannot build a carrier battle group around the LHD's. You cannot compare it to the US as that is not their stand alone element, it complements a larger force.

What you have at the moment is a Labour doctrine of the DOA and part of the Liberal DOAAI.

I call it the DOH.

Re: the Spooky it would be very useful, especially as the movement of artillery can be difficult in the jungle. It a conversion so you are not buying the hole unit. That is all it is artillery in the air, it means that you do always have to establish a fire base, and the munitions are cheaper than using the armaments of a F-35.

In terms of Army fire support,

Most operations are not going to see ANY airborne fire support capabilities deployed to support Army. The types of operations we conduct simply don't require it.

At best we might use light fire teams (snipers in tactical transport helos) as an overwatch capability, with inherent fire support if required.

In a significant threat environment, Tigers are obviously going to be deployed, but with our fleet numbers, 4-6 is the best we will be deploying.

Again light fire teams will be used.

Army's firepower is becoming significantly heavier at every level from section level upwards and the higher level ADF fire support (armour, artillery) is growing to levels we've never enjoyed before.

The "precision" aspect is what is so massively improving our capability. Javelin, Excalibur, naval precision guided munitions, Hellfire, JDAM etc means that our fire support won't need to be as obviously "massive" to achieve the effects we need.

For jungle operations, Army fire support is going to be the predominant fire support capabilities, mortars and direct fire weapons, supported by long ranged, but precise artillery and SOME airborne fires will be more than enough for our needs.

 

[Navor86]

Quote:
Fighter manufacturer offers deal if Canada commits to purchase

David Pugliese , Canwest News Service

Published: Sunday, September 28, 2008
U.S. aerospace giant Lockheed Martin hopes to offer Canada and other nations interested in its high-tech Joint Strike Fighter a deal that would see the price of each aircraft ordered set at around $50 million US in return for countries committing to the purchase by a certain time.
There has been some concern among nations, including Canada, about the final price of the JSF. Australia has estimated the price tag for the aircraft will be $70 million US per plane when it takes delivery of its aircraft in 2013, according to media reports.
Other nations have considered delaying their purchases since the cost of the planes is expected to be higher at the beginning of the program.


But Lockheed Martin hopes to have a fixed price for the aircraft ready for various countries to consider by next year, said Tom Burbage, Lockheed's general manager for JSF program integration.
Canadian defence officials acknowledge they have taken part in meetings where the increasing cost of the JSF has been discussed. But they say they don't have an estimated JSF price tag for Canada since the government has yet to officially commit to buying the planes and the cost would depend on the number of aircraft purchased.
Canada has already invested $150 million US in JSF. The government has also decided to take part in the next phase of the aircraft's development, agreeing to invest around $500 million US over the next 45 years to pay for the specialized equipment for JSF production.
Burbage said Lockheed is gathering information from its suppliers to come up with a fixed price. A standard price that has been used previously is around $50 million US per plane, he added.
"We're certainly hoping that the pricing we get back from our suppliers will either ratify or improve that number," he said.
The proposal would see countries putting in their orders for a five-year run of aircraft before a specific date in return for a firm fixed price.
Canada expects to make its decision in 2011 on whether to buy the JSF or another fighter jet.
Norway, which is also considering the purchase of other fighter aircraft, has requested a binding price for the JSF. Media reports note that it was given a cost of $58.7 million.
Other aerospace firms are trying to entice countries to instead order their aircraft. In August, Boeing offered Denmark the Super Hornet, an advanced version of the F-18.
There has also been some talk in Canadian defence circles about whether the air force can afford the JSF since it is also in the process of purchasing new C-130J transport planes and Chinook helicopters. In the past the Defence Department has projected the total cost of replacing its CF-18 fighter jets at around $10 billion but that figure was based on 80 aircraft.
The Harper government has announced that its long-term defence plan would see the purchase of 65 aircraft to replace the CF-18s, although it has not specified the JSF. The CF-18 fighter aircraft fleet is expected to be phased out between 2017 and 2020.

Canadian defence officials have declined several times to discuss the JSF program. However, in an e-mail issued several months ago, the department acknowledged there have been some increased costs in the JSF program but it remains unclear what impact those might have.
"The Department is closely monitoring the cost of the Joint Strike Fighter program; however, at this point the figures are still being examined," the e-mail noted. "The partner countries should have a better appreciation of the total cost increase and the impact of any increase at a later date."
"Unit aircraft costs will be dependent on final order quantities and schedules," the department e-mail added.
Government officials have promoted the benefits of the JSF program for Canada's aerospace industry. They say Canadian firms have been awarded around 150 JSF contracts so far. Canadian industrial opportunities are expected to total more than $5 billion US over the life of the JSF program. That total could increase if other nations decide to buy the fighter.
But Martin Shadwick, a strategic studies professor at York University, said that he expects Canada's purchase of JSF to proceed.
"Politically and industrially we've thrown our lot in with the JSF," he said. "It would be difficult to go elsewhere now. The question is how many, when and what model."

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/na...2-34b609d83f78

Now what do our experts think off that move?
Does Lockheed try to move the Delivery further back like 2018 and at the same time try to keep customers by this offset?
Or is this a very good deal for Australia also?

 

[tphuang]

Now what do our experts think off that move?
Does Lockheed try to move the Delivery further back like 2018 and at the same time try to keep customers by this offset?
Or is this a very good deal for Australia also?

I find it hard to believe that they would do that, considering some of the numbers I'm seeing right now as the price of JSF. With American dollar going through daily erosion, I just don't see how JSF can cost less than F-16 purchases from a couple of years ago.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Rumors, most notably published by "Aviation Australia" (subscriber access only) have indicated that the DH-4C Caribou, is to be retired from RAAF service in 2009. Mainly due to severe structural problems. Others have indicated that isn't the main reason, but agree in any case with the retirement date for the Caribou...

That's not such a big deal. It was going in 2010 anyway. In the short term, it's "rough" short field capability is to be replaced by Army King Air 350 aircraft.

What IS a big deal, is the even less widely publisher rumor, is that AIR-8000 is to be effectively cancelled, with NO replacement for the Bou whatsoever.

It seems that ADF believes the additional CH-47F's that are to be ordered and the additional airlift capacity inherent in Airlift Group (ALG) now that C-17 is in-service has negated the requirement for a direct replacement...

Interesting times...

 

[swerve]

Meanwhile, Alenia has sold 18 refurbished G.222s to the Afghan air force. This leaves Alenia with 8 spare G.222s. Probably quite cheap, a fair bit of life left in them, plenty of spares.

 

[winnyfield]

What IS a big deal, is the even less widely publisher rumor, is that AIR-8000 is to be effectively cancelled, with NO replacement for the Bou whatsoever.

It seems that ADF believes the additional CH-47F's that are to be ordered and the additional airlift capacity inherent in Airlift Group (ALG) now that C-17 is in-service has negated the requirement for a direct replacement...

Interesting times...

Interesting indeed. Always suspected the Chinook was factor in a 'Bou replacement, and the Chinook fleet has been worked very hard lately so it was always going to be prioritized. Also, MRH-90 doesn't look like being operationally ready soon.

btw/ the US C-27Js have started coming off the production line.

 

[phreeky]

Would be unfortunate to see the only fixed-wing aircraft here in Townsville disappear No doubt I'm not the only one who loves the Caribous.

Purely from a spectactors PoV, the C-27J does appear impressive, and if it is a suitable replacement then I think it'd be great for the RAAF to get some.

One question I do have, is can the Chooks really be considered a suitable Caribou replacement? Range? Speed? Payload? Cost?