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

[seaspear]

I'm pretty sure they were ridiculously expensive to keep in service by the end.

They required a huge number of maintenance hours per flight hour compared to pretty much any other aircraft. It would have been cost prohibitive to return them to service after any length of time even in fully climate controlled storage.

I agree that regular flights would of been expensive but I was thinking of a one time operation of a long range unmanned drone carrying more ordinance than Ghost Bat at more than twice the speed of , I would hope that future aircraft are not crushed and buried

China Converts Soviet MiG-19 J-6 Jets Into Drone Swarms - Telegraph.com

China is reviving thousands of Soviet-era J-6 fighters, converting them into pilotless drones built for swarm attacks that could overwhelm Taiwan’s defenses.

telegraph.com

 

[Todjaeger]

I agree that regular flights would of been expensive but I was thinking of a one time operation of a long range unmanned drone carrying more ordinance than Ghost Bat at more than twice the speed of , I would hope that future aircraft are not crushed and buried

China Converts Soviet MiG-19 J-6 Jets Into Drone Swarms - Telegraph.com

China is reviving thousands of Soviet-era J-6 fighters, converting them into pilotless drones built for swarm attacks that could overwhelm Taiwan’s defenses.

telegraph.com

I think you are fundamentally misjudging the likely costs and issues involved, particularly given the of potential retired aircraft fleet sizes available to Australia as well as the size of Australian aerospace industry.

Unless an aircraft was designed with an avionics, control systems and comms package allowing for either/or autonomous and remote operation, then such systems would need to be developed otherwise the retired aircraft, even if they could be returned to flightworthy condition, would remain stuck on the ground without someone in the pilot's seat.

Now the US and China have both taken fighter aircraft and developed remote control systems for them, but these were done for aircraft that had production runs numbering in the thousands of aircraft and both countries also had the aerospace industrial bases which produced the aircraft itself.

Doing some rough back of an envelope calculations, a roughly equivalent warhead weight to a fully-loaded F-111C could be matched by ~32 AGM-158B JASSM-ER with an acquisition cost of ~USD$56 mil. I tend to suspect that it would likely take at least as much, if not more, to both design and implement the sort of systems needed to turn a retired fighter/strike aircraft into a one-way smart munition. Further, given the LO characteristics of modern LACM's, they would be much less likely to get detected and intercepted before something as large as an ex-RAAF F-111 could get within actual striking distance.

 

[hauritz]

I agree that regular flights would of been expensive but I was thinking of a one time operation of a long range unmanned drone carrying more ordinance than Ghost Bat at more than twice the speed of , I would hope that future aircraft are not crushed and buried

China Converts Soviet MiG-19 J-6 Jets Into Drone Swarms - Telegraph.com

China is reviving thousands of Soviet-era J-6 fighters, converting them into pilotless drones built for swarm attacks that could overwhelm Taiwan’s defenses.

telegraph.com

The American's have an aircraft boneyard of course. If only Australia had huge areas of isolated, empty, flat desert.

 

[Todjaeger]

The American's have an aircraft boneyard of course. If only Australia had huge areas of isolated, empty, flat desert.

Australia has the space, but it has never had the sort aircraft production numbers that the US does. Further, apart from the size of the RAAF towards the end of WWII (~6,200+/- aircraft of various types) Australia has never maintained the sort of aircraft numbers where a large dedicated facility like Davis-Monthan would make sense to store retired aircraft for future re-use or as a source of spares and parts.

I would suggest people ask themselves what they think Australia should have spent to store ~40 F/A-18 A/B Hornets following their retirement from the RAAF, as well as what they think it would have likely cost to return those same retired aircraft back to some sort of useful Australian service.

 

[StevoJH]

Does that include the cost of finding the maintainers to restore them to flying standard while still having enough people to keep the Super Hornet and F-35A fleets going?

Oh, and the pilots to fly them on return to service while retaining enough pilots to operate the existing fleet of Super Hornet and F-35A? How are those pilots retaining or regaining currency?

 

[Todjaeger]

Australia has the space, but it has never had the sort aircraft production numbers that the US does. Further, apart from the size of the RAAF towards the end of WWII (~6,200+/- aircraft of various types) Australia has never maintained the sort of aircraft numbers where a large dedicated facility like Davis-Monthan would make sense to store retired aircraft for future re-use or as a source of spares and parts.

In order further drive this point home, out of some 4,600 F-16's produce (product is still ongoing AFAIK), a little under 1,500 were A/B variants from different production blocks, with Block 15 being the most numerous at ~983 aircraft by the time block production ended in 1996. However, production of newer F-16 blocks and variants continued, with Block 25 C/D variants entering service in 1984. One of the results of this is that that US was able to retire and replace relatively new, low flight hour F-16's with even newer, more advanced variants and production blocks. Hence the value of a facility like AMARG at Davis-Monthan AFB to the US. Retired aircraft which still should have plenty of useful life left in them can be preserved and stored for future use.

Looking at retired RAAF fighter aircraft, how much real, useful service life would have remained in the ~40 scrapped aircraft following between 31 and 37 years of service? Short of everything going to hell, justifying desperate measures at tremendous costs, would it make sense to try and inspect and reinforce or replace the centre barrel of a fighter that had been used for 30+ years to return the airframe to service?

What the US does works for the US, in part because the US has so much stored kit, and so much of what is stored has become outdated, but was not itself worn out. There is a fundamental difference between 35 year old airframe that served for perhaps five years, and a 35 year old airframe that served for 30 years. The likely has or had a significant number of the former, whilst Australia would likely only been able to have the later.

 

[StevoJH]

In order further drive this point home, out of some 4,600 F-16's produce (product is still ongoing AFAIK), a little under 1,500 were A/B variants from different production blocks, with Block 15 being the most numerous at ~983 aircraft by the time block production ended in 1996. However, production of newer F-16 blocks and variants continued, with Block 25 C/D variants entering service in 1984. One of the results of this is that that US was able to retire and replace relatively new, low flight hour F-16's with even newer, more advanced variants and production blocks. Hence the value of a facility like AMARG at Davis-Monthan AFB to the US. Retired aircraft which still should have plenty of useful life left in them can be preserved and stored for future use.

Looking at retired RAAF fighter aircraft, how much real, useful service life would have remained in the ~40 scrapped aircraft following between 31 and 37 years of service? Short of everything going to hell, justifying desperate measures at tremendous costs, would it make sense to try and inspect and reinforce or replace the centre barrel of a fighter that had been used for 30+ years to return the airframe to service?

What the US does works for the US, in part because the US has so much stored kit, and so much of what is stored has become outdated, but was not itself worn out. There is a fundamental difference between 35 year old airframe that served for perhaps five years, and a 35 year old airframe that served for 30 years. The likely has or had a significant number of the former, whilst Australia would likely only been able to have the later.

Accountants have a lot to answer for.

Surely it would make more sense to purchase new airframes at 10-15 years into their service life than it does to spend a fair chunk of the replacement cost on upgrading existing old airframes with limited remaining service life?

 

[StingrayOZ]

We have the MQ28.

While not carrying F-111 payloads its range is very good. Its much much cheaper to operate and buy. You could buy and operate for a year 24 MQ28 for reactivating 1 F-111 for anything.

I don't think people realise how much range they have.

 

[Todjaeger]

Accountants have a lot to answer for.

Surely it would make more sense to purchase new airframes at 10-15 years into their service life than it does to spend a fair chunk of the replacement cost on upgrading existing old airframes with limited remaining service life?

Is this question in reference to ADF and RAAF procurement practices, or US DoD ones? The two nations' procurement processes as different for a number of reasons.

 

[StevoJH]

Is this question in reference to ADF and RAAF procurement practices, or US DoD ones? The two nations' procurement processes as different for a number of reasons.

Its relevant in both cases.

In the RAAF case it was HUG for the Hornet and the abandoned CBR program, possibly the current upgrades for the Super Hornets and Growlers but at least in that case i'm not sure if there is really any in production platforms that you could replace them with.

In the USAF current examples would be the upgrades to very old F-16's and F-15E's.

Navy examples would be the upgrades to the Hobart class that are costing a large chunk of the cost of replacing the platform with something newer, or the US upgrades to Flight I and Flight II Burke class destroyers which have resulted from US industry being unable to build replacements at the required rate due to a period of lack of orders causing damage to the ship building industry.

 

[Todjaeger]

Its relevant in both cases.

In the RAAF case it was HUG for the Hornet and the abandoned CBR program, possibly the current upgrades for the Super Hornets and Growlers but at least in that case i'm not sure if there is really any in production platforms that you could replace them with.

In the USAF current examples would be the upgrades to very old F-16's and F-15E's.

Navy examples would be the upgrades to the Hobart class that are costing a large chunk of the cost of replacing the platform with something newer, or the US upgrades to Flight I and Flight II Burke class destroyers which have resulted from US industry being unable to build replacements at the required rate due to a period of lack of orders causing damage to the ship building industry.

I would need to know more about which specific upgrades you are referring to, especially when speaking about the F-16's because there are quite a few different potential programmes all with different rationales. One thing to keep in mind though when speaking about very 'old' aircraft, is that an aircraft could itself be quite old, but if it still has significant airframe flight hours left then upgrading or replacing avionics could still deliver a worthwhile aircraft for a reasonable cost and risk.

If memory serves, one thing the US has done it take some of their mothballed early block F-16's stored at AMARG and run them through some inspection and upgrade programmes before selling them to friendly foreign gov'ts that want/need more modern fighters, but cannot reasonably afford new production F-16's or other comparable aircraft.

As for the RAAF HUG and CBR programmes... From my POV, the HUG programme was reasonable and certain understandable in terms of concept. The RAAF Hornets were all A/B models, built between 1984 and 1990, and were fitted with the original APG-65 radar. The APG-73 radar did not start getting fitted to US Hornets until ~1992, and AFAIK were part of the HUG 2.1 programme for the RAAF. By the time Australia started HUG (~1999), RAAF Hornets had been in service for up to 15 years and other air forces in the region were starting to acquire aircraft which could potentially match or exceed RAAF Hornets in terms of capability. This in turn meant that Australia needed to either upgrade the existing fighter force, or else seek a replacement despite they still being airworthy. Two of the potential replacement aircraft, the F/A-18E/F SHornet and the Typhoon were in production but had not entered into service yet. Given that the replacement options were either not ready for service, or slightly newer versions (F/A-18C/D Hornets) or F-16C/D or F-15E so likely a slight capability increase, at the cost of an entirely new and often different fighter force.

As for the CBR, IIRC that was initially started to ensure sufficient airframe life until Australia could replace the HUG Bugs, but it turned out to both be overly difficult and costly, as well as less necessary than initially thought, leading to the CBR cancellation.

 

[seaspear]

There has been a question on the F-111 of its age I would suggest perhaps its actual flying hours are a true guide, apart from its role over East Timor it was was a fairly uneventful usage ,there was work done in Australia to address any fatigue in the wings back in about 2010 with patent application , as I have already stated I would of thought aircraft like this may be assessed to be flown in an unmanned role

 

[StevoJH]

The USAF currently has a program to upgrade 600+ Block 40 and Block 50 F-16C/D to Block 70 status which would bring them to the same standard as new build F-16V. The newest of those airframes are 20+ years old.

I believe there is also an upgrade program for the newest of the F-15E's, though I'm not sure how extensive it is. It definitely includes the replacement of their entire EW suite. The newest of those aircraft are 25 years old.

 

[StevoJH]

There has been a question on the F-111 of its age I would suggest perhaps its actual flying hours are a true guide, apart from its role over East Timor it was was a fairly uneventful usage ,there was work done in Australia to address any fatigue in the wings back in about 2010 with patent application , as I have already stated I would of thought aircraft like this may be assessed to be flown in an unmanned role

By the time they were retired from service they required something insane like 180 maintenance hours per flight hour.

The USAF retired them in the 1990's because they made up 9% of Tactical Air Commands fleet but consumed 25% of their maintenance budget.

 

[Todjaeger]

The USAF currently has a program to upgrade 600+ Block 40 and Block 50 F-16C/D to Block 70 status which would bring them to the same standard as new build F-16V. The newest of those airframes are 20+ years old.

I believe there is also an upgrade program for the newest of the F-15E's, though I'm not sure how extensive it is. It definitely includes the replacement of their entire EW suite. The newest of those aircraft are 25 years old.

It is not just the age of the airframes, but how many flight hours are remaining that are likely most important. A 25 year old F-16 that was properly mothballed and stored at AMARG for 20+ years, and still has perhaps 80% of it's useful flight hours remaining would likely be a decent candidate for upgrades. No idea how many of those aircraft might fit those parameters, but one at least gets the idea.

 

[Takao]

Accountants have a lot to answer for.

Surely it would make more sense to purchase new airframes at 10-15 years into their service life than it does to spend a fair chunk of the replacement cost on upgrading existing old airframes with limited remaining service life?

Yes. In every major case, the life extension ended up costing more than a replacement, and increased the cost of the replacement. It is not just the ADF, it's a common theme across the West. The Leander MLU is a classic example of something that looked good, but failed miserably in terms of $$ and capability. Now the RN is repeating history with Type 23 replacement - they are built for an 18 year life.... The classic example is for us is the M113 - we have spent the cost of two replacement projects on a fleet that is worse than when we bought it - and that's before you add the cost of LAND 400-3.

Collins is showing this, as is ANZAC. The Hornets came close. Kiowa's avoided the MLU cost, but still should have been replaced in the early 90s. C-130s have avoided this through regular purchases of new, upgraded fleets.

The issue is two-fold - no MLU can match a new build for capability (walk me through the M113AS4's computer aided aiming, its electro-optical sights and it's counter drone capabilities) and the MLU is operating in the wrong half of the bathtub curve. Old things get expensive, and quite frankly, no matter the upgrade, unless you replace everything (which is more expensive than a new build) you still have the old bits there. Also remember, every dollar spent on that old platform is one less for the replacement - Kiowa/Tiger is an excellent example of this where millions were diverted from Tiger to Kiowa at the very start of the program. And that was for a Kiowa, arguably the second most simple platform we have owned (after the bayonet).

20 - 25 years is ideal for a military platform. There will be some exceptions, but pretty much anything expecting to take/give fire is restricted to 20 years. The gap is just too big. People point at the new Apache's as proof we should have got them instead of Tiger - ignoring that the E is two generations beyond the A and, while looking the same, is very different under the skin. Like, 25 years more advanced different. Likewise our new M1s look just like the old ones - expect they are not.

I get the idea of keeping old platforms on the shelf, but these aren't rifles. The require $$ to maintain (our sustainment is already too little for the existing fleet), many $$ to refurb (at the point you will be haemorrhaging $$ in the fight) and you still are facing a modern threat with 2 - 3 generation old materiel. I get the argument - better to have a mediocre F-111 instead of nothing. Except I disagree. If there is a mediocre F-111, it'll get used and we lose two valuable aircrew (who likely have fresh combat experience and in the early days of the war they, like all veterans, are worth more than anything). If there is nothing, the planners will do a different approach - and those aircrew survive to fight back in a new-build F-15F/18J/35D. Reverting to my soap box, would you want to face a PLA-N SAG in Mirage III or Sabre? Because that's what our mech inf are doing. Wouldn't it be better to hold them back, ramp up the production line of AS21, and put them in some new build, modern cars?

Too many people, including my peers, get too sentimental over platforms. 20 years and out. Its what our people deserve, and what our planners need.