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

[FutureTank]

Cost of F/A-18 Super Hornet

Just curious if there is breakdown of what RAAF will get for AU$162.5 million unit cost? At that price I would expect some Growlers to be included in the package to compensate for the RF-111.

 

[Magoo]

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!!!

This isn't common knowledge but yes, industry-funded bench testing of a rudimentary datalink capability for the F-111 has been performed, as have tests with J-series satellite guided weapons. It's a long way short of being able to field such a capability though.

Coooeeee!(just for you Magoo)

AAARRRGGGHHH!!! :shudder You had to say it, didn't you!!!

 

[Magoo]

Just curious if there is breakdown of what RAAF will get for AU$162.5 million unit cost? At that price I would expect some Growlers to be included in the package to compensate for the RF-111.

The 24 aircraft cost $2.9bn which includes all on board systems, manuals, aircraft specific GSE, initial spares including four engines and other ancillaries.

The rest of the $6.6bn is made up of training, spares, base and infrastructure upgrades, a weapons package, in-service support for 10 years, all fuel and expendables, ane even all manning costs!

I remarked at the time that it is a dangerous precedent Dr Nelson set by quoting an entire program cost up front!

Cheers

Magoo

 

[Tasman]

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.

Hi Peter,

One of the big problems with the Four Corners Program was the fact that the anti SH lobby way outnumbered the pro lobby. I know that Nelson and Houston declined to appear. One reason for failure of the Defence Chief to appear may have been the election campaign convention that prevents public servants from commenting on politically sensitive policy decisions.

The claims made that the F-111 is safe to continue beyond 2010 were not tested in any depth by the presenter. It may or may not be the case. If there is any doubt, however, I would want to err on the side of caution. Also, one of the 'experts' interviewed was involved with a company that stood to benefit from an F-111 upgrade program so his views, IMO, are hardly independent. As McTaff said the F-111 is a very old airframe. Australia has had its fingers badly burnt in a number of upgrade programs, some of them far less sophisticated than a virtual rebuild of the F-111 fleet. The FFG upgrade and the APC upgrade come to mind. We can also look at the Seasprite helo fiasco where the attempt to rebuild and update old airframes and install an up to date software package has run into huge troubles. IMO, it would have been a huge gamble to have pursued this course of action with the F-111.

I do agree with you that we need to see much greater transparency with major defence acquisitions. IMO, the people who are going to have to fight with and maintain the equipment are the ones who should be making the decisions and be seen to be making those decisions. The current debate demonstrates that regardless of how much input the professionals in the ADF have actually had in the fighter selection process a large proportion of the general public perceives that there has been political interference.

However, the FA-18F decision is now water under the bridge and it does seem that the RAAF personnel in the field are more than happy with its selection. Throughout this and other threads there has been a lot of discussion re the merits of the SH versus Typhoon and late model F-15. We even had a Frenchmen strongly pushing the merits of the Rafale. On the whole I think the arguments have come down fairly strongly in favour of the SH (I know ELP will disagree ) as the most suitable selection to cover any capability gap for Australia arising from the early retirement of the F-111 and the possible early rundown of the classic Hornet fleet.

Tas

 

[gf0012-aust]

Hi GF.

The CBR going bad wasn't an original reason for procurement of the Super Hornet.

read my response carefully again. I did not say that it was the original decision, it was however one of the raft of things that DSTO did identify as investment and support breakers when they did their own review. In fact, I remember sitting in on some SME meetings after the Pig G's were bought and it was raised then as an issue. It's not whether you can make a replacement widget - its whether the cost benefit analysis, public interest, platform investment and risk analysis all make sense. There are a raft of issues that make continued investment support into doing a Lazarus on the F-111 questionable. and quite frankly, I would trust the work done by various operators at DSTO over people who have a vested commercial self interest as well as a history of angst against the ADF anytime.

One of the things we were taught in our Media Liaison Training was that lobby noise is all about constant colour and movement. The anti-ADF brigade have started to understand colour and movement, that doesn't mean that they are of high integrity and working in the public interest. I find their motives questionable. The only one I don't know is Stephenson, but blind freddy can pull apart his precis on the F-22 without much effort. That to me brings in the question of competency and motive.

Well now with the CBR going bad and using justification after the fact,

are you deliberately misrepresenting what I've said? The CBR problem is something thats been identified after the first few have been done - that raises the question of the original risk analysis. Nobody I know of uses it as justification post decision, but its a fool who seeks to ignore that emerging issues should be swept away as it doesn't fit their emotional and idealogical view (and in some cases their own commercial self interest).

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.

In the last 12 months we've (Australia) developed tech to improve structual issues on the JSF, and most likely that tech will migrate to a Block II F-22 - does that mean that we should apply this solution to the F-111? Hardly. It gets back to cost benefit and risk analysis.

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 .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.

Funnily enough, the issue of rocket ejectors was raised in an SME meeting I attended soon after we bought the Pig G's. We bought the last of the late decay rocket ejectors. There are no more at DM. We could under a war situation go out and fast track a rocket ejector solution, but one immediately has to ask, in the current environment, is the expense of building a replacement "sim choon" rocket ejector smart use of taxpayers money against the F-111 fleet? (and we don't have all of them active, and we didn't have all of them active 4 years ago either) Again, someone has to do and did do the CBA for the decision.

No offence, but I will pick the people in DSTO over individuals who have personal grievances against the ADF, who have potential commercial conflicts of interest, and who are not current with the available warfighting information anytime.

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?

I'm more worried that a potentially incoming DefMin (assuming that ShadDefMin gets the job) is so obviously influenced by people who don't have currency and yet present themselves as platform experts.

If anyone seriously accepted that the dog and pony 2012 strike show as presented by Criss and Co was valid, then it goes straight back to PT Barnums well used but historically correct maxim about "suckers" and birth rates.

A mobile phone engineer rated as a glider pilot and who has professed in some arenas that he knows more about radar systems than anyone in DSTO doesn't hold much water for me.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[RubiconNZ]

Just thinking, would a change in Government affect any airforce procurement plans? Wonder what's the attitude of Kevin Rudd towards defence?

Well according to other ABC well respected and highly sucessful current affairs show The Chaser, Rudd will have the same attitude of PM Howards. nfloorl:

 

[Tasman]

Just thinking, would a change in Government affect any airforce procurement plans? Wonder what's the attitude of Kevin Rudd towards defence?

In response to the Four Corners Program The Shadow Spokesman for Defence attacked the government's procurement methods but didn't actually oppose the SH purchase.

Labor attacks Govt over Super Hornets

Labor says there should have been a comparative analysis before the Government committed to buying the Super Hornet.

Labor's defence spokesman says the Federal Government's national security credentials are in tatters, after claims the Government's $6 billion contract to buy new jet fighters was based on flawed test results.

The Government announced earlier this year that it would buy 24 Super Hornets as a stop gap measure until new Joint Strike Fighters are delivered in 2014, to replace Australia's F111 fleet.

A former Air Force project officer has told ABC's Four Corners that a critical mistake was made during tests used to justify replacing the F111s.

Labor's Joel Fitzgibbon says the Government needs to be held accountable for its decisions.

"The Super Hornet may or may not be the best aircraft for Australia, the jury no doubt is still out," he said.

"What is of real concern here is lack of process, no comparative analysis was done, this is either a very bad case of negligence, or even worse, a case of very bad political interference."

But the Australian Defence Force (ADF) has defended the Super Hornet's capabilities, especially against the Russian-built Sukhoi fighters that the Indonesians and Chinese are buying.

The ADF says the Super Hornets will ensure Australia's air combat edge is maintained in the region and that no other aircraft can better complement the country's existing air combat system.

http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/30/2074356.htm?section=justin

It was also reported that:

Labor has accused the government of mismanaging the acquisition of new combat aircraft.

Opposition defence spokesman Joel Fitzgibbon says the Howard government has committed Australia to buying both Boeing Super Hornet and Lockheed F-35 Joint Strike fighters.

Labor accepts both fighters will be part of the RAAF's air capability but will review whether additional measures are needed to maintain Australia's air superiority.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/071030/2/14ssg.html

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the selection process the SH purchase is signed and sealed - just not yet delivered.


Tas

 

[Sheqel]

As a taxpayer (technically...) I'm more worried about how the decision was made.

I understand the story was blatantly biased against the Government, the DoD, and the RAAF. And we can't know what was really negotiated behind those doors. But if what they said is even partially true, it's very worrying.

The RAAF should seize control of the decision making. Do it like a Wheels or Motor Car Of The Year test. Get a bunch of experts together, and rate each one on a points scale.

Whoever wins gets a couple of hundred bil'.


They could even turn it into a reality TV show...

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

As a taxpayer (technically...) I'm more worried about how the decision was made.

I understand the story was blatantly biased against the Government, the DoD, and the RAAF. And we can't know what was really negotiated behind those doors. But if what they said is even partially true, it's very worrying.

The RAAF should seize control of the decision making. Do it like a Wheels or Motor Car Of The Year test. Get a bunch of experts together, and rate each one on a points scale.

Whoever wins gets a couple of hundred bil'.


They could even turn it into a reality TV show...

AFAIK, and perhaps magoo or barra can confirm this, a few years back when real questions about the Pig's survivability arose the RAAF did a study on possible bridgeing replacements and F18F is what they came up with. The only thing that is questionable in my mind is whether the F111 was dangerous to fly post 2010. Its pretty obvious that from a maintainability and availability, not to mention a capability standpoint SH much better.

 

[McTaff]

I do agree with you that we need to see much greater transparency with major defence acquisitions. IMO, the people who are going to have to fight with and maintain the equipment are the ones who should be making the decisions and be seen to be making those decisions. The current debate demonstrates that regardless of how much input the professionals in the ADF have actually had in the fighter selection process a large proportion of the general public perceives that there has been political interference.

Also quoting:

The RAAF should seize control of the decision making. Do it like a Wheels or Motor Car Of The Year test. Get a bunch of experts together, and rate each one on a points scale.

And to reiterate, I said earlier the end user should be the ones evaluating the systems from Go to Whoa. You are both exactly 100% on the same page as me here and I can't stress it enough.

No sense it Defence aquiring stocks of Dwarven Combat Baked Goods* if none of us can utilise it to the same standard of deadly effectiveness as well as the Dwarves can.

However, the FA-18F decision is now water under the bridge and it does seem that the RAAF personnel in the field are more than happy with its selection. Throughout this and other threads there has been a lot of discussion re the merits of the SH versus Typhoon and late model F-15. We even had a Frenchmen strongly pushing the merits of the Rafale. On the whole I think the arguments have come down fairly strongly in favour of the SH (I know ELP will disagree ) as the most suitable selection to cover any capability gap for Australia arising from the early retirement of the F-111 and the possible early rundown of the classic Hornet fleet.

Truly, a lot of folk are actually pleased with the choice. It does make good sense, as it creates an overlap with existing life of our current fleet, requires less training than other alternatives, provides for a larger buffer zone in the case of a replacement not arriving on time, and they are a capable aircraft.

Plenty of RAAFies are pretty keen to get their hands on one.

As for the F-15, that's a wonderful, wonderful aircraft, but requires a lot more work. Better than the Super Hornets? Well, depends on the mission, but in some cases yes. But we already have a similar beast to the Super Hornet, so this introduction was actually a halfway decent idea. The motivation behind it and the execution I am going to stay well away from.

I'm more worried that a potentially incoming DefMin (assuming that ShadDefMin gets the job) is so obviously influenced by people who don't have currency and yet present themselves as platform experts.

If anyone seriously accepted that the dog and pony 2012 strike show as presented by Criss and Co was valid, then it goes straight back to PT Barnums well used but historically correct maxim about "suckers" and birth rates.

A mobile phone engineer rated as a glider pilot and who has professed in some arenas that he knows more about radar systems than anyone in DSTO doesn't hold much water for me.

This made me laugh. Not because it was a good joke, but because it is true. Sometimes the 'experts' aren't experts, jsut simply people who sloshed around in the engineering/procurement world enough to talk both legalese and jargonese. Plenty of people out there that work on the "Baffle them with bull---t" theory, and surprisingly enough it seems to work.

Not always do appearances, an expert make.

*See Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels.

 

[FutureTank]

ABC's take on SH purchase

At a meeting of former ADF servicemen and women today one former fairly high ranking RAAF officer who knew some of the people featured personally, in a response to the request for opinion only said "sad".

For those that claim the decision was made too quickly, the ADF has a fast-tracked approval process in place that was approved by the Parliament, and that includes the Opposition.

The ministerial announcement however does say $3.9 billion and not 2.9 billion for the aircraft. Although the SHs are 50% bigger aircraft, and have far more advanced gadgets inside then the current fleet of RAAF aircraft, it still makes me wonder.

Here is a quiz question. Which Army aircraft have flown 8000 combat hours with only one flight made in Australia?

 

[Aussie Digger]

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.

There would not have been time to hear from them anyway, as the producer made clear on the 4 Corners forum. I'm sure that Grp Capt Robertson had more to say then 1 or 2 lines, yet this was all that was shown of an opposing view.

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.

Perhaps a dedicated "investigative" Journalist should actually seek comment from the DSTO, the organisation that conducted said test, as opposed to quoting some people, who spoke to some people who allegedly "know" the truth...

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.

As opposed to the proposed upgrade sto the F-111, which of course are of the most minimal possible cost, at least according to APA.

Before sprouting something as easy as $6.6B! Perhaps a careful examination of what it costs to run a modern fighter jet squadron for 13 years could be in order? Apparently to run the current 17x strong F-111 squadron, it costs $150m per year. Add that up for 13 years and see what it works out to.

I'll even tell you if you like, AUD$1.95b. Nearly 1/3rd of the TOTAL cost of the SH's right there. Consider the fact that 24x Super Hornets will be operated as well.

Then consider that the Super Hornet package includes the cost of not only the aircraft and running costs, but a support package, a weapons and sensor package.

I think you'll find the cost not quite so outrageous.

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.

So could a 737. I don't think we'd hear APA applauding if RAAF chose that to replace the F-111.

Fact is F-111 contributes nothing to air superiority, specifically because it is a strike aircraft not a fighter.

F-111 is becoming increasingly obsolescent and no amount of upgrades will ever change that. It has a large radar cross section and will never be capable of fighting modern combat aircraft no matter what you did to it or how much you spent on it.

I do also like the fact that the Super Hornet's radar cross section is compromised along with it's performance because external weapons are carried.

Can you remind me where the F-111 carries it's weapons? And electronic warfare systems and self defence missiles and it's datalink (for it's standoff weapons)?

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).

So if RAAF are not expert then who is? A self styled "strategist" who has never spent a day serving in an air force? Perhaps the owner of a flight engineering company who hasn't served in RAAF in nearly 20 years?

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

That will help the enormous radar cross section, complete lack of networked capability, lack of modern weapons integration, lack of modern radar and electronic warfare capability and enormous maintenance effort, large cost and orphan fleet status immeasurably I'd imagine...

However to paraphrase the most knowledgeable person on "networked systems" in Australia, given that physical structural changes to the F-111 required nothing more than a "bit of sheet metal working", I guess such upgrades wouldn't be too difficult or expensive...

Regards

AD

 

[Magoo]

Here is a quiz question. Which Army aircraft have flown 8000 combat hours with only one flight made in Australia?

Scan Eagle UAV - great piece of kit!

 

[FutureTank]

Scan Eagle UAV - great piece of kit!

Was that too easy? I knew there was a detachment in A'stan testing it, but apparently its gone way beyond testing. The 20th boys and girls are quite in demand it seems, and doing a lot of great work
Literally the quiet achievers!

 

[old faithful]

just read in australian aviation mag, that the RAAF may get a follow on buy of a further 24 S H including 8 G models. Magoo, do you know any more on this? or barra? Also stated that P8 requirement was 10 - 15 aircraft, this suggests that the P8 has been selected?
regarding the fed election, i dont think its a one horse race as the media suggests. most people i know are sticking with the devil they know, regardless of what the polls say.(or the worm!)

 

[McTaff]

just read in australian aviation mag, that the RAAF may get a follow on buy of a further 24 S H including 8 G models.

For two reasons, I will avoid answering that question by posing another question:

Is this something the magazine projects the US will offer or is it something they are predicting Australia will ask for?

 

[old faithful]

For two reasons, I will avoid answering that question by posing another question:

Is this something the magazine projects the US will offer or is it something they are predicting Australia will ask for?

wish i could post a link,but sorry cant. The way I read it was, a rumor that the RAAF wanted them due to fatigue in the legacy hornets, and flight hours on the old airframes by 2012. leaving the RAAF with only about 24 legacy F18,s and the 24 SH by then. predicting further deleys in the F35...2020....

 

[Aussie Digger]

Was that too easy? I knew there was a detachment in A'stan testing it, but apparently its gone way beyond testing. The 20th boys and girls are quite in demand it seems, and doing a lot of great work
Literally the quiet achievers!

Scan Eagle has done most of it's flying in support of the Australian Army in Iraq, and technically it's Boeing that's in-demand, as they operate it for us...

 

[old faithful]

hey,AD, is Aust Aviation a credible publication? the article also mentions possible ressuection of the KIWI,s macchi,s...as trainers only.