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

[lobbie111]

Lobbie, you will be telling us we dont need an airforce next wont you?

NO!!!!! I would never let Australia become a tumor like New Zealand. Our Air force is vital in the case of a full scale invasion or Coalition support action but I think you fail to see that the government or the defense force for that matter will probably not risk the collateral damage that could be done by bombs especially on small islands with dense urban populations.


BTW...If it were me I'd want up to 150 F-35's 75 on both East and West Coasts and 50 (again split between coasts) F-22's or a similar Aircraft.

With 25 of the F-35's on each coast being the 'B" version to be used for strike and close support just like the RAF used their harriers, in fact they could probably be adopted by the army.

 

[jaffo4011]

fresh eyes needed for australia...super hornet review

the canberra times,jan 08;

An independent expert with no involvement in past decisions ought to conduct the Government's review of Australia's future air combat capability, a leading defence lobby group said yesterday.

New Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon's review is expected to focus on whether the still-in-development Joint Strike Fighter is the right option as the long-term replacement for Australia's aging F-111s and F/A-18s and whether Australia needs 24 Super Hornets, ordered for $6.6 billion by the last government, as a stop-gap option in case the Joint Strike Fighter or F-35 Lightning II is running late.

Australian Strategic Policy Institute analyst Andrew Davies said that even with "the best will in the world" it was difficult for people involved in past decisions to "step back and start afresh".

"For that reason and to provide a measure of protection against the inevitable furious lobbying that will follow the release of any report the review should be headed up by a well-credentialled independent analyst with experience in the aerospace industry," he said.

The review's first priority was to consider what the air force was expected to do and in what circumstances before looking at the details of each plane.

"At the lower end, the RAAF might be called upon to neutralise the threat from a handful of aircraft operated by a regional air force without the assistance of an Airborne Warning and Control System or air-to-air refuelling," he said.

"At the upper end, operations against a major regional power in the next decade could be opposed by hundreds of capable aircraft backed by AWACS and an integrated air defence system."

The Government would need to decide which threat scenarios were credible and how much it wanted to spend on the capability. If the review reconsidered the F-35 purchase, the new minister ought to formally ask the United States whether it would sell Australia its F-22 Raptor aircraft which is banned for export to determine definitively whether it is an option instead of the F-35.

Many experts say the F-22 is a better aircraft for Australia's needs, although it is more expensive and detractors say it does not have the strike capabilities of the F-35.

Other options include the F-15 Eagle, Dassault Rafael, Eurofighter Typhoon and Saab Gripen.

Australia is expected to make a decision on final approval of the project late this year, but Dr Davies said there would be "little downside of deferring that decision until later".

However, a decision needed to be made sooner on whether the Super Hornet order should be cancelled because the cost of such a decision would increase with time.

"As a matter of priority, the review should examine hard data on relative performance much of which is not public and decide whether the Super Hornet is a viable bridging capability that will allow time to develop a long-term solution," he said.

Mr Fitzgibbon has been highly critical of the process behind the Super Hornet purchase.

Critics have said it is not advanced enough to combat more modern aircraft in the region, such as the Russian-made Sukhoi Su-30 Flankers.

 

[jaffo4011]

canberra times,cont'd

The Federal Government's review of air combat capability could result in Australia dumping the Joint Strike Fighter and Super Hornet aircraft at a cost of several hundred million dollars.
A spokeswoman for Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon confirmed yesterday Labor's promised review of air combat capability was about to begin, but would not comment on reports the Super Hornet could be dumped.
Mr Fitzgibbon had promised to honour the $6.6billion Super Hornet contract for 24 planes but said last week few of the previous government's decisions were as controversial as its decision to buy them "without proper due process or capability justification".
"I want to make sure Australia remains the dominant player in our region and taxpayers are receiving value for money," he said.
The head of the Australian National University's Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Professor Hugh White, said he did not want to guess how much it would cost the Government to cancel the $6.6 billion Super Hornet contract, "but I think it would be several hundred million dollars involved".
Manufacturer Boeing would be able to claim any costs incurred so far it might have already ordered components from its suppliers, for example and could seek damages.
Although no contract had been signed for the Joint Strike Fighter, the Government would be unable to recoup any of the $300million it had already spent if it decided not to continue with the $15 billion program.
Cancelling plans to buy either plane would carry the additional cost of acquiring alternatives, especially if the review decided a stop-gap was needed between the retirement of Australia's ageing F-111s and F/A-18s and the introduction of the Joint Strike Fighter.
"I have a lot of criticisms of the decision that the last government took to buy the Super Hornets or at least the way they took the decision but ... we have a serious risk of a serious capability gap, which may well need to be covered by the purchase of another interim aircraft," Professor White said.
Labor's review was a sensible step to determine whether a stop-gap such as the Super Hornet was needed, he said.
"It [future air capability] is clearly one of the biggest issues for Australia's future defence capability and the fact they are getting stuck into it at this fairly early stage has got to be taken as a very promising sign."
Professor White said the review had to be separate to the white paper and completed more quickly. A decision on whether to buy the Super Hornets could be made within three months.
Australian Strategic Policy Institute analyst Andrew Davies said the review would be better served coming after the white paper.
"The very first thing you have to do is work out what air capability you want, and that is a job for the white paper, and everything else should flow from that," he said.
"... One of the first things you have to decide is what exactly you want your air force to do, and if it is to go up against state-of-the-art front-line defences, then you need state-of-the-art equipment yourself.
"If, however, you think that you would only do that in coalition, then perhaps what you should be looking at is equipment that is more suited to coalition operations, in which case the Super Hornet is actually not a bad choice."
He urged the review also consider the future of the Joint Strike Fighter.
"We still don't know how much we will have to pay for them, and it is not 100 per cent clear when we would get our aircraft, either."
Other aircraft options could include the Eurofighter Typhoon or F-22 Raptor.
The Joint Strike Fighter, or F-35 Lightning II, is planned to be a fifth-generation stealthy multi-role fighter but is still being developed.
Australia plans to buy up to 100 of the planes by about 2015 at a cost of up to $15billion.
The Government must decide late this year whether to continue with the in-principle agreement to buy them.


Mod edit:

Thread merged with normal Royal Australian Air Force thread.

AD

 

[Aussie Digger]

Do "fresh eyes" include APA, Hugh White and Andrew Davies by any chance?

Sorry for being cynical, but Defence air combat professionals should be the ONLY "eyes" reviewing these decisions and passing on their professional opinions to the Minister.

Who else has the security classification and expertise to decide these matters in Australia besides Air Force?

 

[jaffo4011]

Do "fresh eyes" include APA, Hugh White and Andrew Davies by any chance?

Sorry for being cynical, but Defence air combat professionals should be the ONLY "eyes" reviewing these decisions and passing on their professional opinions to the Minister.

Who else has the security classification and expertise to decide these matters in Australia besides Air Force?

exactly and its always the way.

its generally only when top brass and politicians with little knowledge get involved that it all goes fubar.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I don't understand why the RAAF does not like the F-35 and wants the F-22, I mean the F-35 will be one of the best fighters out there except for the F-22. Lets see F-35 vs SU-30/35...yeah I'm going to have to bet that the F-35 will win. The U.S. has banned all F-22 exports to other countries, the USAF needs to get more F-22s for itself(200 more than 183) before they even talk about exporting the aircraft.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I don't understand why the RAAF does not like the F-35 and wants the F-22, I mean the F-35 will be one of the best fighters out there except for the F-22. Lets see F-35 vs SU-30/35...yeah I'm going to have to bet that the F-35 will win. The U.S. has banned all F-22 exports to other countries, the USAF needs to get more F-22s for itself(200 more than 183) before they even talk about exporting the aircraft.

The RAAF is a big fan of both the Super Hornet and the F-35 Lightning II.

However a new Government which has promised to "review" our air combat plans has just come to power in Australia and that's what this refers to.

Personally, I suspect the existing plans will remain in place without change.

 

[Cooch]

I am amongst those who consider that the primary motivation for this review to be political, rather than a real concern over the capability of the aircraft.. If you'll pardon my cynicism, this process provides an opportunity to have a dig at a departed government without actually having to reverse the decision made by the previous administration - in favour of a less cost-effective option.

Our new PM, Mr Rudd, has a penchant for setting up committees... We should not be surprised if we see more of them in matters relating to defence.

Regards............ Peter

 

[phreeky]

I am amongst those who consider that the primary motivation for this review to be political, rather than a real concern over the capability of the aircraft.

Cynic or not, do you think such a review is not justified?

Or do you believe it's a politicians place to decide what hardware is most appropriate rather than relying on the experts as part of some sort of proper selection process? And if such an improper selection has been made, would a proper review of this selection be a good idea?

From a political standpoint, the opposition is basically not even in the media at present, a review for political reasons seems to score them no points anyway.

 

[Cooch]

As this is a forum for military, rather than political concerns, I'll restrict my answer to this.

Politicians are the people who have most to do with the decisions of who we fight, when, and how much we spend on preparedness. These are decisons that they can and do make on a regular basis. Whether well or poorly is another subject.

Once these parameters have been established, I suggest that it is then the people at the sharp end who are in the best place to decide (or recommend) how limited financial resources are spent. Of course there will be some degree of cross-referencing as the costs of any given level of capability will be assessed against known and potential threats.

Creating yet another level of bureaucracy in order to second-gues both groups of decision-makers is not - IMHO - the most clever of ideas, ecept when it comes to avoiding responsibility.

And if such an improper selection has been made, would a proper review of this selection be a good idea?

This is placing the cart before the horse. As has been pointed out extensively on this thread, there is little reason to believe that an improper decision has been made.

Thankyou........ Peter

 

[barra]

Or do you believe it's a politicians place to decide what hardware is most appropriate rather than relying on the experts as part of some sort of proper selection process?

The RAAF had a team of pilots, engineers and number crunchers assess potential aircraft to tide us over until F-35's arrive in numbers when it became clear that a). JSF deliveries were sliding to the right and b). the F-111 was becoming costlier and more manpower intensive to operate/support then was economically sensible. The Super Hornet was the aircraft that the team recommended to the Govt of the day. The reasons behind aquiring SH were and still are sound, the process was not the normal process followed and this is the problem the new Govt has with it. The model used for acquisition of the SH was, interestingly, the C-17 acquisition. Funnily enough the C-17 purchase has been hailed a major success in getting a major capability in operation in short time. Ironic hey!

One other problem was the insistence by Govt and RAAF brass, at the time, that an interim fighter was not required, JSF would arrive on time. Maybe this was a foolish approach to take at the time, a project as huge as JSF was bound to encounter problems. On the same point no high ranking officer with any plans for career progression would openly contradict the ruling govt's position, to do so would be suicide when promotions/appointments at star rank are essentially decided politically. The ADF is an apolitical organisation and as such would never openly contradict government policy unless they believed it to be illegal.

The new Govt. appears to be trying to make mileage out of the SH purchase to deflect attention from spiralling fuel prices, interest rates and the economy in general. They have not had a good start and Rudd risk's becoming a one term wonder if he can't turn it around. A decision to cancel the SH order would be costly to us financially and to our alliance with the US. The first two aircraft are already on the production line and RAAF personnel will begin training later this year in readiness to receive them.

So in short, NO, Brendan Nelson did not wake up one morning and decide " I think I'll spend $6.6 billion and buy 24 Super Hornets today". That notion is just ridiculous. Politicians do make the final decision but they do this on the "expert" advice supplied by the three services.

I would not be surprised if this govt. cancels the SH order and tells the RAAF to make do with the F-111's and classic hornets until JSF arrives. This would be in keeping with Labour's traditional treatment of the ADF, expect them to do more with less. Hopefully I am wrong.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

The RAAF had a team of pilots, engineers and number crunchers assess potential aircraft to tide us over until F-35's arrive in numbers when it became clear that a). JSF deliveries were sliding to the right and b). the F-111 was becoming costlier and more manpower intensive to operate/support then was economically sensible. The Super Hornet was the aircraft that the team recommended to the Govt of the day. The reasons behind aquiring SH were and still are sound, the process was not the normal process followed and this is the problem the new Govt has with it. The model used for acquisition of the SH was, interestingly, the C-17 acquisition. Funnily enough the C-17 purchase has been hailed a major success in getting a major capability in operation in short time. Ironic hey!

One other problem was the insistence by Govt and RAAF brass, at the time, that an interim fighter was not required, JSF would arrive on time. Maybe this was a foolish approach to take at the time, a project as huge as JSF was bound to encounter problems. On the same point no high ranking officer with any plans for career progression would openly contradict the ruling govt's position, to do so would be suicide when promotions/appointments at star rank are essentially decided politically. The ADF is an apolitical organisation and as such would never openly contradict government policy unless they believed it to be illegal.

The new Govt. appears to be trying to make mileage out of the SH purchase to deflect attention from spiralling fuel prices, interest rates and the economy in general. They have not had a good start and Rudd risk's becoming a one term wonder if he can't turn it around. A decision to cancel the SH order would be costly to us financially and to our alliance with the US. The first two aircraft are already on the production line and RAAF personnel will begin training later this year in readiness to receive them.

So in short, NO, Brendan Nelson did not wake up one morning and decide " I think I'll spend $6.6 billion and buy 24 Super Hornets today". That notion is just ridiculous. Politicians do make the final decision but they do this on the "expert" advice supplied by the three services.

I would not be surprised if this govt. cancels the SH order and tells the RAAF to make do with the F-111's and classic hornets until JSF arrives. This would be in keeping with Labour's traditional treatment of the ADF, expect them to do more with less. Hopefully I am wrong.

Here here...........

 

[lobbie111]

Its just like whats happening to everything the Government is making decisions without consulting the relevant parties thats why the health systems the police (well Queensland anyway) and to some extent the defense forces are in such a bad state. Even people like the chief of hospitals and the chief of defense forces are puppets they rarely get a say, they get what they are given. But this is just the way it works.

Personally I would not mind if we kept the F111's and then bought the F-35's. We only need a long range strike capability. Stealthy or not stealthy it just needs to be long range.

 

[JWCook]

The RAAF had a team of pilots, engineers and number crunchers assess potential aircraft to tide us over until F-35's arrive in numbers

I'll take issue with this.. The information I have is that Australia did not approach the manufacturers of the Typhoon for any information after the 2002 bid debarkle.
This would suggest that the team responsible for this decision in 2007 were working from "Janes all the world aircraft", scuttlebutt and a deadline for a result measured in days. and not the usual evaluations and industry briefs on what capability could be delivered in what time frame, this takes place over a period of months, if not years.
This is not to denigrate the team\teams responsible as they can only provide advice within certain strictures that are imposed from above.

5 years is a hell of a information gap....

and the feeling from Eurofighter after 2002 was that Australia was wedded to the US... which now seems a eerie premonition huh!!

Cheers

 

[Cooch]

I'll take issue with this.. The information I have is that Australia did not approach the manufacturers of the Typhoon for any information after the 2002 bid debarkle.

A polite question.

Are you quite sure that there was no information in the public arena - surely the manufacturer publishes some specifications - that would have caused those making the decision to take it off the "possible" list?

Peter

 

[AGRA]

I'll take issue with this.. The information I have is that Australia did not approach the manufacturers of the Typhoon for any information after the 2002 bid debarkle.

And fair enough too. What most people miss in the whole Super Hornet issue is that its also about Hornets. The delay of the JSF until 2015 for first operational squadron means we need to do 65 Hornet Centre Barrel Replacements (CBR) to keep this fleet flying until they can all be replaced by JSFs because they are about to run out of their 5,000 hours certification.

But CBR is not done overnight. Our airworthy tactical fighter fleet is going to be slashed in half from 2010-15 as Hornets go offline for CBR. We don't just need a high end capability bridge until the JSF comes online and a modern combat worthy aircraft to replace the F-111s. We need something that Hornet pilots can fly to stay current.

Is the Typhoon comptible with the Hornet? No, but the Super Hornet is backwards compatible requiring only a very brief (1 week) full conversion course.

Plus while the Air 6000 RFI might be considered a debarkle for Typhoon and Rafale the RAAF got the best plane with the best industrial offering - the JSF. It was only a request for information not quite a breach of contract and Eurofighter and Dassault can cry in their cups as much as they want, no one in Australia should give a damn.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I'll take issue with this.. The information I have is that Australia did not approach the manufacturers of the Typhoon for any information after the 2002 bid debarkle.
This would suggest that the team responsible for this decision in 2007 were working from "Janes all the world aircraft", scuttlebutt and a deadline for a result measured in days. and not the usual evaluations and industry briefs on what capability could be delivered in what time frame, this takes place over a period of months, if not years.
This is not to denigrate the teamteams responsible as they can only provide advice within certain strictures that are imposed from above.

5 years is a hell of a information gap....

Assuming this is indeed the case, perhapse there is a simple anser which the RAAF would have known without talking to the manufactuor? That Typhoons range is limited and there was no way tranch two (i.e. full milti role capability) would be ready by 2010 (and it wont), which is kind of important since aquireing a fighter/interceptor (T1) to replace a dedicated strike asset wouldnt have been to smart IMO. Given that pretext why bother going to the manufacturor, the Typhoon is "self disqualified" because it didnt meet the basic requirements. Considering the range, capability, commonality and delivery date constraints, there were only really ever two contenders (that could be figured out in a couple of days without going to the manufacturor) F/A-18F BII & F-15E BII (& Rafale, but the total lack of comonality and a whole new weapons suite excluded it), and AFAIK the RAAF is well aware of said platforms capabilities. Therefore I dont see this as evidence of the team acting under duress or incompetently, just concentrateing on the only possible candidates.

and the feeling from Eurofighter after 2002 was that Australia was wedded to the US... which now seems a eerie premonition huh!!

Cheers

I dont think we are "wedded" to the US at all. Look at most of the major defence aquisitions since 2002. Tigre was chosen over 2 US rivals, AF100 was chosen over a mini burke, IIRC Land 17 is only at non US systems. ANZAC is an EU design, Collins is (partially) an EU design, our battle rifle is a non US design (most of our small arms are IIRC). In fact if you look ADF wide there is a pretty even distribution of US and EU systems (not 50/50). Perhaps in terms of fast movers, the only reason we are "wedded" to the US is becasue they have the platforms that actually meet our requirements.

 

[gf0012-aust]

It was only a request for information not quite a breach of contract and Eurofighter and Dassault can cry in their cups as much as they want, no one in Australia should give a damn.

Exactly and IMO, it's not a breach of contract by any means.

I'd suggest that if any vendor looked at the RFI and assumed that it was an RFT then they would have failed the tender assessment criteria anyway.

Platforms are evaluated on the submission meeting fundamental definition and selection criteria. If any one of the core Tender matrices is not met, then the platform can go in basket 3. (we used to have 3 baskets on evaluation of Tenders.

1) Fulfilled all criteria
2) Secondary selection if primary choices withdrawn or failed after deeper investigation
3) Failed to meet selection and definition criteria.

No 3 was terminal.

 

[JWCook]

Not a breach of contract, just an insult to the time and effort put in when responding.

IIRC The original date was to be 2014 , The RFI was against a set of criteria, this was all thrown out and another aircraft all together was selected in 2002 (the JSF).

Now which set of criteria did the JSF meet?.... considering it was a paper plane at that time? first flight was in 2006!! and that wasn't even a production representative variant!. so it was judged against aspirational targets..:unknown

JSF deliveries in 2014-2020 timeframe.. that should have gone straight into basket 3

As for the SH it may have some training commonality with the current hornets, but I can't see it vastly exceeding the Typhoon in capability and I believe an attempt should have been made to fully compare several alternatives.

As I recall the Royal Australian Air force wasn't even aware they required an interim aircraft!!, let alone actively accessing alternatives, its a ministerial decision as far as i can tell with no interference from the experts.

I'm happy that the current governments review is going ahead, as Brendon Nelson can't quite explain why or how he arrived at the decision!.

People in Australia should give a damn.. its my tax money there spending..

A polite question.
Are you quite sure that there was no information in the public arena - surely the manufacturer publishes some specifications - that would have caused those making the decision to take it off the "possible" list?

You usually don't look at the public arena to judge capability, some figures publically published for the Typhoon are way out, its more usual to get a brief from the vendor and then get your pilots to have a play with it to see if it does what it claimed, this takes quite some time.

Deliver was a problem for Typhoon before about 2014 but the selection of another aircraft taht was supposed to be available in that time frame does not seem to be a bar to selection!.

Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

Not a breach of contract, just an insult to the time and effort put in when responding.

Sorry, I've seen this submitted by losing advocates so many times its not funny. Welcome to commercial reality which is often yet to be comprehended by some when dealing with procurement/government obligo reality

If companies want the contract they'll spend - its part of the process and anyone in this game knows that it's on a high road to being dead money if they don't win. They submit and spend on that submission knowing full well that the cost may be dead. If they win then they recover. if they don't - then welcome to the reality of procurement. Some submissions will typically cost $6-$10 million to put together, and in the case of BAE, they have a dedicated alpha team who's only job in life is to make sure that their submissions are compliant so that they don't miss the review round

BTW, I've seen a number of RFI submissions in the past from companies who should have their act together. They sometimes get it horribly wrong.

In addition, I'd point out that companies are actually debriefed on why they're unsuccessful. They are also bound by in confidence agreements which mean that the debrief is privileged. I've yet to see any company that would leak their discontent at losing as they know full well that once they breach the guidelines their chances of ever getting into a runoff are almost zip.

I can think of a number of companies who have "own goaled" due to the temerity and misguided enthusiasm of some of their staff in thinking that they were creating an opportunity to get a submission review by manipulating info in the public arena. (its certainly happened with Collins as an example).