weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
Interesting. I wonder what will happen to the roulettes......please oh please give them jets!
Spain bought those F/A-18A/Bs, and they were never upgraded to the EF-18s standard. They are mainly used for training and displays etc.
This was a decade ago when the Poles were taking their first tentative steps into weatern aircraft as part of the NATO alliance after operating Soviet bloc equipment for 50 years.weasel1962 said:
It's not just a capacity issue, there's also the capability to consider - buying the Super Hornets means we don't need to worry about capability through the later 20-teens and into the 2020s, whereas even an upgraded 'classic' Hornet will be hard pressed to hold its own beyond this time.
The other thing to consider is, the US Navy is retiring all its A/B models because they're knackered, not because they're surplus, and is upgrading its C/Ds and retaining them until JSF or additional Supers replace them. There are no good 'classics' available.
Plus, it's in the US Navy's interest for us to buy 24 Supers which are identical to theirs, instead of 24 knackered classics which they don't want anymore anyway.
The weapons package for the Supers makes up a tiny fraction of the overall package cost, and would likely need to be bought for additional 'classics' anyway.weasal1962 said:
Magoo
Back to leasing, it is a big headache to lease aircraft.
With leaseholding comes responsibilities for maintenance, etc. At the moment, the few lease programs for aircraft that are current in the Defence Force are not going so well.
I would like to see the ADF move away from civilian contracts - everything works a lot better when it is bought/owned, maintained and repaired by qualified enlisted defence members. The huge added bonus of providing rest postings and rotations for maintainers is an even bigger plus - nobody loves to be deployed for two years, only to return home and told you have three months before another 18 month trip to the Gulf because you're the only spare people to send.
Plus, contractors have had a history of not always being snappy with maintenance issues - given that there are few consequences, they tend to put in a fair bit of effort but not always the full 100% becuase a verbal reaming from the ADF doesn't scare them much (which is all they really get). Enlisted maintainers get a massive arse-kicking if they start malingering, and there is a very real discipline to get the job done.
Additionally, owning the aircraft means that if we lose it, we write it off, safety issues are borne out and enquiries and so on... it's all "in house". Throw in that the equipment actually belonged to someone else and it becomes a fight-using-excrement-projectiles, I assure you.
I'm not putting down civvies, but the benefits to having all our own maintenance crews far outweighs paying civvies to buy aircraft and maintain them.
With leaseholding comes responsibilities for maintenance, etc. At the moment, the few lease programs for aircraft that are current in the Defence Force are not going so well.
I would like to see the ADF move away from civilian contracts - everything works a lot better when it is bought/owned, maintained and repaired by qualified enlisted defence members. The huge added bonus of providing rest postings and rotations for maintainers is an even bigger plus - nobody loves to be deployed for two years, only to return home and told you have three months before another 18 month trip to the Gulf because you're the only spare people to send.
Plus, contractors have had a history of not always being snappy with maintenance issues - given that there are few consequences, they tend to put in a fair bit of effort but not always the full 100% becuase a verbal reaming from the ADF doesn't scare them much (which is all they really get). Enlisted maintainers get a massive arse-kicking if they start malingering, and there is a very real discipline to get the job done.
Additionally, owning the aircraft means that if we lose it, we write it off, safety issues are borne out and enquiries and so on... it's all "in house". Throw in that the equipment actually belonged to someone else and it becomes a fight-using-excrement-projectiles, I assure you.
I'm not putting down civvies, but the benefits to having all our own maintenance crews far outweighs paying civvies to buy aircraft and maintain them.
There seems to be considerable sense in what you have said. I have always worried that aircraft leasing and civilian maintenance may be fine in a stable peacetime setting but has the potential to cause major headaches in war or other emergency situations.
Tas
You can read an article here:
http://www.adbr.com.au/download/Features Articles/V26N1-2_Air5428.pdf
That pretty much explains everything you want to know about Air 5428.
http://www.adbr.com.au/download/Features Articles/V26N1-2_Air5428.pdf
That pretty much explains everything you want to know about Air 5428.
t68
Well-Known Member
Hi guys
I am just after a bit of quick info regarding the Super Hornets
Are they going to be nearly stuffed by the time F35 comes on board or will they still be flying operationally and or will the flight hours be used up?
If we are going to an all F35 fleet I was thinking if the supers are ok than we might see if the kiwis would like to buy or lease them of us.
What would be happening to the legacy hornets as supers come on line?
Is it possible to give them some of the better older hornets to start flying operations till we retire the supers if that’s what we are planning to do?
The RNZAF can do their flight training here in AUS or if they get the Macchi jets going again back home, they will have access of trained people here in AUS to help them maintain them, helps them get back into the into the fast movers game again with a bit of help from us, and takes a bit of strain off the RAAF in the pacific region we could also get bit of help if they need them
With a bit of corporate knowledge from us I am sure it would not take them long for the to get operational again, it think it will be a win/win situation for all parties concerned
I know it would take a bit of luck to get the NZ government on side to get this to come about, But i think it will have a mutual benefit for both countries concerned and for the defense of the greater south pacific region
I know that this is a thread for the RAAF but would like your thought on this idea from an Australian prospective
Regards,
Tom
I am just after a bit of quick info regarding the Super Hornets
Are they going to be nearly stuffed by the time F35 comes on board or will they still be flying operationally and or will the flight hours be used up?
If we are going to an all F35 fleet I was thinking if the supers are ok than we might see if the kiwis would like to buy or lease them of us.
What would be happening to the legacy hornets as supers come on line?
Is it possible to give them some of the better older hornets to start flying operations till we retire the supers if that’s what we are planning to do?
The RNZAF can do their flight training here in AUS or if they get the Macchi jets going again back home, they will have access of trained people here in AUS to help them maintain them, helps them get back into the into the fast movers game again with a bit of help from us, and takes a bit of strain off the RAAF in the pacific region we could also get bit of help if they need them
With a bit of corporate knowledge from us I am sure it would not take them long for the to get operational again, it think it will be a win/win situation for all parties concerned
I know it would take a bit of luck to get the NZ government on side to get this to come about, But i think it will have a mutual benefit for both countries concerned and for the defense of the greater south pacific region
I know that this is a thread for the RAAF but would like your thought on this idea from an Australian prospective
Regards,
Tom
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
The Kiwi Government of either political persuasion are not interested in operating a fast jet capability and even if they were, I'd suggest they could do better than buying our legacy Hornets, which are just about stuffed, airframe wise. By the time we are ready to retire them (2016 - 2020) they certainly will be "exhausted"...
However as I'm sure any Kiwi's monitoring this thread can attest, RNZAF are not likely to operate a fast jet capability of any kind in the forseeable future and such discussions, whilst interesting, are most unrealistic.
The Super Hornets on current plans are funded to fly until 2023. They will certainly be capable of flying longer than this, but I'm not sure whether RAAF will want to be flying SH by then. I'm sure they will want to be switched over to an all F-35 force by then, with the SH winding down, just like the F-111's are now.
Certainly the Super Hornets will have a significant amount of flying time left and should possess quite a bit of "re-sale" value at that point and if some massive political change occurs in NZ that results in them deciding to fund a front line combat aircraft again, I doubt the RNZAF would also want these aircraft by this time, probably preferring a newer jet, such as a "Block 3" Super Hornet, Gripen NG or perhaps even F-35 themselves.
The Super Hornets are replacing the F-111. Not the legacy Hornets and only those legacy Hornets going through the centre barrel replacement project (CBR) will be off-line in coming years, the existing legacy Hornet squadrons will remain equipped with the same aircraft as now.
Investigator
New Member
Comments deleted.
Last edited:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
REVIEW OF AUSTRALIA’S AIR COMBAT CAPABILITY
“This review will provide the Government with a timely opportunity to assess the strengths of our current plans and inform consideration of our future air combat capability in the context of the new Defence White Paper”, Mr Fitzgibbon said.
The review will be conducted in two stages. The first stage will assess:
A)[FONT="] [/FONT]Australia’s Air Combat Capability requirements in the period 2010 to 2015;
B)[FONT="] [/FONT]the feasibility of retaining the F-111 aircraft in service beyond 2010;
C)[FONT="] [/FONT]a comparative analysis of aircraft available to fill any gap that may be left by the withdrawal of the F-111; and
D)[FONT="] [/FONT]the status of plans to acquire the F/A-18 Super Hornet.
The second stage of the review will consider trends in Asia-Pacific air power until 2045 and the relative capabilities of current and projected fourth and fifth generation combat aircraft such as the Joint Strike Fighter. The review will also examine the case for and against acquiring the F-22. Public submissions will be called for in regard to stage two.
The review team will also consider industry issues relevant to the development of Australia’s future air combat capability.
The review will be led by a senior Defence civilian, Mr Neil Orme, First Assistant Secretary Policy Development. In addition to its Defence membership, the steering group will comprise senior executives from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Treasury and the Department of Finance and Deregulation
“I have asked the review team to provide its report by the end of April 2008 in order that its findings can be considered by Government and incorporated into the development of the Defence White Paper”, Mr Fitzgibbon said.
An unclassified executive summary will be publicly released after Government has considered the classified report.
Process for public submissions:
The review welcomes submissions for stage two of up to 10,000 words from interested groups and individuals. The deadline for submissions is Friday 28 March 2008. Submissions should be made through [email protected]
The Terms of Reference are attached.
Media contacts:
Christian Taubenschlag (Joel Fitzgibbon): 02 6277 7800 or 0438 595 567
Defence Media Liaison: 02 6265 3343 or 0408 498 664
Review of the Adequacy of Extant Plans for the Development of Australia’s Air Combat Capability to 2045
TERMS OF REFERENCE
Mr Neil Orme, First Assistant Secretary Policy Development, Department of Defence.
Scope of the Review
The review team will report in two parts.
Part A
1.[FONT="] [/FONT]The review team will report on:
a.[FONT="] [/FONT]Australia’s Air Combat Capability requirements in the period 2010 to 2015;
b.[FONT="] [/FONT]the feasibility of retaining the F-111 aircraft in service beyond 2010;
c.[FONT="] [/FONT]a comparative analysis of aircraft available to fill any gap that may be left by withdrawal of the F-111; and
d.[FONT="] [/FONT]the status of plans to acquire the F/A-18 Super Hornet.
Part B
2.[FONT="] [/FONT]The review team will report on:
a.[FONT="] [/FONT]trends in Asia-Pacific air power until 2045;
b.[FONT="] [/FONT]the relative capabilities of current and projected 4th and 5th generation combat aircraft;
c.[FONT="] [/FONT]the relative capabilities of Australia’s current and planned air combat systems in light of (a) and (b), identifying key risks;
d.[FONT="] [/FONT]the cost and budgetary implications of planned air combat acquisitions;
e.[FONT="] [/FONT]the status of plans to acquire the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) and the status of the JSF project, including:
i)[FONT="] [/FONT]the implications of the F/A-18 Super Hornet acquisition for the planned JSF acquisition;
ii)[FONT="] [/FONT]options to achieve an all-JSF fleet should that prove desirable, including advice on the optimum numbers of aircraft in the context of the overall air combat system; and
iii)[FONT="] [/FONT]an assessment of complementary options, including unmanned aerial combat vehicles;
f.[FONT="] [/FONT]the case for and against acquiring the F-22;
g.[FONT="] [/FONT]The robustness of the plans for transition from the current F-111/F/A-18 fleets to the future fleets, including;
i)[FONT="] [/FONT]weapons systems;
ii)[FONT="] [/FONT]personnel; and
iii)[FONT="] [/FONT]enabling systems and infrastructure; and
h.[FONT="] [/FONT]industry issues relevant to the development of Australia’s air combat capability, both in the manufacturing and sustainment domains.
3.[FONT="] [/FONT]The review team will seek and consider public submissions on Part B of this review.
4.[FONT="] [/FONT]The review team will also provide:
a.[FONT="] [/FONT]an unclassified executive summary of the report (to be delivered following Government consideration of the classified report); and
b.[FONT="] [/FONT]a report on the public submissions made to the review (to be annexed to both the classified and public versions of the report).
Steering Group
Mr Mike Pezzullo, Deputy Secretary (Defence) (Chair);
Air Marshal Geoff Shepherd, Chief of Air Force;
Vice Admiral Matt Tripovich, Chief Capability Development Group;
Dr Steve Gumley, Chief Executive Officer Defence Materiel Organisation;
Dr Roger Lough, Chief Defence Scientist;
Mr Duncan Lewis, Deputy Secretary, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet;
Mr David Tune, Deputy Secretary, Department of the Treasury; and
Mr Paul Grimes, Deputy Secretary, Department of Finance and Deregulation.
Timing
The full report is to be submitted to the Minister for Defence by 30 April 2008.
Courtesy of: www.gov.au
Well, you can't say fairer than that I guess...
Hopefully the Government doesn't "sit" on the final report too long before making a decision. The review team only has about 10 weeks to conduct this review, so I suspect nothing too "far reaching" will be decided upon in this sort of timeframe...
Business as usual I suspect with the "Clown Club" being forced into concreting or whatever other business they wish to try and impose their "expertise" on...
Retired RAAF air vice-marshal Peter Criss was on the tube last night (ABC?) saying what a dog the F-18F is, and how there are those in the RAAF (who or how many he didn't say) who agreed with him.
Now you would expect this guy to have a reasonable idea regards what he is talking about. So what gives, is he in bed with Kopp et al?
(He's previously been on 60 minutes stirring up the F-111, F-35, F18 debate.)
rb
Now you would expect this guy to have a reasonable idea regards what he is talking about. So what gives, is he in bed with Kopp et al?
(He's previously been on 60 minutes stirring up the F-111, F-35, F18 debate.)
rb
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
He got the boot after only a year in the top job, i'm not aware of the circumstances. It seems to me he's got a few scores to settle.
Anyway credibility by itself does not make him right. If Steven Hawking told you if you wished 3 times and you really believed it you could fly, would you believe him just because he's Steven Hawking? i.e.Was the gist of the interview i'm Peter Criss and i say its crap or did he put forweard a compreheneive argument as to why its a dog??? Somehow i think its the former, because when all the peramiters are examined its pretty easy to debunk the SH is total $hite argument. I'd go into it but its been done to death (myself included).
Investigator
New Member
Comments deleted.
Last edited:
The problem I have is that the ABC and SMH, Australian, Business Express have all been seduced by the continuing white noise that the Clown Club have triggered. Self promotion is obviously working.
The added difficulty I have with someone like Criss is that he is obviously embittered at getting the bullet, and is being driven by a continuing sense of retribution. No offense, but when you seen the amateurish 4 Corners air combat scenario coming from a bloke at that former level, from another clown who was given the bullet for breaching protocol (as a contractor how dumb can you get??) and who also has made fanciful comparisons of Red Flag availability rates for flights of F-111's as measurements of squadron availability (seriously, how can anyone use those numbers with a straight face), and for someone who has deliberately misrepresented what Red Flag is designed to do - then, yes, the issue of competency and motive has to be triggered.
As for Kopp and Goon. Well, APA is now Goons supplementary revenue vehicle now that AFTS is out of action. Goon also fails to acknowledge his own conflicts of interest, he fails to acknowledge his own bad blood within ADF (and in industry orgs such as the DTC where he was regarded as destructive and commercially conflicted), and then we're left with one of Australias foremost mobile phone engineers who has had the temerity to state that he knows more about Radar and red systems (at his unclassified level) than anyone in DSTO in Ewarfare and Weaps Divisions.
Now, when people who have "history", who have clear conflicts of interest, who have history of dissent due to disciplinary reasons, who don't have any current and relevant security clearances - and who have been out of the warfighting game for a long time are trotted out as experts due to their own self promotion? - Then I have a doubt. Sure, they will bleat that a lack of clearances shouldn't cut them out of commentary, but the reality is that it does effect the quality and import of their responses.
These muppets also then argue that as civilians (with no relevant security quals) should have the right to see the classified restricted responses. (great! they haven't demonstrated any maturity and sophistication in this debate, they've deliberately misrepresented scenarios to further their own arguments, and they clearly are dealing with public data). Can you imagine the noise these idiots would make if they can't demonstrate reasonable control now?
As for the other wankers like Jensen (who also touts himself as an analyst but was only ever attached to a quango committee), and some of the other self promoters who obviously (by their commentary) have never spent a day in procurement, product evaluation or assessment - then you have to start to question their competency.
It's not rocket science.
I'm not doubting anything you're saying. But I (as an Aussie civilian) am extremely concerned that if such a person as Peter Criss turned into the sort of person you're suggesting (i.e. "revenge" via the media, or something along those lines), but managed to reach the level of Air Vice-Marshal, we have got some serious problems within our defence force (or at least in this particular case, air force).
I don't know what that really means, other than I think you're right and he has gone loopy and our air force has big problems (or at least previously did), or he is putting forward genuine concerns (in which case, we've still got some big problems of another kind).
Investigator
New Member
Comments deleted.
Last edited:
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
And youd fall flat on your ass. I'm not questioning his capacity but his intent, and if he is puting forward a point of view without any real evidence to back it up then his credentials arn't worth $hit. They'll get him some air time but they dont make him right, ex Air Vice Marshals are not immune to bending the truth.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Egomaniacs regularly make great commanders. Just take a look at Monty, De Gaul, Patton or Mark Clark. All decent or great commanders who did more destabiliseing and immature stuff than this. If you think that useing the media to further your own aims is "beneath" a former Air Vice Martial then pick up a history book.
War History books have been my reading material a lot lately actually, so I know what you mean. But you're supposed to learn from history, right?
But I think the general population would be disgusted to know that a guy reaching this rank is so unstable/unreliable, and have such a lack of pride in this country and military, that he'd be so eager to do what you're suggesting.
Again I'm not suggesting you're right or wrong, just my concern over either possibility.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
So basically you're saying that the AVM probably knows more than everyone else and therefore his rantings in the media MUST be valid??? Therefore the fact that he is an AVM means he can only have a heart of solid gold? That is a very naieve point of view IMO.
The question is not wether he has acsess to more information that anyone in else but wether the "concernes" he has raised in the media truthfull. The pitifull nature of the argumentes he has used to justify his position clearly indicates, to me at least, that he hsa no real grounds for concern. If he had acsess to more information than everyone else then how come his points are so ridiculous? Have a look at what he siad on four corners and the "hypothetical" he did for the programme. If you have any interest in air combat and have read even a portion of the stuff that is available publicly on the APG 79, F/A-18F, Wedgetail & JORN (in fact these two systems were not even mentioned, which in itself shows how rediculous this was), its pretty obvious the AVM was yanking everyones chain.
www.abc.net.au/corners/content/2007/s2073943.htm
He was an AVM sure, and he did have acsess to all the info the RAAF had sure, but that by itself does not mean that he can make blanket statements without any realistic evidence or comprehenceive argument to support said statements (basicly I say so but i'm not oir cant tell you why) and expect to be believed just becasue of his past. This is compounded by the manner in which he was "removed" from his position, which gives him ample motive. If he is being truthfull, then he should be able to rebutt all of the points made by the RAAF and other defence commentators re the F/A-18F, but he hasn't because he cant, and untill he does that the fact that he has the letters AVM infront of his name will not prove him correct.