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

[gf0012-aust]

Hi GF,

I've enjoyed your posts on the Australian Navy forum and consider you to have valuable information to share on this message board - of which you are a "lurker"/ moderator. Please keep it up.

However, I cannot imagine you know more or have better contacts than a former air-vice marshall (who is named and bears closer scrutiny than any of us) of the royal australian air force. I reiterate - they would not allow an idiot to reach that high a rank - even for only a year - if they did not know what they are doing. Clearly you have respect for the Australian armed forces even if you do not agree with every thing they do.

The issue is coherence and motivation. I seriously question the coherence of his debate and regard it as irrational due to a number of reasons:

1) misrepresentation of the simulated combat scenarios as portrayed in 4 Corners. That was a nonsense scenario and has been systematically pulled apart by others in the service.
2) He is embittered, every man and his dog in RAAF knows it. He got canned for poor performance. Better getting canned early than later.
3) we let idiots achieve high rank in wartime - look at blamey. we let atrocious leaders become PM - look at Billy Hughes, we allowed historians with a history of venality contribute to our records - look at CE Bean.

Its not unique. The trick is to identify early and get them out of the system ASAP.

Honestly, is your security clearance higher than his? You disagree with him, which is fine, but you do not have the same credibility as him!

actually. my security clearance would be higher than Criss, Mills, Kopp, Goon and Jensen

We enjoy playing military strategist but only some (if any - probably not) have reached such HIGH station as he did. I will continue enjoying your input but I cannot accept your view over Peter Criss' view unless you left the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) at a higher level than he did.

well, its an egalitarian society.

Opinion is fine. Opinion of a verified rank at his level supercedes any anonymous opinion - no mater how informative that seems to be.

See prev point. At the end of the day all of the clown club have personal and identified grievances against the system. At that point the quality of input is subject to the same scrutiny as everyone else. IMO, they fail across numerous fronts.

I'd add that the ABC made some announcements the other day that RAAF did conduct an assessment re SH in 2006 and made it very clear to Govt. Some of us have asked for the ABC to re-release that transcript as they appear to have buried it from public comment. Tas and AD are familiar with this issue.

 

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

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.

The fact is that the personality types that regualrly end up in high level command are prone to this type of stuff, its been seen in the past and it'lle be arround in the future. Sucsessfull people often have personality features that allthough served them as assets in their careers (aka, ambition, dedication, ruthlesness), turn out to be flaws in their personal life. I dont think its indicative of a major problem with the ADF or any instiution were similar stuff has occured in the past, just comes with the teritory i guess.

As for his pride in his country, well, i'd sujest that his motives would be directed at some individuals behind his removal rather than the ADF and the nation as a whole, and by makeing these appearences in the press he is making their life dificult.

 

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Maybe Australian AVMs should be treated with such disrespect. You could be right.

Respect is not universal and not infinate. The respect i had for him due to his service was discarded when he manipulated the media to further his own goals and disrespected the RAAF & ADF in doing so. You seem to think that any ex AVM, MG whatever, should be believed at face value no matter what they claim and never have their motives questioned no matter what their actions are. Power and respect can be and are abused, therefore we should not be blind when bestow them on an individual.

 

[gf0012-aust]

GF 861 "actually. my security clearance would be higher than Criss, Mills, Kopp, Goon and Jensen".

I have no way of knowing if this is true or false, but I don't believe you would lie to me and everyone else. If it is that your airforce security clearance is higher than a former air vice marshall then I would accept your view as being more correct than his.

I'll shut up now and allow you to keep informing us lesser mortals (in military matters - not moral or anything else) on Australian military matters.

3 of them are non serving personnel, so anyone who is either active or has approp contractor clearance will by default, have greater access. With the greatest of respect, their very behaviour and the fact that they don't demonstrate approp discretion of position means that they would only ever be granted access to material thats in the public domain. In the case of AVM Criss, his clearances remain dormant for 3 years after exit, that means that whatever clearances he may have are only active if re-employed within ADF, but are useless outside of the service. If he was to re-apply for service in the ADF then he would have a shortened security review process as the 3 year rule would cut in. The fact that he was dismissed means that he'd be unlikely to get back in anyway.

On another note, they do every now and them imply that they have allies within ADF who support their view - but, thats the eternal bleat of the disenfranchised. I can claim I'm the long lost king of uganda - it means diddly. By association, and in effect, they don't have the technical DNA to support their claims

As for the rest of them, they are in my view beneath contempt as those who have served are misrepresenting issues for their own personal grievances and gain - and the others are pretenders who have no actual real time comprehension of how ADF does actually work. I love the fact that they are happy to slag off at others on feigned notions of a conflict of interest, and yet they are slam dunk ahead of everyone else in their own motives. (Perhaps the term conflict of interest is something that they reserve only to others with an opposing view??)

If they had any substance in their public bleatings they would have got a decent hearing within Russell, but their behaviour is to appeal to the public media where its far easier to snow the general public because intrinsically people are far more ready to slam the govt for any decisions which imply negligence.

If you doubt how effective irresponsible reporting is, then I would point you in the direction of Collins. It is without doubt one of the pre-eminent conventional subs in the world and yet the average punter regards them as dud.

Whiteanting by bottom feeders trawling the broadsheet journalists led us down that path. Ironically, this is also the path that the F-111 travelled right up till 2002. 95% of its public presentation was spent in the equiv of the public stockade.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Aussie Digger]

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).

What former AVM Criss, the "Commander of the air battle for Timor" stated during this program, was that "the Super Hornet is, a Super dog, squared".

Six months ago, in his own words on the ABC's Four Corners "flying Blind program" he stated the F/A-18 Super Hornet was a "Super Dog".

What's happened in the meantime? Has the aircraft become less capable over the last 6 months? Or has he become more irrational and desperate to slur ADF however he can manage to do so?

Is this a critical, informed opinion about an aircraft? Surely a person who can "command an air battle" can provide a rather more insightful comment than, "it's a super dog"...

In any case, the media, being entirely clueless and entirely unconcerned in ANY case about defence, are interested in anything ANYONE is willing to say something that criticises Government, because that's what "gets the punters in".

If someone with his (former) rank were to suggest that the F-88 Steyr is equalled "out-matched" by the AK-47 they'd get every bit as much air-time as this parrot...

On top of all this, who cares? Who cares what the capability of a single fighter versus another single fighter is, when a TOTAL combat capability is what is important? RAAF, Army or RAN won't ever fight to defend Australia without the assistance of ANY of the other services.

What RAAF's and ADF's TOTAL capability is what should be reviewed, and if found wanting, upgraded. Personally I do not see ANY threat to Australia. If a "threat" is therefore to be "addressed", the Air Combat Group could probably be disbanded in it's entirety and you, me and the fence post wouldn't notice the slightest difference in our entire lives...

I am personally sick to death of this entire stupid argument.

The reality is that RAAF needs the ability to deploy a combat package for overseas operations to ensure we are good "International citizens" and nothing more. No-one is going to attack us and even if they did, they couldn't really hurt Australia and America would destroy them for ever doing so...

 

[Aussie Digger]

Hi GF,

I've enjoyed your posts on the Australian Navy forum and consider you to have valuable information to share on this message board - of which you are a "lurker"/ moderator. Please keep it up.

However, I cannot imagine you know more or have better contacts than a former air-vice marshall (who is named and bears closer scrutiny than any of us) of the royal australian air force. I reiterate - they would not allow an idiot to reach that high a rank - even for only a year - if they did not know what they are doing. Clearly you have respect for the Australian armed forces even if you do not agree with every thing they do.

Honestly, is your security clearance higher than his? You disagree with him, which is fine, but you do not have the same credibility as him!

We enjoy playing military strategist but only some (if any - probably not) have reached such HIGH station as he did. I will continue enjoying your input but I cannot accept your view over Peter Criss' view unless you left the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) at a higher level than he did.

Opinion is fine. Opinion of a verified rank at his level supercedes any anonymous opinion - no mater how informative that seems to be.

Wow what a succinct answer to this entire debate. If his rank his high enough, than he is to be believed without question...

Excellent.

Especially since, we are all discussing this issue based on what the ABC said on this issue on the 18th of February 2008.

This however is what the ABC said of this issue on 11 February 2008,

"REPORTER: This week will also test Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson. Labor's been trawling through his old department, Defence, looking for evidence of ministerial blunders. One focus is his decision to spend more than $6.5 billion on 24 Super Hornet jet fighters, something it's claimed he did against military advice.
But the ABC has a Cabinet submission from November 2006 which shows the planes were recommended by the Chief of the Defence Force and the then Secretary of the Department. It urges Brendan Nelson to tell Cabinet's National Security Committee that the Super Hornet is the only practical option for a bridging fighter between the ageing F-111 and its still experimental replacement. It also says a decision to proceed cannot be delayed.
There are some signs of change in Canberra, and plenty that indicate business as usual.
Chris Uhlmann, ABC News, Canberra.
* * END * *

The Chief of the Defence Force, I'm pretty sure, is a higher rank than Peter Criss ever achieved...

So is Geoff Shepherd for that matter...

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Posting the last few paras of the link below.

http://www.flightglobal.com/article...alian-air-force-chief-backs-super-hornet.html

"We are asking them to spend a lot of money, so it is understandable that they want to examine it," said Air Chief Marshal Geoff Shepherd during the Global Air Power Conference, held prior to the start of the Singapore air show. "The review is under way, and it is a process we want to fully participate in. Perhaps, because they were in the opposition when the decision was made, they did not have all the information," he said.

"I am confident that these rational men in power will make a rational decision. We are confident that will be the case when the facts are put to them."

Any cancellation of the Super Hornet order could result in Australia having to pay damages to Boeing, which has already cut metal on the RAAF's first aircraft. Australia last March became the first export customer for the aircraft, with its two-seat fighters scheduled for delivery from 2010.

While some in Australia have suggested that the RAAF's F-111s could be upgraded while the country waits for JSF deliveries, that idea may face problems as the service has already begun retiring the type. "Under the previous government's plans, the F-111 fleets were starting to be wound down from 12 months ago, and they are scheduled to retire in 2010. To reverse that may prove to be difficult," said Shepherd.

The F-35, though, remains at the fore of Shepherd's plans, even though the review will also examine the various options if there are further delays to the project. "Our future is with the JSF by 2020 we want to have an all F-35 fleet," he said. "We believe that the Super Hornets will serve us well until the F-35s come in. If the government gives us the OK for the F/A-18s, we will be able to handle any delays to the F-35 through mid-life upgrades for the Super Hornets."

Sounds like a pretty logical explenation of the curent situation. No hyperbole & logical points. I would be very suprised if the F/A-18F aquisition is cancelled and if the F-35A plans are altered at all. They were logical and rational desisions in the first place, and that they are still.

 

[gf0012-aust]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23246384-12377,00.html

Dumping Super Hornets would cost $400m


By Max Blenkin | February 20, 2008

AUSTRALIA can expect to pay at least $400 million in penalties if it cancels an order to buy 24 Boeing Super Hornet aircraft, a Senate committee has been told.

Head of the Defence Materiel Organisation Dr Stephen Gumley said the size of the potential penalty was rising at the rate of $80-100 million a month as the project proceeded.

The former coalition government announced last year it would buy 24 of the advanced Super Hornets to fill a looming air combat capability gap between the retirement of ageing F-111 strike bombers in 2010 and arrival of the Lockheed F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) in 2015.

The new Labor government has now ordered a full review of future air combat needs.

Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon said yesterday he would not hesitate to cancel the Super Hornet if that was what the review recommended.

Dr Gumley said under the deal, Australia had a contract with the US government, which in turn purchased the aircraft from the manufacturer Boeing.

He said the US government already had a series of contracts with Boeing for production of Super Hornets for the US navy. That meant Australia was paying the same price as the US.

"Our contract with the US government already commits us to pay for long lead items and commits us for something called termination liability, which in Australian jargon would be what we call a cancellation fee,'' he told the estimates committee hearing.

"That fee is continuing to grow because obviously the longer you get into the program the more the aircraft have been built. The termination liability as of about now is expected to be about $400 million.''

Dr Gumley said that fee rose as Boeing ordered components from suppliers.
"We are working in the order of $80-100 million a month that goes by,'' he said.

The review will also assess the merits of JSF and the very advanced Lockheed F-22 Raptor, now in service with the US Air Force and believed by some analysts as the best choice for the RAAF.

However, US legislation specifically bars foreign sales of F-22.
Defence head Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston said the Australian Defence Force had maintained a watching brief on different aircraft.

He said an RAAF exchange pilot was about to start conversion to the F-22 Raptor.

"So we know a fair bit about the F-22. We know an awful lot about the JSF and we also know an awful lot about the Super Hornet,'' he said.
"We know the relative capabilities in a very practical way. We have a lot of knowledge in this particular arena.''

Air Chief Marshal Houston said this remained a very complex area.
"The new government wants to come to grips with all of the issues that are involved with this very, very expensive procurement,'' he said.

---------------------------------------------

Note the subtle difference in the way that professionals have discussions as opposed to those who let emotion and personal angst get in the way....

 

[Pro'forma]

Split the price.
It's not a success as an estimate to believed zero-price orders, is this
equalize to zero-price or is pricing (one aim too high) going under.

A substitute to one-of-deal, out buy top-of-the-line squad, highly-manoeuvrable old tradition and new achievement.
12 Super Hornet; alternatively 8 Rafales/Mirages with 10 F-35.
Manufacturer isn't to blame, somehow even F-35 is getting manifestation
of dark shadows, and lack of independence on squad structural reguirements.
Replaceable ?
8 Rafales/Mirages 2006; 10 Super Hornets.

Maltreatment is not necessarily man-to-man or soldier to soldier. Mandate
to purchase correctness is with farsightedness, type of planes.
Any or many of those investigations which squadron maintained the
relevance ( the annual cost-plans ) due to programs; due to certain
reliability, type of plane.

 

[t68]

Hi guys

Well it appears the government has been officially told no go on the F22 today.
Talks between the Australian foreign Minster and defense minister and the US deputy secretary of state, US defense secretary told them that they can’t because of an act of congress.

They want to send a letter to the US congress asking to change the law. I suppose they can only say no again

http://www.bigpond.com/news/breaking/content/20080223/2170741.asp

It will be interesting to see what they come up with next, I can’t see them changing the contract for supers now.


Regards
Tom

 

[thorpete1]

I'm surprised that the USAF hasn't went into bat for Aus about the F-22, Aus is already getting F-22 derived tech in the F-35 and any extra sales will keep production lines open and decrease (slightly) the cost of the F-22 so that the USAF has more time/greater chance of getting more F-22's.

Anyway it makes sense to let your closest allies, who rely strongly on you for their defence to have the same tech platforms as you. It makes it easier to fight a war when everbody is using the same platforms, ammunition and spares.

Just a question, Is Aus more likely to get the Full or export version of the F-35. I've seen the USAf saying they want one version only for commonality but will we really get the full American version?

 

[phreeky]

I can only assume their problem with the F-22 being sold off to other countries is no longer having control of the tech potentially getting into the hands of the wrong people.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I'm surprised that the USAF hasn't went into bat for Aus about the F-22, Aus is already getting F-22 derived tech in the F-35 and any extra sales will keep production lines open and decrease (slightly) the cost of the F-22 so that the USAF has more time/greater chance of getting more F-22's.

Anyway it makes sense to let your closest allies, who rely strongly on you for their defence to have the same tech platforms as you. It makes it easier to fight a war when everbody is using the same platforms, ammunition and spares.

Just a question, Is Aus more likely to get the Full or export version of the F-35. I've seen the USAf saying they want one version only for commonality but will we really get the full American version?

I doubt we've EVER got a "full" American version of any fighter aircraft we've ever bought.

Australia however, having signed up as a level 3 partner, will get an F-35 variant as advanced as anyone BESIDES the USA and those who didn't sign up as a partner, will get an even LESS advanced variant, hence the $1b to develop an "export" variant...

The problem for the USA is mostly a diplomatic issue. It creates a major headache for itself by allowing ANY other Country to acquire it's "top" fighter. Technology transfer is no doubt an issue, but I think it's simply easier for the USA to deny everyone the aircraft, then allow some allies to access it, but not others...

In anycase, we don't need it. Forgetting the fact that "Biggles styled" 1 v 1 aerial combat went out with, well, Biggles, the F-35 outperforms any adversary, bar the F-22 in virtually every aspect of combat anyway. Or, will assuming the project goes as planned...

 

[thorpete1]

Just been listening to ABC local radio, and then went to the ABC news website,

The US administration has no problems with us buying F-22's, according to Dr GAtes that is

"Dr Gates says the US has no in-principle objection to Australia buying the planes

"While we, in principle, have no objection to it, until the statute is changed we are not able to sell it to any country," he said."

The question is, will we get the F-22. That will be determined by the US congress i guess. We will just have to stay tuned for news.

Cheers

 

[thorpete1]

Thanks for the info Aussie digger.

Would multiple version with different capabilities cause problems for mission planning. Ie Australian F-35's are in the best place to strike an enemy base but since thaty are made with slightly lower capabilities, USAF F-35's have to attack the base causing logistical and planning hedaches.

Just wondering

Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

Thanks for the info Aussie digger.

Would multiple version with different capabilities cause problems for mission planning. Ie Australian F-35's are in the best place to strike an enemy base but since thaty are made with slightly lower capabilities, USAF F-35's have to attack the base causing logistical and planning hedaches.

Just wondering

Cheers

I don't think the differences will be that significant. They will both operate the same airframes (assuming both are using "A model" F-35's, not B or C models) they will use the same engine (either F-135 or F-136 and both are interchangeable on each platform anyway), the same weapons and same communication / data-link systems.

The only differences are likely to be in software loads, some EW capability perhaps a minor difference in LO profiles. It has been speculated that the USA will keep a more advanced RAM for itself and deliver lower spec to everyone else, but I have no idea of the practicalities of this, perhaps someone a bit more knowledgeable about aircraft materials could expand upon this?

I'd expect and the RAAF in particular have stated that their modelling and understanding of the platform they will receive, should the F-35A be chosen, shows that the LO capabilites of the F-35A variant they will receive will be sufficient to meet Australia's requirements.

I guess you can't ask for more than that?