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

[Sea Toby]

Typical press and media mistakes, confusing one aircraft to another. The author writes the articles, and the editors turn the story into a sensation piece, adding false information to sell newspapers.

The real truth is no one knows for sure how much inflation we will see in the twenty year JSF building program. While one can include figures that are conservative in nature, not even the GAO knows for sure. And no long range program I know of has stuck to the numbers long term either good or bad.

It wasn't long ago I saw numbers of 3,000 aircraft, now its been reduced to 2400+ aircraft. None of these numbers are solid, we could end up with 4,000 aircraft.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Typical press and media mistakes, confusing one aircraft to another. The author writes the articles, and the editors turn the story into a sensation piece, adding false information to sell newspapers.

The real truth is no one knows for sure how much inflation we will see in the twenty year JSF building program. While one can include figures that are conservative in nature, not even the GAO knows for sure. And no long range program I know of has stuck to the numbers long term either good or bad.

It wasn't long ago I saw numbers of 3,000 aircraft, now its been reduced to 2400+ aircraft. None of these numbers are solid, we could end up with 4,000 aircraft.

Precisely. Without a precise number of aircraft being built, without a particular specification to be built (as there WILL be differences) one cannot state what this aircraft will cost.

What IS a ridiculous argument however is disengenously trying to argue that an aircraft with a build run of 187 aircraft will be LESS expensive than an aircraft with a MINIMUM of 2000+ build run...

 

[barra]

There are a few people like Hugh White who would disagree, arguing that the RAAF doesn't need 'giant" transport aircraft.

I agree that this was a very successful 'fast track' project and the aircraft are already proving their worth. If only the present government would fast track the extra Chinooks that the army badly needs along with additional Penguin equipped Seahawks to fill the capability gap in the navy.

Tas

Hi Tas,

I have read that an order for three extra -F model Chinooks has been recently placed for Army. Funds are coming from the Armys special forces projects and they are intended to be for SF use. Details of specific systems were not given but it was stated they will be similar to US MH-47's in role and capability. The extra chooks would be based at Townsville with the other 6 CH-47 the Army has. No word yet on the possible upgrade of the existing chooks to -F standard or an extra order of more new -F chooks. The stated desire was for 6 extra airframes so more may be in the mix down the track.

Barra

 

[Magoo]

Hi Tas,

I have read that an order for three extra -F model Chinooks has been recently placed for Army. Funds are coming from the Armys special forces projects and they are intended to be for SF use. Details of specific systems were not given but it was stated they will be similar to US MH-47's in role and capability. The extra chooks would be based at Townsville with the other 6 CH-47 the Army has. No word yet on the possible upgrade of the existing chooks to -F standard or an extra order of more new -F chooks. The stated desire was for 6 extra airframes so more may be in the mix down the track.

Barra

Barra's correct - The three F models were funded from 'Redfin' money. They've been through 2nd pass but all is on hold pending the new Govt's ratification.

It is planned that the three F models will come down the US Army line as standard F models, but there is scope to 'enhance' them at Boeing's Townsville facility after delivery. Things like TFR, FLIR, additional ballistic protection, a hoist, refuelling probe, and gun positions with cartridge discharge chutes etc are being looked at, but not the big tanks like the MH-47Gs.

It is planned that the six existing D models will then go through the F model 'reman' process where basically only the dynamic components of the aircraft are retained. As our D models' engines have already been upgraded to F model standard, these will also be retained.

Once they have been re-delivered, another three new build F models are planned but are, as yet, unfunded.

Cheers

Magoo

 

[rossfrb_1]

Bingo

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23372064-31477,00.html
"........
The federal Government might decide that 60, instead of 100, fast jets would represent a more prudent purchase, Professor Dupont said.
The savings could then be used to expand the order book for the current $6billion purchase of 24 F/A-18F Super Hornet fighters to replace the ageing F-111 fleet, he said.
"If the Rudd Government does have to make hard decisions it's going to have to be one of these major platforms, because that is where you are going to make real savings.
"I think JSF is one you would look hard at. I think it is a very good aircraft and I think it was the right decision but whether we can afford 100 of them, I'm not sure ...
"Do I think it strengthens the case made by the previous government for the Super Hornets? I think it does, because if you are talking about further delays for the JSF coming online, then what are you going to fill that gap with?" he said.
Despite the controversial decision to purchase the Super Hornet - a decision under review by the Government's razor gang - Professor Dupont said he was convinced the Super Hornet represented the best interim warplane for the RAAF.
He also said the federal Government's new Defence White Paper - to be delivered by the end of the year, accompanied by a defence capability review - would be one of the nation's most important because of the rapidly changing global security environment.
Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon declined to respond."




Well, that was going to be one of the logical options. Buy more rhinos and cut back the number of JSF's. If this approach is taken then the RAAF shouldn't have to stuff around with the CBR issue for current hornets.



rb

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Bingo

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23372064-31477,00.html
"........
The federal Government might decide that 60, instead of 100, fast jets would represent a more prudent purchase, Professor Dupont said.
The savings could then be used to expand the order book for the current $6billion purchase of 24 F/A-18F Super Hornet fighters to replace the ageing F-111 fleet, he said.
"If the Rudd Government does have to make hard decisions it's going to have to be one of these major platforms, because that is where you are going to make real savings.
"I think JSF is one you would look hard at. I think it is a very good aircraft and I think it was the right decision but whether we can afford 100 of them, I'm not sure ...
"Do I think it strengthens the case made by the previous government for the Super Hornets? I think it does, because if you are talking about further delays for the JSF coming online, then what are you going to fill that gap with?" he said.
Despite the controversial decision to purchase the Super Hornet - a decision under review by the Government's razor gang - Professor Dupont said he was convinced the Super Hornet represented the best interim warplane for the RAAF.
He also said the federal Government's new Defence White Paper - to be delivered by the end of the year, accompanied by a defence capability review - would be one of the nation's most important because of the rapidly changing global security environment.
Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon declined to respond."

Just one question, who TF is Professor Dupont?

Well, that was going to be one of the logical options. Buy more rhinos and cut back the number of JSF's. If this approach is taken then the RAAF shouldn't have to stuff around with the CBR issue for current hornets.

Its definatly a better short term soloution, however i'm not too sure we'll be saying the same in 2028 when we're looking to either upgrade or replace the Rhino's which aren't competitive anymore. If DT still exists by that point i'm sure we'll all be haveing the exact same conversations.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Just one question, who TF is Professor Dupont?

Professor Alan Dupont:

http://www.lowyinstitute.org/StaffBio.asp?pid=515

Its definatly a better short term soloution, however i'm not too sure we'll be saying the same in 2028 when we're looking to either upgrade or replace the Rhino's which aren't competitive anymore. If DT still exists by that point i'm sure we'll all be haveing the exact same conversations.

We'll be having the conversations until May when the decision that is to be made, WILL be made and then we'll start discussing whether it's correct or not... nfloorl:

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Professor Alan Dupont:

http://www.lowyinstitute.org/StaffBio.asp?pid=515

Thanks. Just wanted to know wether this guy would be in a position to know or not.

We'll be having the conversations until May when the decision that is to be made, WILL be made and then we'll start discussing whether it's correct or not... nfloorl:

Indeed. Perhapse in 2048 our kiddies/grandkiddies will be discussing which 7th gen fighter the RAAF should purchase? (heaven forbid) :lol3

Speaking of which i haven't heard your position on this one AD..... What do you think? Annother 24 F/A-18F's + 8 EA-18G's and make it a 50/50 orbat permanatly (through the platforms life) or go for the current plan? I know your a fan of both platforms.....

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The problem with Australia’s indicative F-35 order needs is that we want some 40% of them from LRIP [Low Rate Initial Production]. This is because the previous Government made the immensely optimistic decision in 2002 that we could replace the F/A-18A/B in 2012-15 with the F-35. This was found to be the ultra-risky fantasy it was when the US Government pushed back the F-35 development schedule to pay for the war in Iraq in 2006. This is what lead to the purchase of 24 F/A-18F Block II Super Hornets to bridge the RAAF’s F/A-18A/B force through a full-rate centre barrel replacement (65 units) and the belated retirement of the obsolete (not useless but definitely obsolete) F-111 force.

With the Super Hornets to backfill the Hornet fleet through CBR and provide a more efficient source of combat sorties than the F-111 we will have a pretty effective force in the 2010s even without the F-35: 24 F/A-18F Block II and 65 F/A-18A/B HUG 3.2 that will remain airworthy beyond 2018 and further (with minimal extra fatigue work) combined with the other elements of a NCW force is far superior to any regional force. Even a mobilised Singapore in their own backyard.

The F-35 remains the best long term option for the RAAF but we don’t need to be buying so many from LRIP. We can push back our orders to a more conservative LRIP loading like 20% (about the average of the lower tier partner nations), to lower cost and mitigate risk.

Plus I wouldn’t put too much credence in all this doom and gloom future funding forecasts. The ADF capital program is backed by both sides of politics at 3% per annum real growth out to 2016 (and no doubt beyond when the +10 years milestones are meet). Sources of Government funding are not under any real threat in the long term, if anything they will grow even higher thanks to the booming economy. Spending on defence also has minimal impact on domestic inflation as much of it is spent overseas and the Defence workforce is relatively small (<250,000).

All that is happening is that with the state of flux in national policy thanks to last years change in Government is leading to lots of opinion and commentary, much of it inaccurate and uninformed, being reported in the mass media that lives and breathes solely on controversy. If you actually talk to the people in Canberra who are doing the policy work that will feed the Government’s decisions then you get a very different picture.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

AG thats a pretty good summization of the current situation. I agree with all of the points raised, notably on the mass media.

One way or the other the RAAF/ADF will be looking good in regional terms, whatever decission is made.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Thanks. Just wanted to know wether this guy would be in a position to know or not.

Indeed. Perhapse in 2048 our kiddies/grandkiddies will be discussing which 7th gen fighter the RAAF should purchase? (heaven forbid) :lol3

Speaking of which i haven't heard your position on this one AD..... What do you think? Annother 24 F/A-18F's + 8 EA-18G's and make it a 50/50 orbat permanatly (through the platforms life) or go for the current plan? I know your a fan of both platforms.....

No problem.

I do think the F-35 should be the primary long term platform for the Air Combat Group. I don't think anything else is going to be as flexible or as capable in all roles in the lifetime of this aircraft. I think the current plan with the Hornets and Super Hornets bridging the gap until the F-35 is available to replace the force entirely is the best plan.

I don't subscribe to the "single point of failure" idea that a single fighter type might bring either. We've only had a single air defence fighter type for the last 30 odd years (since the F-4 Phantom II "bridging aircraft" in fact). We've never lost our air defence capability in one fell swoop... Our AEW&C capability will be based on 1x aircraft type. I don't hear too many calls for redundancy in this vital area and so on.

I guess the Super Hornet issue relies upon how much work the legacy Hornets need to continue. I'd rather the CBR process be abandoned as Canada has done so, if possible and the aircraft seriously in need of CBR be replaced with Super Hornets and the remaining legacy Hornets be "massaged" though to their life of type.

If the Hornets can be massaged through to life of type without CBR then I'd advocate forgoing the additional Super Hornets.

I don't subscribe to the allegation at ALL that RAAF and it's Air Combat Group comprising Hornets and Super Hornets are outmatched within our region and I don't see that RAAF NEEDS a greater level of capability than is currently projected.

Certainly not at the expense of Army and Navy that have significantly greater force structure and equipment issues AND are doing the bulk of the operations anyway...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I guess the Super Hornet issue relies upon how much work the legacy Hornets need to continue. I'd rather the CBR process be abandoned as Canada has done so, if possible and the aircraft seriously in need of CBR be replaced with Super Hornets and the remaining legacy Hornets be "massaged" though to their life of type.

The key issue here is cost. To CBR 65 C/D Hornets costs well under one billion, but to buy 65 E/F Hornets well over $9 billion. Sure the Block II E/Fs are much more capable than our HUGed C/Ds but if we needed the C/Ds longer then a Phase 4 HUG with an AESA would go a long way to improving their capability.

The current plan is to phase out the C/Ds in 2015-18. If this was extended to 2018-21 we could add an AESA upgrade during CBR (the noses are removed from the aircraft and sit around for 13 months gathering dust) with minimal disruption. This would enable us to push back our F-35 buy to under 20% in LRIP.

 

[Sea Toby]

Since these aircraft building programs do get stretched out, and when everyone wants at least some of the first built aircraft as soon as possible, it might be a wise idea to stretch out the buys from one buy to two, having two different aircraft in the fleet much like warships. This way block obsolescence is avoided. Its easier to replace 50 rather than 100, and buy an aircraft every 15 years instead of 30 years.

One does not replace the entire fleet of warships at once, I think it would be wise not to replace the entire air combat force at once either. May cost a bit more in the long run, but as I said block obsolescence would be avoided.

 

[barra]

I think the idea of pushing the service life of our -A and -B model Hornets out to 2020 is getting just a tad optimistic, particularly without CBR. Chucking an AESA radar in them at this stage of there life ain't going to happen. It has taken us how long to get HUG 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 to this stage by the time we got an AESA mod done it would be time to retire them.

It appears to me that DEFMIN has painted himself into a corner on the Super Hornet issue. I can't see how he can turn around now and say ordering another 32 SH's is a good idea. I know he is a politician but even he couldn't be that cynical.

The question of who and what the ADF deploys is really at the whim of the politicians, the current make up of deployed forces could change rapidly if the Govt so wishes. The HUG program has really castrated the air combat force over the last 3-4 years. We simply do not have enough airframes to deploy a reasonable force, maintain that force in theatre, carry out the HUG mods and maintain enough airframes in Oz for pilot training and currency. That is the folly of our small fighter force, but it also applies to Army and Navy to. Hopefully now that we are coming out the other side of HUG with more airframes available, Hornets could be deployed to A'stan and the RAAF could be seen to be "pulling its weight". Not that the efforts of ALG and MPG should be discounted, elements of both groups have been deployed in the Mid East area for the past 5 years continuously. And I haven't forgotten about -111's either, lets not go there.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Since these aircraft building programs do get stretched out, and when everyone wants at least some of the first built aircraft as soon as possible, it might be a wise idea to stretch out the buys from one buy to two, having two different aircraft in the fleet much like warships. This way block obsolescence is avoided. Its easier to replace 50 rather than 100, and buy an aircraft every 15 years instead of 30 years.

One does not replace the entire fleet of warships at once, I think it would be wise not to replace the entire air combat force at once either. May cost a bit more in the long run, but as I said block obsolescence would be avoided.

This is one of the major arguments put forward in favor of the 50/50 orbat and it does indeed have some merit. However such an aproach has its share of porblems too; we would allways be operateing a platfrom with reduced capability vs the current threat, the RAAF wil be going through a near constant state of flux considering the 10 year period between requirement and aircraft on tarmack, we would be sacrificeing the significantly simplified logistical considerations provided by a single platform fleet which was a significant consideration for the RAAF in the first place. Maybe the most significant problem is that we would be sacrificeing the use (from 50% of our orbat) of the platfrom that was deemed to be the most suitable and capable buy heads and sholders, for one that is distinctly inferior.

 

[the road runner]

HI Barra
may i ask you what you mean about dont get me started on the 111's?
I am a great admiror of the F-111 and do agree that they are getting old but what a plane it has been for OZ over the last 30+ years.I know alot of guys dont like the Copp (KOPP) crew but did he have a good idea when he said that an ASEA should be placed on the F-111? Im just wondering if this is a good idea or not?IMHO i think it would have cost us alot of coin to do this but am not sure if it would be theght thing to do.Was wondering what the others think of this Copp idea?
Also great to here that the government might consider purchasing more Super bug woo hoo(hope we get the extra 32 odd planes)
Dont cancell the super order Kevin 07!it will kick us in the :nutkick
Sea Toby you make a great point about block obsolecence.

Since these aircraft building programs do get stretched out, and when everyone wants at least some of the first built aircraft as soon as possible, it might be a wise idea to stretch out the buys from one buy to two, having two different aircraft in the fleet much like warships. This way block obsolescence is avoided. Its easier to replace 50 rather than 100, and buy an aircraft every 15 years instead of 30 years

Really a great point sea toby(also first time at trying to copy and quote someones ideas and opinion,dont know if i did it right)

MEEP MEEP

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

HI Barra
may i ask you what you mean about dont get me started on the 111's?
I am a great admiror of the F-111 and do agree that they are getting old but what a plane it has been for OZ over the last 30+ years.I know alot of guys dont like the Copp (KOPP) crew but did he have a good idea when he said that an ASEA should be placed on the F-111? Im just wondering if this is a good idea or not?IMHO i think it would have cost us alot of coin to do this but am not sure if it would be theght thing to do.Was wondering what the others think of this Copp idea?
Also great to here that the government might consider purchasing more Super bug woo hoo(hope we get the extra 32 odd planes)
Dont cancell the super order Kevin 07!it will kick us in the :nutkick

i'm not barra, but i just want to put my $.02 in. An AESA on the F-111 is a $hitehouse idea. You cant just stick an AESA on the front of any old thing, you would have to do a truely massive avionics overhaul just to get the radar to work. The avionics on the PiG are primitive! These sort of things are not easy, just have a look at the seasprites. This would be alot more complicated. Anyway what real benifit would we enjoy? Better detection ranges of aircraft? So what the pig cant engage them anyway, unless you want to turn it into an interceptor ala F-111S . You might detect ships at longer range when conducting marritime strike, but the low altitude ingress the PiG does best would keep the target on the other side of the radar horizon so there goes that idea. If you want any of the fancy AESA stuff like EA your going to need an avionics suite comperable to the Super Hornet.

Basically its a HUGE investment with HUGE risk for practically NO gain. Therefore why on earth would you want to?

Spending anything on the F-111 over keeping the platform in the air for the next 2 years is a waste of money IMHO.

 

[Magoo]

The problem with Australia’s indicative F-35 order needs is that we want some 40% of them from LRIP

The F-35 remains the best long term option for the RAAF but we don’t need to be buying so many from LRIP. We can push back our orders to a more conservative LRIP loading like 20% (about the average of the lower tier partner nations), to lower cost and mitigate risk.

Australia is currently scheduled to receive 27 F-35s from LRIP production; comprising four in LRIP 5 (2013), eight in LRIP 6 (2014) and 15 in LRIP 7 (2015). Multi Year Procurement (MYP) full rate production is due to kick in after this during which the RAAF will receive a further 15 in 2016, 15 in 2017, and 15 in 2018.

If F-35 is selected for Phase 2C, a further 15 aircraft would be delivered in 2019, and the final 13 in 2020, for a total of 100 aircraft.

So, on current plans and if F-35 is selected for 2C, 27% of the jets will be from LRIP. In his presentation to media last month, Tom Burbage expected the average unit cost price of US$47m (2002 dollars - ~US$76m in 2014 dollars if extrapolated at 4% inflation) to apply from somewhere late in LRIP 6, so hopefully we won't have too many jets fall before that point on the curve.

Since these aircraft building programs do get stretched out, and when everyone wants at least some of the first built aircraft as soon as possible, it might be a wise idea to stretch out the buys from one buy to two, having two different aircraft in the fleet much like warships. This way block obsolescence is avoided. Its easier to replace 50 rather than 100, and buy an aircraft every 15 years instead of 30 years.

One does not replace the entire fleet of warships at once, I think it would be wise not to replace the entire air combat force at once either. May cost a bit more in the long run, but as I said block obsolescence would be avoided.

On face value, ST speaks some sense here from a fleet planning point of view, but the F-111`s and Hornets were bought 15 years apart and now look what's happened, so it doesn't always work out that way.

Cheers

Magoo

 

[barra]

HI Barra
may i ask you what you mean about dont get me started on the 111's?
I am a great admiror of the F-111 and do agree that they are getting old but what a plane it has been for OZ over the last 30+ years.I know alot of guys dont like the Copp (KOPP) crew but did he have a good idea when he said that an ASEA should be placed on the F-111? Im just wondering if this is a good idea or not?IMHO i think it would have cost us alot of coin to do this but am not sure if it would be theght thing to do.Was wondering what the others think of this Copp idea?


MEEP MEEP

Hey RR,

They where a great aircraft and that is the point, time and technology has moved on. For long range, fast, low level strike they are magnificent. However, as the Brits found out in GW 1 when they lost a number of Tornados to ground fire, fast low level strike can be costly. As OB points out simply stating that an AESA radar can be fitted to bring them up to date massively understates the size of the engineering task of successfully achieving that goal. The pig has suffered from annoying E3 problems during its service life with the RAAF. The cause of these E3 problems has been ill considered modifications over the years , namely the placement of looms or systems next to each other simply because space exists or it is the most direct route for a loom with no consideration of what will happen when both systems are operating. So basically it really is time to retire the -111's and move on.

AD raised the point the other day of operating a single type of fighter and the problem of grounding your fleet due to maintenance issues. Grounding of A/C occasionally occurs ala F-15 recently. The RAAF has had cause to ground both Hornets and Pigs for maintenance issues on occasion, however never at the same time as far as I can remember. The Canadians have operated a single type fighter force for the past 20 odd years with no major problems. In fact Canadian hornets were deployed to Alaska recently to cover for the grounded USAF F-15s. So while operating a single type may be problematic at times the cost savings of operating one type rather than two is worth the hassle, particularly for a small force like the RAAF/ADF.

Barra

 

[gf0012-aust]

Just one question, who TF is Professor Dupont?

To follow up on AD's ref. Dupont is one of the more credible commentators and does attempt to inject balance. He is a long term directly involved player. He is well regarded across the fence line because he is not an idealogue.

If you actually talk to the people in Canberra who are doing the policy work that will feed the Government’s decisions then you get a very different picture.

There's a whole raft of internal indicators that I'd love to comment on but can't. (I Like my job!)

but, as usual, spot on and far more relevant to this discussion than the usual enthusiastic speculation that gets chucked into the fire (esp from the muppets in the broadsheets)

btw, I've got a feed from a broadsheet journo wanting to source more accurate detail - from my perspective (and yours) you might want to PM or email me at some point