Sorry if I was abrupt there F-15 (wasn't in a good mood that day), as you can see from GF's post they don't deserve comment and I was just trying to do my part help keep the topics respectable as I enjoy reading the consistent high quality comments of this site.
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
I agree with swerve but on a slightly different reasoning.
Say a motor bike is the best way to wieve through traffic getting to work each day. You use your motor bike 5 times weeks but would be using use a car on weekends to make life easier for shopping and picking freinds occasionally.
Now would you buy another few motorbikes over a car becasue you use the motorbikes more often and they are cheaper. No, as long a one motorbike is sufficient to do the job the purchase on the car for its more specialised roles and increased cost instead of two new motorboikes is justified. Same with the above. If 6 C27's are able to meet the minimum requirements of the airforce then why buy the extra wanted capability when we are lacking in another area that can best be done by a C-47.
Probably not the best example or wording but I hope you see my point.
Concerning the CH-47 order I would rather like to see a Squadron of 12 for Army aviation+2 for Training+ 2 Replacements. I do not know why but the idea to have CH47 for Special Forces seems rather strange because there Number would be to low to have any significance about how many G Models are we talking sth like 3? You have to take into account that 1/3 rule which would mean that only one could be deployed.
And add 16 MRH would be also good as it would give the Army another Squadron+ some more for Training +some for the Navy.
And what I do not get is why nobody in the ADF considers to purchase more Tigers to bring them on the same Aircraft Numbers as a British or US Aviation Bn(24 Airframes) or German Attack Aviation Regiment. (32 Airframes)
And add 16 MRH would be also good as it would give the Army another Squadron+ some more for Training +some for the Navy.
And what I do not get is why nobody in the ADF considers to purchase more Tigers to bring them on the same Aircraft Numbers as a British or US Aviation Bn(24 Airframes) or German Attack Aviation Regiment. (32 Airframes)
It would certainly be nice to have an extra 10 Chinooks, 16 MRH-90s and additional Tigers but with the present budget tightening it would be a difficult sell to the government. I agree that more of all of these helos are needed. along with additional naval helos to replace the cancelled Seasprites. I've always thought that 22 Tigers were insufficient. It is a bit ironic that the ADF originally had 12 Chinooks before making what seemed to me to be a very strange decision to get rid of them.
Tas
battlensign
New Member
Not really sure on that one. Despite extending the average 3%p/a increase to 2017/18 for the ADO budget, it appears that there is some turbulence in coming up. The White Paper gives ample scope to screw the ADF and there is much pessimism in the air around Russell.
If you keep asking questions like this you will have GF saying: "We're going to get screwed. I don't mean to seem mysterious, but I can't talk about it and I can't talk about why.........". Suffice to say, give peace a chance, cause if it comes to war they're making sure we won't have a prayer! On a more serious note, it's not exactly as though the RAAF is hardly done by....... 16B F-35s, 3.5B Wedgies, MRTTS, 2.2B C-17's, 6.6B SBugs etc etc etc.....But another 2 Wedgies, 4 C-17s and 3 MRTTs would be nice.....
Brett.
Every week for the last month we've had email alerts and reminders that if we speak out of shop, to journalists etc.... then we risk running foul of Commonwealth Law and/or sections of Civil Law.
We are not to talk about things in the ADF that are happening.
There's a clear message there. If you know anyone who is in Defence and who reads their mail you will know it's so.
This attitude and warning to all has been escalated beyond normal comments from the headshed.
I'lll be stuffed if I'm going to jeopardise my job just to give a public forum some inside juice.
Believe me, the threats are real.
But another 2 Wedgies, 4 C-17s and 3 MRTTs would be nice.....
And who's going to fly and maintain all these extra airframes???Navor86 said:
:unknownCan we please have a reality check and get back on track.
I don't think that Defence is the only government department generating these sorts of messages. There seems to be an unprecedented level of control being generated from the PM's department. There have been some embarrassing leaks from some departments so some level of information management is possibly justified but I don't know how Defence is going to run effectively if every minor decision has to be vetted and ratified by the PM! I understand your concerns GF and I sympathise. It might also explain why a number of our usual posters have been fairly quiet lately or, if they have posted, have appeared to be very careful with what they have said.
However, that doesn't stop the rest of us from asking hard questions about the apparent stalling of, and in some cases back pedalling with, the present defence procurement program. We've seen Seasprite cancelled and Penguin put up for sale with no mention of replacement in either case. There has been talk about MRTTs being diverted to VIP use with no mention of replacement by additional dedicated tanker transports which has not been denied by the Defmin. There have been yet further delays with the Caribou replacement program and nothing has been said about the 3 CH-47Fs mentioned by the previous Defmin prior to the election. Just about the only order confirmed was the previously criticised Super Hornet deal (probably because the new government finally woke up to the fact that it will buy time and save money with the air combat capability program).
The chances of getting new projects like the P-8A or additional C-17s, Wedgetails or MRTTs approved by the current government is looking to me to be increasingly unlikely.
Tas
battlensign
New Member
JoeMcFriday
New Member
So they should be, in the interests of National Security, loose lips sink ships et al.gf0012-aust said:
That's the good side of Official Secrets acts, the downside is that it also ensures the truth behind decision making involving many billions of dollars won't be known for at least 30 years, if ever.
Senior government officials and politicians will have retired and gone on to consultancies, directorships or unbelievably lucrative speaking tours and passed into history very wealthy men.
Senior military officers who didn't rock the boat will have got the promotions they were after, or to rephrase, would definitely not have got if they had rocked the it. There are also consultancies and various well paid positions available for them in the after service life aren't there?
Buying the Super Hornets is a great decision given the amount of money wasted and still to be wasted [CBRs] on many of our present aged Hornet fleet and another 24 wouldn't go astray. This is not to say many of the upgrades weren't necessary but now the USN is sharing it's production batches with us, they're surely not necessary to complete, given the often mentioned opinions about no real threats in this area.
According to much of the 'expert' opinion in this thread, I have read all 86 pages prior to joining, the new Hornet will do all that is required in our area. More importantly it seems, though not as strenuously put, we will be able to quickly send them elsewhere as a fully integrated part of a coalition force. To be seen as a good, dutiful ally no doubt but integration with our major allies' systems is essential, providing they actually share all data with us.
The logic of some experts here escapes me a little as at one time they argue, for example, the F111 [even upgraded] is unsurvivable in our area so we need the F35 but at other times the same experts argue we have/will have no credible threats in this region so the F22 [even if available, as was proposed at one time] is not required. Little mention is made of how our classic Hornets would cope over the next ten years.
I am not, nor have ever been connected with a site so many here hate with a passion so any negative comments re my mention of the F111 and F22 will be wasted.
My only point here is we own the F111 fleet and the F22 is in service plus it is my understanding it was cleared at a high level for supply to Australia only, at one point, then suddenly killed. I believe that was just before our decision to join the JSF program was suddenly announced?
There has been much fuss made about an orphan F111 fleet. I'd rather own a potent orphan than an unfilled order form, at least until the item ordered is tested and in service. Enough Super Hornets should do well enough though.
The Israelis seem to do rather well with orphans and an indigenous arms industry to support them, don't they?
It is abundantly clear the decision to commit to a proposed purchase of the developmental F35 [no matter how great it will, or may be] was heavily politically influenced and it is also in Lockheed Martin's interest to have us tied to the JSF program and not the F22. To think that Lockheed Martin and Boeing don't have huge political clout here and in the USA is unrealistic.
So many times in this thread 'expert' comments have been made about senior ADF staff watching their career prospects, so why should I believe that unbiased appraisals of our needs, presented by personnel committed to the troops, are prevalent at the highest level? If they are and their judgments are being ignored surely word would have got out by now?
The reality is defense purchases are all too often a political compromise which leaves us waiting for assets our service personnel deserve to have and not always the ones they should have, when they should have them.
The F35 may be as good as it's proposed to be, it is not yet proven and it may be deliverable in the time frame quoted, only time will tell.
Anyone, 'expert' or not, who claims these things as a certainty would do well to remember the original F111 saga [amongst many others] and stop playing PR man for Lockheed Martin or their own undisclosed interests if any.
It's in Boeing's and the USN's interest to sell us the Super Hornet from the USNs' production lots, so we should take advantage of that and buy another 24 and take the pressure off our Classic squadrons ASAP.
It may not be an F111, F22, F15E or F35 but it is proven, multi-role, available now, compatible with our infrastructure and new off the line. The F35 is not yet an operational reality, despite what one could read here about its 'capabilities', the future of the F111 has been decided but surely it could be kept flying long enough to allow complete delivery of the additional Supers and the retirement of 24 of our oldest Hornets? I doubt this would have any impact on the numbers of F35s we may have on the roster in the long run and would give us a much more economical , reliable, modern combat capability in a much shorter time frame.
Cheers,
Mac
Last edited by a moderator:
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
JoeMcFriday
New Member
I think that participating in the F35 program is a very wise thing to do, as the concept holds great promise and $150m is not that much in defense dollars.
It's the history of delays and cost blow outs in similar 'off the drawing board' projects that concerns me most. I fully support our involvement in seeking the best solution for our defense needs, though I'm wary of any future 'bottomless pit' financial commitments, hopefully so is the Government.
I was advocating the purchase of another 24 Super Hornets now because their timetable to be in service would be a known factor and from reading this thread I feel the RAAF could well do with the extra, new airframes ASAP.
Against the purchase of the 24 aircraft, I've seen under $3 billion suggested here, there are maintenance and operational savings to factored in.
I realise the F111 would have to go eventually, as originally planned seemed logical but I'm not convinced it's being paid off now for the reasons so often touted. Was the advice to purchase another squadron faulty? If so who gave that advice? Were the dollars spent on upgrades wasted? If so who advised the upgrades be done? Are the same people still giving advice?
In the light of later revelations concerning the questionable viability of the expensive CBR repairs to many of the Classic Hornets', so confidently entered into, is it possible the latest case for the F111s' premature demise was overstated? It seems once the F111 'case' was made public, there could be no going back as that would reflect on the quality of the advice and advisers and we are left in a more precarious position than intended with the Classics.
The F35 delivery date, given that it's ordered, is only speculation as yet [no matter how confident its pundits are] and from reading this thread CBRs are a waste of money and time if the RAAF had a shorter term, new build option.
I'm sure Defense has its finger on the pulse, what it reads from it is another thing and given the chopping and changing of options and purchases in the last ten years, I'm not sure what they'd do or if it would be the best option.
A further order of Super Hornets would seem to be an affordable, decisive and positive step to making sure the RAAF has plenty of options beyond 2020, even with the proposed F35 in stock.
They sure won't be able to use the 'pig' [upgraded or not] for strikes or as a deterrent after 2010 or maybe our Hornets are in better condition than it seems from all I've read and can all be used. If so and the RAAF aircrew would rather fly the bulk of the Legacy Hornets until the JSF arrives then I withdraw my suggestion and cede that I've misunderstood the many posts on the matter of the Classics.
Cheers,
Mac
It's the history of delays and cost blow outs in similar 'off the drawing board' projects that concerns me most. I fully support our involvement in seeking the best solution for our defense needs, though I'm wary of any future 'bottomless pit' financial commitments, hopefully so is the Government.
I was advocating the purchase of another 24 Super Hornets now because their timetable to be in service would be a known factor and from reading this thread I feel the RAAF could well do with the extra, new airframes ASAP.
Against the purchase of the 24 aircraft, I've seen under $3 billion suggested here, there are maintenance and operational savings to factored in.
I realise the F111 would have to go eventually, as originally planned seemed logical but I'm not convinced it's being paid off now for the reasons so often touted. Was the advice to purchase another squadron faulty? If so who gave that advice? Were the dollars spent on upgrades wasted? If so who advised the upgrades be done? Are the same people still giving advice?
In the light of later revelations concerning the questionable viability of the expensive CBR repairs to many of the Classic Hornets', so confidently entered into, is it possible the latest case for the F111s' premature demise was overstated? It seems once the F111 'case' was made public, there could be no going back as that would reflect on the quality of the advice and advisers and we are left in a more precarious position than intended with the Classics.
The F35 delivery date, given that it's ordered, is only speculation as yet [no matter how confident its pundits are] and from reading this thread CBRs are a waste of money and time if the RAAF had a shorter term, new build option.
I'm sure Defense has its finger on the pulse, what it reads from it is another thing and given the chopping and changing of options and purchases in the last ten years, I'm not sure what they'd do or if it would be the best option.
A further order of Super Hornets would seem to be an affordable, decisive and positive step to making sure the RAAF has plenty of options beyond 2020, even with the proposed F35 in stock.
They sure won't be able to use the 'pig' [upgraded or not] for strikes or as a deterrent after 2010 or maybe our Hornets are in better condition than it seems from all I've read and can all be used. If so and the RAAF aircrew would rather fly the bulk of the Legacy Hornets until the JSF arrives then I withdraw my suggestion and cede that I've misunderstood the many posts on the matter of the Classics.
Cheers,
Mac
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
I thought that they decided they made a mistake by retiring the G model F111's early but when they ran the cost analysis of reactivating them it was found to not be cost effective, thus the F18 F order. Could be wrong though.
JoeMcFriday
New Member
Hi Stevo,
I believe that's a part of the official reason and without relevant data relating to what it was compared to in deciding it was not cost effective, we'll have to take their word for it.
Cost effectiveness, or cost/benefit analysis, is usually guided by the criteria of the body that sets the task and if the agenda of that body is to either justify, or change, a decision already made that is the result you will get.
One person may decide a sports car is a waste of money because he/she has four kids [not cost effective for their needs], where the next person may think it's the best investment they ever made for a nippy runabout. Depends on the criteria they have, based on their perceived needs. In this example their perceived needs are quite obvious, clearly valid and logical.
Given the Classics' alleged problems, I would have thought it more logical to buy the Supers to replace the least cost effective 24 Hornets and not spend any more than necessary to last until they're replaced. A further 24 would be had at a vastly reduced cost [from initial $6b] and replace the 'pigs'.
Even if it cost more in the short term, I'm sure it could be shown to be cost effective over time but then maybe someone would have to admit another mistake re. the cost effectiveness and feasibility of the CBR program.
In the absence of any apparent will to keep the 'orphan' F111s operational no analysis will save them, even if it's a fraction of the billions being spent.
Recognising that I speculated, why not cut our future losses/costs and buy more new Supers at the going rate. I'm not the first on this forum to suggest this course of action and others have explained already how they believe it's affordable without affecting other major purchases.
The first thing I factor into my cost benefit analysis is that it's our young people who have to fly them and they have enough to worry about 'out there' without nursing their steeds, same with the ground crews.
Cheers,
Mac
I believe that's a part of the official reason and without relevant data relating to what it was compared to in deciding it was not cost effective, we'll have to take their word for it.
Cost effectiveness, or cost/benefit analysis, is usually guided by the criteria of the body that sets the task and if the agenda of that body is to either justify, or change, a decision already made that is the result you will get.
One person may decide a sports car is a waste of money because he/she has four kids [not cost effective for their needs], where the next person may think it's the best investment they ever made for a nippy runabout. Depends on the criteria they have, based on their perceived needs. In this example their perceived needs are quite obvious, clearly valid and logical.
Given the Classics' alleged problems, I would have thought it more logical to buy the Supers to replace the least cost effective 24 Hornets and not spend any more than necessary to last until they're replaced. A further 24 would be had at a vastly reduced cost [from initial $6b] and replace the 'pigs'.
Even if it cost more in the short term, I'm sure it could be shown to be cost effective over time but then maybe someone would have to admit another mistake re. the cost effectiveness and feasibility of the CBR program.
In the absence of any apparent will to keep the 'orphan' F111s operational no analysis will save them, even if it's a fraction of the billions being spent.
Recognising that I speculated, why not cut our future losses/costs and buy more new Supers at the going rate. I'm not the first on this forum to suggest this course of action and others have explained already how they believe it's affordable without affecting other major purchases.
The first thing I factor into my cost benefit analysis is that it's our young people who have to fly them and they have enough to worry about 'out there' without nursing their steeds, same with the ground crews.
Cheers,
Mac
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
The F-111's have to be retired BEFORE we start getting Supers' or else there will be no-one to fly them anyway...
The F-111's will be retired in 2010 and the first Super deliveries will begin in 2010.
I'm pretty sure the 3x Hornet squadrons can manage the transition period of a few months...
As to F-35, let's wait till the Air Combat Capability Review comes out before we see what the Government is intending to do shall we?
The F-35 promises the GREATEST air combat capability we CAN actually acquire. Not acquiring it would be foolish in the extreme. The Super whilst an excellent capability now, will not remain so forever and a VLO aircraft will be required in future decades. There is only 2 possible choices there and one of them has been specifically denied to us...
The F-22 was NEVER actually cleared for export to Australia, even it's most fervent proponents admit that...
I have to say I stand in awe of budget proposals, and some of them truly
rattling swords year and year again. Thinking for the chiefs of aviation
who are the most important innovators, till time the engine-prototypes are
designed or ready using alternative fuels or perhaps nuclear-powered.
Which is making engine-industry to the centre of dangerous challenges.
However one truth is when invention of alternative fuel has done first
appearance to markets, governments to any Air Force
(RAAF f.ex.) is able to increase numbers to operations and equipment.
rattling swords year and year again. Thinking for the chiefs of aviation
who are the most important innovators, till time the engine-prototypes are
designed or ready using alternative fuels or perhaps nuclear-powered.
Which is making engine-industry to the centre of dangerous challenges.
However one truth is when invention of alternative fuel has done first
appearance to markets, governments to any Air Force
(RAAF f.ex.) is able to increase numbers to operations and equipment.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Huh?
Anyhoo, getting back on topic, here is some interesting news about RAAF F/A-18 Hornet upgrades.
Successful upgrades to F/A-18 Hornet capability
Australia’s air capability has been enhanced by the successful trialling of a new Radar Warning Receiver and the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) ‘Smart Bomb’.
The first production of configured F/A-18 Hornet fitted with a new Radar Warning Receiver has successfully flown at RAAF Williamtown, 18 months after the decision to acquire the equipment was made.
The Operational and Technical Airworthiness of the JDAM ‘Smart Bomb’ was accepted by Air Force on F/A-18 A/B fighter aircraft earlier in the year. It will provide improved accuracy and weapon effectiveness and allow air-to-ground weapons to be employed during day and night, and in all weather conditions.
This project is currently within budget and on-track to deliver the complete Electronic Warfare Self Protection upgrade to the entire fleet by 2012.
Pretty pics are available here:
http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2008/Jun/20080624/index.htm
And a bit here more on the RWR upgrade, plus some hints about the radar jamming capability (and an interesting admission
), to arrive soon for the Hornets...New Radar Warning Receiver for Hornets
The first RAAF F/A-18 Hornet with the new ALR-67(V)3 Radar Warning Receiver has taken to the air.
The first F/A-18 Hornet to be fitted with the new ALR-67(V)3 Radar Warning Receiver (RWR) took off from RAAF Williamtown only 18 months after the project acquisition was approved by Government.
This milestone is a significant achievement for the Project Office which, during the 18 months, acquired the Radar Warning Systems and completed the design, integration and testing required to install and operate the new system on the Hornet.
Hornet Upgrade (HUG) Phase 2.3 Project Manager WGCDR Steve Secker said that the delivery of the Interim-Operating Capability on this complex and technical capability is a significant achievement by all Phase 2.3 Project staff.
“During the past 18 months, the entire project office has been working extremely hard to bring this capability on line in the quickest possible time,” WGCDR Secker said.
“We will continue to work hard to achieve our milestones and ensure that the remainder of the capability is delivered on time, within budget and to the capability required by the customer,” he said.
Under Phase 2.3 of the Hornet Upgrade Program, worth approximately $700 million, the Hornet fleet will receive an upgraded Electronic Warfare Self Protection (EWSP) suite which includes:
- replacement of the existing ALR-67B(V)2 Radar Warning Receiver with the ALR-67(V)3 Radar Warning Receiver;
- supplementation of the existing Countermeasures Dispensing System with additional pylon mounted chaff and flare dispensers;
- supplementation of the existing Active RF Electronic Countermeasure System with the EL-L-8222 radar ‘jammer’ pod;
- upgrade to the aircraft Operational Flight Programs Software Configurations Sets;
- upgrade of existing Cockpit Video Recording System, including a data recording capability; and
- upgrades to the test, ground support, maintenance, software and training infrastructure to support the EWSP suite in service.
The next milestone for the project is due in late 2009 and involves the installation of the new data recording system and supplementary chaff and flare dispensers.
The majority of individual elements for the project are being acquired as Military Off-The-Shelf items and considered to be low risk acquisitions. However, there is a significant level of integration sought with the Electronic Counter Measures ‘jammer’.
The Project is maximising the use of Original Equipment Manufacture and United States Navy advice and testing to supplement the limited amount of DMO/Australian expertise in developing such an Electronic Warfare suite.
Obtained from:
http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/news/ontarget/2008/jun08/hl5.cfm
The "enhanced" chaff and flare dispensing counter-measures system they are referring to, is the Swedish BOL for F/A-18, I understand, though it could be a variety.
The details of these systems can be found here:
http://products.saabgroup.com/PDBWebNew/Generic.aspx?Entrance=Product&ProductId=1251
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Why not? They've claimed THEY successfully brought the C-17 and the MRH-90's into service...