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

[Todjaeger]

If you want the full story, I'd advise reading the thread.

To cut a long story short however, the RAAF has a limited budget, therefore it has to select within that budget the aircraft which gives it the best performance to meet the needs of Australia's defence policy.

The F-15E is an excellent aircraft but it is also extremely expensive, the Super Hornet cost something like half as much - a major consideration for a small force with a large area to cover as Australia has. The Super Hornet wasalso picked as an interim option for the RAAF in part for the advantages it has as a transitional model (LO tech etc.) from 4th to 5th generation. It was also immediately available thanks to the willingness of the USN to let Australia jump the queue in receiving airframes.

Ultimately, the Aussies would no doubt love to have an F-15Aus version available but with their funds and range of commitments it simply wasn't a viable option.

While the extra cost of an F-15E purchase would certainly IMO have counted against a RAAF buy of the Strike Eagle, AFAIK the primary driver behind the SHornet choice was time. The USN was willing to allow the RAAF purchase to 'jump' ahead of the existing USN order/build slots, allowing the RAAF to get SHornets several years ahead of schedule. This, coupled with the similarities to RAAF HUG Bugs meant that pilots/crew could have an easier time to transition in the SHornet and allow IOC earlier than would have been the case of a Strike Eagle buy.

Had the F-111 retirement been planned for further ahead, then an F-15E buy would have been more likely, since there would have been a greater lead time between the F-111 retirement and when the replacement needed to reach IOC.

As for announcements regarding a 2nd SHornet buy or a purchase decision delay for the F-35, honestly at this point I think this is more about politics than any considered Defence purchases. Delaying the F-35 decision does not mean that the money will not be spent, just that for some Gov't planning/budgeting purposes, funds do not need to be allocated because the purchase timeframe gets put outside of the planning timeframe for the fiscal year/years. Putting in another SHornet buy looks more like an attempt to 'prop up' a weak political image for Defence, as opposed to responsibly spending Defence funding on needed/useful kit. Keep in mind that while the initial RAAF SHornet purchase allowed the RAAF to stand up a SHornet unit to IOC in ~3 years from selection, unless the USN again allows the RAAF to jump the build queue, any SHornets ordered now would likely enter service only a year or two (or possibly even less) ahead of F-35's ordered next year.

An example of questionable Defence spending would be the ~AUD$100 mil. for Ocean Shield, to act as an interim amphib. Given that Ocean Shield can only provide port to port sealift with a max cargo of ~1,000 tons... Or that the expected plan is that Ocean Shield will the go to BPC within the next few years, that was an awful lot of money for a rather limited capability that will only be had for a short period of time.

-Cheers

-Cheers

 

[alexsa]

An example of questionable Defence spending would be the ~AUD$100 mil. for Ocean Shield, to act as an interim amphib. Given that Ocean Shield can only provide port to port sealift with a max cargo of ~1,000 tons... Or that the expected plan is that Ocean Shield will the go to BPC within the next few years, that was an awful lot of money for a rather limited capability that will only be had for a short period of time.

-Cheers

-Cheers

Yep but .......... $130 million

 

[Whitehead]

So one of the largest reasons for choosing the Super Hornet for the interem is that they could get them much sooner than F-15e's. And I wouldn't say that the f-15e is an outdated platform. It is still being selected for large orders such as South Korea and Saudi to name a few. But that makes sense to choose a 4.5 gen aircraft that they could receive in a shorter time period.

 

[alexsa]

So one of the largest reasons for choosing the Super Hornet for the interem is that they could get them much sooner than F-15e's. And I wouldn't say that the f-15e is an outdated platform. It is still being selected for large orders such as South Korea and Saudi to name a few. But that makes sense to choose a 4.5 gen aircraft that they could receive in a shorter time period.

That assumes the F15 was even being considered. The transition to the F18F was much simpler than would have been the case for the F15 given the formers evolution.


It is a highly capable airframe that has the significant advantage of being part of a long production run for the USN meaning we have the ability to leverage off their block upgrade during the life of the aircraft. It means we will necessarily have to develop such upgrades at our cost.


Lets not forget it also gave us the chance to take the F18G path. None of this would be available if we has a small production run of a specialised airframe such as a modified F15S or K.

 

[Air Force Brat]

That assumes the F15 was even being considered. The transition to the F18F was much simpler than would have been the case for the F15 given the formers evolution.


It is a highly capable airframe that has the significant advantage of being part of a long production run for the USN meaning we have the ability to leverage off their block upgrade during the life of the aircraft. It means we will necessarily have to develop such upgrades at our cost.


Lets not forget it also gave us the chance to take the F18G path. None of this would be available if we has a small production run of a specialised airframe such as a modified F15S or K.

Flight Global reported the grounding of all F-35s due to the discovery of a crack in the third stage LPT, poor little ThunderHogge, more drama on the eve of BHOs sequester mess, oh boy. AFB

 

[hauritz]

If memory serves there was some consideration given to replacing the F-111 with the F-18C back in the 90s. The idea was rejected because the hornets were too short legged.

The F15E was never considered but on reflection it might not have been a bad option.

 

[Todjaeger]

Yep but .......... $130 million

So, for basically the price of HMNZS Canterbury which is actually a somewhat capable sealift ship (she can do SFA for self-defence in medium/high threat enviros and ship-to-shore movements could get dicey in moderate or greater sea states), the ADF gets to use Ocean Shield for a few years, not including operating or maintenance costs, etc. Had Ocean Shield been purchased as a sub support vessel able to transport and operate a deep sea rescue vehicle, that would be one thing. As it is, it looks like some of the suits were attempting to deliberately waste Defence resources.

So one of the largest reasons for choosing the Super Hornet for the interem is that they could get them much sooner than F-15e's. And I wouldn't say that the f-15e is an outdated platform. It is still being selected for large orders such as South Korea and Saudi to name a few. But that makes sense to choose a 4.5 gen aircraft that they could receive in a shorter time period.

Not necessarily get the physical aircraft themselves sooner. I would need to double check to see what the order book and delivery schedule for the F-15 was at the decision time (~2008 IIRC). What was key (apart from the RAAF ability to tap in the USN/USMC SHornet support base) was how quickly the aircraft and unit could reach IOC. The similarities between the HUG Bugs and SHornets meant that the time required to transition into the new aircraft was less than it would have been if the RAAF had chosen a significantly different aircraft.

If memory serves there was some consideration given to replacing the F-111 with the F-18C back in the 90s. The idea was rejected because the hornets were too short legged.

The F15E was never considered but on reflection it might not have been a bad option.

I have a faint recollection of a suggest or offer having been made in the late 90's or early 2000 for the F-15E as well, but it was rejected because at the time the plan was for the F-111's to continue serving until 2020. Had this occurred, then the F-15E's would likely have been due for replacement circa 2030-ish.

-Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

If memory serves there was some consideration given to replacing the F-111 with the F-18C back in the 90s. The idea was rejected because the hornets were too short legged.

The F15E was never considered but on reflection it might not have been a bad option.

F15E consideration would have been a bad idea and would have slowed things down considerably

1) we got entry into the Shornet line because USN did us a favour
2) we got unbelievable assistance above and beyond due to our strong ties with USN - as I've said in the past, USN ties to Australia are stronger than any other US relationship with Aust - they've been able to drive things through that quite frankly no one else would have had the clout or capacity to do so - and that includes State Dept.
3) Logistics logistics logistics (USN)
4) Training training training (USN)
5) minimal interference in doctrine and CONOPs
6) transition transition transition (USN)
7) Force development issues
8) Force balance issues
9) Getting it through AustGov in the most efficient and expeditious means possible - and more critical, getting it past and passed by Central Agencies

under analysis getting the F15E is not a good idea.

 

[ADMk2]

F15E consideration would have been a bad idea and would have slowed things down considerably

1) we got entry into the Shornet line because USN did us a favour
2) we got unbelievable assistance above and beyond due to our strong ties with USN - as I've said in the past, USN ties to Australia are stronger than any other US relationship with Aust - they've been able to drive things through that quite frankly no one else would have had the clout or capacity to do so - and that includes State Dept.
3) Logistics logistics logistics (USN)
4) Training training training (USN)
5) minimal interference in doctrine and CONOPs
6) transition transition transition (USN)
7) Force development issues
8) Force balance issues
9) Getting it through AustGov in the most efficient and expeditious means possible - and more critical, getting it past and passed by Central Agencies

under analysis getting the F15E is not a good idea.

With the Ministerial and Prime Ministerial backing it would have had at the time, would central agencies, have been such an issue?

 

[alexsa]

So, for basically the price of HMNZS Canterbury which is actually a somewhat capable sealift ship (she can do SFA for self-defence in medium/high threat enviros and ship-to-shore movements could get dicey in moderate or greater sea states), the ADF gets to use Ocean Shield for a few years, not including operating or maintenance costs, etc. Had Ocean Shield been purchased as a sub support vessel able to transport and operate a deep sea rescue vehicle, that would be one thing. As it is, it looks like some of the suits were attempting to deliberately waste Defence resources.
-Cheers

Cannot argue with that. The issue is we bought a brand new OSV designed for underwater contruction and ROV work ...... this does not mean subsunk sadly.

About half the vlaue of the paltform was in things that Navy and and ACBPC simply don't need (heave compensated crane, DP2, moon pools, ROV hanger etc). Even the flight deck is limited.............. A lot of the gear will be rended moot when they transfer the shed from OP to OS.

As far as sub rescue at least there is he CAAP programme with DMS

Damen will also build the 83-metre submarine escape gear ship (EGS) and the 93-metre submarine rescue gear ship (RGS)

http://www.dmsmaritime.com/docs/017_DMS_Scuttlebutt_December_2012.pdf
​

​

​

​

​

 

[Trackmaster]

With the Ministerial and Prime Ministerial backing it would have had at the time, would central agencies, have been such an issue?

Reuters are carrying a story, saying the decision on an additional Super Hornet buy could be made in the next three-six weeks.

That would fit with a lead-up to the election.

Half-inch crack blamed for F-35 fighter jet grounding: sources | Reuters

 

[gf0012-aust]

With the Ministerial and Prime Ministerial backing it would have had at the time, would central agencies, have been such an issue?

DoFD appear to have a bigger footprint in the decision making process than one would normally expect.

I suspect that they don't give a fruiterers fig what PM&C might want

 

[ADMk2]

Reuters are carrying a story, saying the decision on an additional Super Hornet buy could be made in the next three-six weeks.

That would fit with a lead-up to the election.

Half-inch crack blamed for F-35 fighter jet grounding: sources | Reuters

I suspect it will either be during Avalon this next week or in May at budget time...

Both times tend to see Aerospace contract announcements from the Australian DoD.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Super Hornet AND JSF announcements this week. The JSF announcement being the additional 12 aircraft for the initial tranche of 14 aircraft.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I suspect it will either be during Avalon this next week or in May at budget time...

Both times tend to see Aerospace contract announcements from the Australian DoD.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Super Hornet AND JSF announcements this week. The JSF announcement being the additional 12 aircraft for the initial tranche of 14 aircraft.

they do bizarre stuff though - eg they held off on public Growler announcements for almost 10 months

the extra 24 have been doing the rounds for at least 9 months

 

[protoplasm]

they do bizarre stuff though - eg they held off on public Growler announcements for almost 10 months

the extra 24 have been doing the rounds for at least 9 months

I'll be at Avalon, I'll post it up as the announcement is made

 

[Volkodav]

I remember that during the mid to late 80's many in the RAAF were still pretty dark on the F/A-18 being selected over the F-15 with the advent of the F-15E annoying them even more.

One grizzled old RAAFie explained to me that the no brainer way forward would have been;
- retention of the leased F-4Es to replace a Sqn of Miracles (76Sqn instead of disbanding it) in the mid 70's,
- acquisition of a dozen or so RF-4C to replace the Cranberries 2 Sqn,
- a batch of 50 F-15C/D to replace most of the remaining Miracles in the mid 80s,
- 50 AV-8B to replace the last Sqn of Miracles and the RAN FAAs Skyhawks, and
- finally 24+ F-15E to replace the F-111.
The F-4Es would have been upgraded to F-4G as the Eagles and Harriers came online.

Sound expensive but I have to wonder how much more it would have cost compared to the path that was taken, including expensive life extensions and upgrades to maintain the capability of aging fleets, work arounds to cover lost capability or fill gaps from never having the capability.

Never actually read anything that says any of this was on the cards, may have been a RAAF pipe dream. Then again I have also that during the early 70's the RAN was offered both HMS Eagle and Hermes (again, as first offered in 1968) and that the RN FAA was certain the RAN would be buying their surplus Sea Vixens; the carrier replacement program was also meant to be looking at a total of three hulls to support the two ocean navy concept, hence Eagle and Hermes with the large Harrier buy down the track. Who knows it all seems to have been a very busy time short circuited by changes in government and global economic woes (sound familiar?)

 

[Whitehead]

That would have made for one heck of an air attack/defence force! I was thinking Australia would favor the 15 over the hornet for the range. But I guess they wanted the versatility of the hornet.

 

[Volkodav]

Interestingly many years after this conversation another ex-RAAFie also mentioned to me that during the late 70's there was a push to buy 50 F-15s and 50 Harriers. Maybe there was something to it, wait and see if someone smarter or at least more motivated than myself can find out.

 

[STURM]

Does anyone know when was the first time the RAAF deployed a C-17 to Butterworth, to participate in an FPDA exercise, was it 2010 or 2011? Thank you.

 

[colay]

I wonder if his message will resonate with the decision makers?


F-35 chief Bogdan to execute, not cheerlead | Australian Aviation Magazine

..L.t Gen Bogdan said that despite the problems experienced in the past, he was confident in the ability to deliver a more advanced, survivable jet to the RAAF and other partner nations.

“Relative to the schedule, if the plan which Australia intends on moving forward with stays to IOC in 2020 with the [initial warfighting capability software Block] 3i, I will tell you that Australia doesn’t have much to worry about,” he said.

“Why? Because in 2015 I have to deliver the same capability to the US Marine Corp. Eight months later I have to deliver the same capability to Italy in 2016, then in the middle of 2017 I have to deliver the same capability to the Israelis. Then there will be a three year wait until we deliver to the Australians.”

“So even if I screw this up royally – and I do not intend to do that – I’m pretty sure I’ll meet Australia’s 2020 date.”

Categories: Headlines, Military