EA/18G Growler

[Tasman]

Just interested. What is VCE?

It is the Victorian Certificate of Education. This is a certificate that recognises the successful completion of senior secondary education (Year 12). It is a qualification that is recognised around the world and provides pathways to further study at university, etc. It is also used by many employers to help with their selection processes.

Cheers

 

[Waylander]

Ah, thanks.
Looks similar to our requirement for university.

 

[Tasman]

Could the FA-18F deal be cancelled after the election?

There have been some suggestions in this and other forums re the RAAF's air combat capability that a new government may opt out of the Super Hornet deal. I am unaware of this being suggested by the Labor Party, although the selection of the SH has certainly been discussed by their Defence Spokesman. Generally, from what I have seen, these discussions have tended to focus mainly on criticisms of the JSF program and attempts to embarass the government about it getting into a position where a capability gap has been created. Having criticised government over a capability gap I can't see how they could then threaten to cancel the aircraft designed to fill that gap.

Is anyone aware of suggestions by the Labor Party or any of its members that they might pull the plug on the FA-18F?

If so:

How set in concrete is the contract likely to be by the end of this year when the election is due?

What sort of costs would be involved if the contract was broken?

What would be the implications for the RAAF, bearing in mind that the F111G force is already being run down?

Cheers

 

[phreeky]

No answer to your questions, but I have heard nothing of the Labor Party criticising the SH purchase, and I don't see any reason why this would be done.

They've very much criticised the government for allowing the capability gap to occur, so even if they intend to cancel the SH order it'd be political suicide to mention such an intention with an upcoming election looming.

 

[stray_kiwi]

No answer to your questions, but I have heard nothing of the Labor Party criticising the SH purchase, and I don't see any reason why this would be done.

They've very much criticised the government for allowing the capability gap to occur, so even if they intend to cancel the SH order it'd be political suicide to mention such an intention with an upcoming election looming.

The New Zealand public saw no reason why the Labour government would pull out of the F-16 deal but they did, AFTER they won the election. I guess its just wait and see.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Is anyone aware of suggestions by the Labor Party or any of its members that they might pull the plug on the FA-18F?

I've got a contact who has been a long time adviser to one of the established senators. They have made it very very clear that Labs defence policy is a shambles and that they have no coherent plan. This person was part of a tender evaluation team I managed - so they're pretty clued up.

In their view:

• Their F-22 comments are throw away lines, they know that the plane does not have legs to get up even if they get into govt
• They will keep the F-111's as it's a cheaper option than forking out for a new platform (and there are mumbles that it would not be replaced at a capabily role)
• They won't abandon JSF as there are too many australian industry advantages that would be lost - they've had some australian suppliers to JSF speaking to members in electorate areas
• ADF will get pruned even further as other portfolios are seen as more important. That view is coming from people within the party and includes input from some state parliamentarians who have vested interests in keeping their constituents happy (eg ausindustry)
• There is also a view that if Lab get in they would rapidly stop "pursuit" of getting the F-22 due to the above reasons. At the moment its seen as a "free kick" debate.

My 2c, but its coming from credible people, some of who were team colleagues as well as friends for over 10 years.

 

[gf0012-aust]

[Admin: posters comments deleted for privacy issues]
Will i be banned now as my credentials aren't mil spec?

The issue had nothing to do with whether you had a mil industry background or qualifications, but on your style of debate where you post comments as statement of fact - even when the science of what you promote is roundly discounted by some who are in a better position to make qualified comment.

Engage in debate, but change the way you debate. There is clear concern amongst the mods and the professionals group that some of your responses would be seen by less informed readers as statements of fact rather than unqualified opinion.

 

[Tasman]

I've got a contact who has been a long time adviser to one of the established senators. They have made it very very clear that Labs defence policy is a shambles and that they have no coherent plan. This person was part of a tender evaluation team I managed - so they're pretty clued up.

In their view:

• Their F-22 comments are throw away lines, they know that the plane does not have legs to get up even if they get into govt
• They will keep the F-111's as it's a cheaper option than forking out for a new platform (and there are mumbles that it would not be replaced at a capabily role)
• They won't abandon JSF as there are too many australian industry advantages that would be lost - they've had some australian suppliers to JSF speaking to members in electorate areas
• ADF will get pruned even further as other portfolios are seen as more important. That view is coming from people within the party and includes input from some state parliamentarians who have vested interests in keeping their constituents happy (eg ausindustry)
• There is also a view that if Lab get in they would rapidly stop "pursuit" of getting the F-22 due to the above reasons. At the moment its seen as a "free kick" debate.

My 2c, but its coming from credible people, some of who were team colleagues as well as friends for over 10 years.

Hmm... I can see that a comment I made on another thread that "that the FA-18F is likely to be an important part of the RAAF's force structure for some time and that, like it or not, the F111 will soon be gone", may have been premature.

If the F111 is retained by a new government is it likely that it will simply be maintained in safe flying condition in its present state until the JSF comes into service or is it likely to be upgraded along the lines proposed by APA? Certainly I will be talking to my local candidate about this.

My concern is that without the bridging aircraft the number of F111/FA-18s available will be reduced to a dangerously low figure if the JSF is delayed, something that seems a distinct possibility.

Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

Hmm... I can see that a comment I made on another thread that "that the FA-18F is likely to be an important part of the RAAF's force structure for some time and that, like it or not, the F111 will soon be gone", may have been premature.

If the F111 is retained by a new government is it likely that it will simply be maintained in safe flying condition in its present state until the JSF comes into service or is it likely to be upgraded along the lines proposed by APA? Certainly I will be talking with local candidate about this.

My concern is that without the bridging aircraft the number of F111/FA-18s available will be reduced to a dangerously low figure if the JSF is delayed, something that seems a distinct possibility.

Cheers

Probably the easiest way to look at it (and I can only comment on this advisers perspective) is that the Opposition lack coherence on how to move forward.

His view is that they would take the lazy way out, and channel that money back into other social responsibilities.

ie.

• keep F-111 if possible and be seen as frugal,
• not get F-22 as they clearly aren't convinced that we can get it (and they have been privy to some meetings at the protected level)
• make a decision based on Shornet as an exercise of review

I should add, that Lab are very much divided on the issue of keeping the F-111's as for some of them they see long range strikers as being legacy "colonial" weapons.

In the same breath there are some who clearly don't want to continue getting US kit. That means no SHornets or JSF or F-22 and a re-opening of the bid process. They are however buffered by those members who have industry members in the JSF programme as part of their electoral constituency.

In fact, the Govts smartest move would be to make JSF a real issue and draw out political party debate. I suspect that the opposition would go into an implosion and be seen very rapidly as a divided house.

From a personal perspective, I was involved in meetings with some of their front bench on other issues about 2 weeks ago, it was patently apparent to me that the internal divisions were simmering and that they were only just holding it together. If they get in, they will be brawling within 6 months. If thats the case, I really believe that ADF will get a hammering.

Major Capital Projects will get lanced all over the place.

 

[MARKMILES77]

GF:
Major Capital Projects will get lanced all over the place.

Better hope the Super Hornet contract is signed before the election is called then!

Other projects like the artillery replacement project (and the predicted PzH-2000 purchase), AWD, Amphibs etc would also likely face the scrap heap if we had not signed on the dotted line!

 

[Waylander]

Noooo, scrap the Superbugs but buy the PzH!

 

[phreeky]

Better hope the Super Hornet contract is signed before the election is called then!

While I appreciate the knowledge of members here, I'm holding out for an official answer on this question (and yes I've asked an am awaiting a response - if one comes).

Labor has released at least general details of their policies on a number of matters, but quite oddly nothing substantial on defence.

 

[Tasman]

While I appreciate the knowledge of members here, I'm holding out for an official answer on this question (and yes I've asked an am awaiting a response - if one comes).

Labor has released at least general details of their policies on a number of matters, but quite oddly nothing substantial on defence.

It would be great if you would share any response with us phreeky. It would be good to have something official. Perhaps if enough people ask questions re their defence policy they will at least get the message that they should have a policy and tell us what it is! As well as the FA-18F (and NACC in general) I am also keen to know where they stand on matters like the AWD and LHD for the navy, Helos, SPHs and IFVs for the army, and the general size of the ADF.

Cheers

 

[RubiconNZ]

It would be great if you would share any response with us phreeky. It would be good to have something official. Perhaps if enough people ask questions re their defence policy they will at least get the message that they should have a policy and tell us what it is! As well as the FA-18F (and NACC in general) I am also keen to know where they stand on matters like the AWD and LHD for the navy, Helos, SPHs and IFVs for the army, and the general size of the ADF.

Cheers

Well IIRC a few years back the go for Labor and the LHD was more small ships rather than two big ones, IMO AWD is a sure thing, Helos are locked in so we should be right, however I would possible call into question the formation of a second new battalion and perhaps even the JSF at all just speculation but some of those things are what concern me the most. Feel free to correct me anyone to allay my fears

 

[RubiconNZ]

It would be great if you would share any response with us phreeky. It would be good to have something official. Perhaps if enough people ask questions re their defence policy they will at least get the message that they should have a policy and tell us what it is! As well as the FA-18F (and NACC in general) I am also keen to know where they stand on matters like the AWD and LHD for the navy, Helos, SPHs and IFVs for the army, and the general size of the ADF.

Cheers

Well IIRC a fews back the Labour go for the LHD was more small ships rather than two big ones, IMO AWD is a sure thing, Helos are locked in so we should be right, however I would possible call into question the formation of a second new battalion and perhaps even the JSF at all just speculation but some of those things are what concern me the most. Feel free to correct me anyone to allay my fears And remembering what topic this is uh better make specific to Hornets and JSFs

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

What $20bn is this? NACC has a project budget of $15.5bn. Don't you want to discuss "facts".

Sorry i havent gotten back to you AD been away for a while.

When you take the SH purchase into account, and i know that takes extra weapons, personell training, intergration and all the other little bits, that adds about $6bn. And there is a real possibility that this purchase may become more than temporary. So overall your in the ballpark of $20bn.

So an SH or F-35 don't have utility in both roles?

Sure they do. There both exellent aircraft. However the primary consideration for the RAAF has to be indipendant operation in defence of australia or our interests, and this includes air superiority/interception of advanced SUXX variants.

What APA don't point out is that if no further orders emerge for USAF, the F-22 production line will likely close in 2010.

Gonna be a mite expensive to start it up in 2020...

Thats would be a very bad thing for the RAAF IMO. Maybe if the Japanese opt to produce their own, obviosly much less capable, version we can buy a squadron. But thats a long shot to say the least.

As a matter of fact, long term we are likely to operate 4x manned squadrons and several squadrons equipped with unmanned UCAV's. 7x RAAF Squadrons is not out of the question, according to some who are a bit more knowledgeable about defence acquisitions than most of us...

7 RAAF squadrons would be a very nice increase in capabilities i agree. Especially if they are all LO platforms. But i dont understand the force structure. Why would you have 4 manned squadrons? Are the UCAV's not as capable in A2A combat and just to be used for strike missions? Why buy the F35 at all?

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I have some difficulties rebutting some of the arguments made about the SH, but the reason it can be difficult to rebutt them is the accuracy of information just isn't available.

Todjager, Sorry I took so long to get back to you but i've been away for a few weeks. I have to say you are one of the few members who have tackled the argument itself in this discussion and not simply attacked the credentials of APA.

A few posts of yours i havent answered yet.

'm not so sure that it would be easy to triangulate the position of a JSF, even if the IRST was able to detect it.

The way I see such a system working, there would need to be a minimum of 3separate IRST sensors detecting the JSF at all times. The position of the detecting aircraft (Su-XX) would need to be known to within a very small tolerance at all times. The angle of of detection at each sensor would need to be known, relative to the heading of the detecting aircraft. From this, the aircraft computer would then need to plot lines at the appropriate angles for each detecting IRST and find the point where the three lines intersect, then create a GIS position for the point of intersection, compensating for the constantly changing position of both the detecting and detected aircraft. It can be done, but the difficulties in doing so I see as being fairly significant.

-Cheers

I only see two platforms as being needed. A lead and a wingman if you will. GPS positions would be accurate enough i would think. Both platforms would be on the same heading and altitude, a couple of hundred meters distance between them would be sufficient you would think, depending on the resoloution of the IRST and the level of accuracy on the brearing. One the angles are known its pretty simple geometry, and given a datalink could be done in real time. Once range had been ploted over two time periods, even 2 seconds you've got a track. Not a great one but good eneough for a BVR missile shot you would think. The seeker on the R77IP/R27IP slow burn is stated to have a aquisition radii of 11nm, and this would be consistent with other IR seekers such as the R74. Given the fact that the missile only has to be updated from the flankers IRST untill this point, i'm wondering why the rough track generated from the IRST would not be adequate.

I do take India and China (PRC) into account, I'd covered this in a prior post. What seems to be forgotten is the distance between India or China, and Australia. Even with AAR, an air battle between either nation and the RAAF is very unlikely in Australian airspace, and for similar reasons, over Chinese or Indian airspace, unless it was as part of a coalition. How many times would an Su-XX need to be refueled in-flight if it carried a useful air combat load and was taking off from the closest Indian or PRC airfield, heading straight to the closest Australian land?

Something to keep in mind.

-Cheers

I think your only looking at the current strategic situation. The posibility of the PLAAF aquiring air bases in SEA over the next 10 to 20 years is a real one. They allready have de-facto air bases in Mynmar. This is a situation that needs to be considered, not to mention naval aviation. Members seem to trasplant current constraints onto future scenario's, even with eveolving capabilities in threat nations and a dynamic strategic envronment in SEA that will evolve with the rise of china. To think that any fufture conflict will be fought on todays terms is again short sighted thinking IMO.

As to the original quote: We have to use the information we have. And simply stating that points are not valid because the available information may not be the whole picture does not dicount said points. If so then much of the discussion on this forum ir irrelevent and should not take place, because it is based on information in the public domain.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I have to say you are one of the few members who have tackled the argument itself in this discussion and not simply attacked the credentials of APA.

as opposed to supporters of APA who regularly and frequently impugn the integrity of the Defence Minister and every RAAF senior officer involved with the JSF programme?

as opposed to the unbridled and unfounded attacks on a defence journalist that bordered on inviting a litigous response?

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6149

As opposed to bleated requests for evidence of the threat assessment when they know full well that the data will be protected and is not going to see the light of day in an open forum.

Excuse me for cocking an eyebrow at the feigned hurt unveiled in your reply.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Yes it is massive. It really affects the speed of the Suhkoi's and will allow the F-35 to travel quite quick for its size.

Have you ever stuck your arm out your car window at 100km/h?

My 5 kilo arm all of a sudden requires the same amount of energy as bench pressing 80kilos. Now imagine 1000km/h your arm would get torn off. The drag is insane!!!

Each of your drop tanks at 1,000km/h would easily require 5,000lb of thrust to sustain speed. If that thrust is not available then the plane will slow down or afterburners will be required.

Big-E will probably be able to give us some numbers on how fast a super Hornet can cruise at with 5 fuel tanks and with no fuel tanks. Would i be correct in assuming 500 knots without tanks and 300 knots with 5 tanks?

I still stand by my comment that even the higher powered suhkoi's will only just manage to reach the speed of the F-35. Current Suhkoi's will infact be slower than the F-35 but still much quicker than the Super Hornet.

This still only effects transit not combat itself. If a SH or a flanker were about to go into A2A combat i doubt they would be hanging onto those external fuel tanks. So your just talking about A2A ordinance. And if external weapons ase such a massive weight around the flankers neck then how did platfroms from the MiG 25 to F15 to MiG 31 to F14 achieve mach 2+ performance with external weapons? Because what you're basicaly saying is that with a combined thrust output of some 80000lbs, 60-70000lb dry, the AL41F equiped flanker will not be able to achieve speeds in exess of Mach 1.5.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

as opposed to supporters of APA who regularly and frequently impugn the integrity of the Defence Minister and every RAAF senior officer involved with the JSF programme?

as opposed to the unbridled and unfounded attacks on a defence journalist that bordered on inviting a litigous response?


http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6149

As opposed to bleated requests for evidence of the threat assessment when they know full well that the data will be protected and is not going to see the light of day in an open forum.

Excuse me for cocking an eyebrow at the feigned hurt unveiled in your reply.

I couldn't agree more. But that does not alter or excusee the conduct of some members who acted in a similar manner. I personally have never made or agreed with said allegations. So unless your are aiming said accusations at me i ask what exacly this post has to do with the quote it is adressing?