Naval Advanced Tactical Fighter A Possible F-111 Replacement For RAAF
This is a discussion on Naval Advanced Tactical Fighter A Possible F-111 Replacement For RAAF within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Although the project was cancelled the potential gains from reinvestigating this option could prove very advantageous to the RAAF. With ...
Naval Advanced Tactical Fighter A Possible F-111 Replacement For RAAF
Although the project was cancelled the potential gains from reinvestigating this option could prove very advantageous to the RAAF. With the combination of relative stealth and payload could prove a valuable asset for the RAAF
For information on the Naval Advanced Tactical Fighter go to:
The USN has no interest in this plane. To start up such a program, and actually build the aircraft, would cost booku $$. Its true that parallel technologies already used by the F-22 would make it easier on the stomach but still, the price would be astronomical.
Although the project was cancelled the potential gains from reinvestigating this option could prove very advantageous to the RAAF. With the combination of relative stealth and payload could prove a valuable asset for the RAAF
For information on the Naval Advanced Tactical Fighter go to:
The vast resources of the USA were insufficient to fund the development of this plane. With the Seasprite fiasco (IMO a comparatively simple project) still an ongoing sore for the DOD there is no way any Australian government would attempt to fund a project like this on its own. It would be equivalent to Australia developing the F35 by itself after all the other countries (including the USA) pulled out of the consortium.
The vast resources of the USA were insufficient to fund the development of this plane. With the Seasprite fiasco (IMO a comparatively simple project) still an ongoing sore for the DOD there is no way any Australian government would attempt to fund a project like this on its own. It would be equivalent to Australia developing the F35 by itself after all the other countries (including the USA) pulled out of the consortium.
F-111 was looked at by the defence as a future multirole option with improved new frames and using existing technology,But wasn't justified due to tendering and contract facilities.The cost was 300 millon US dollars and 380 dollars aus for first three planes.AS FOR the usa using f-111 I'm not sure of that,last I heard the us had decommission f-111 fleet.I think they will use jsf for that role aus and usa.
F-111 was looked at by the defence as a future multirole option with improved new frames and using existing technology,But wasn't justified due to tendering and contract facilities.The cost was 300 millon US dollars and 380 dollars aus for first three planes.AS FOR the usa using f-111 I'm not sure of that,last I heard the us had decommission f-111 fleet.I think they will use jsf for that role aus and usa.
I was thinking out of the box and wondered whether Australia would ever consider leasing an airframe such as the Tornado GR4 (UK) as a stop-gap measure until a suitable new replacement comes on-line with associated stand-off missiles etc. I fully accept the GR4 is becoming a little long in the tooth, but still its a relative baby compared to the F111.
I recall the Italians at one point leased Tornado F3s from the UK for a while.
GR4 Specs as follows:
Engines: Two RB199 turbofans
Thrust: 16,000lbs
Max speed: 1.3Mach
Length: 16.72m
Max altitude: 50,000ft
Span: 8.6m
Aircrew: 2
Armament: Storm Shadow, Brimstone, ALARM, AIM-9 Sidewinder, Paveway II, Paveway III, Enhanced Paveway, General Purpose Bombs, Mauser 27mm, Cluster Bombs
The GR4 can carry up to three Paveway II, two Paveway III or Enhanced Paveway Laser and Global Positioning System Guided Bombs (LGBs), and by using a Thermal Imaging Airborne Laser Designation (TIALD) pod it is able to self-designate targets for LGB delivery. The GR4 also has a ground-mapping radar to identify targets for the delivery of conventional 1000lb bombs and BL755 cluster bombs. All GR4 aircraft are capable of carrying the Air Launched Anti- Radiation Missile (ALARM), which homes on the emitted radiation of enemy radar systems and can be used for the suppression of enemy air defences. The GR4 is capable of carrying up to nine ALARM missiles or a mixed configuration of ALARM missiles and bombs. In the reconnaissance role the GR4 can carry the Digital Joint Reconnaissance Pod to provide detailed reconnaissance imagery; this is currently being replaced with the RAPTOR pod, which provides an even greater day-and night reconnaissance potential.
I was thinking out of the box and wondered whether Australia would ever consider leasing an airframe such as the Tornado GR4 (UK) as a stop-gap measure until a suitable new replacement comes on-line with associated stand-off missiles etc. I fully accept the GR4 is becoming a little long in the tooth, but still its a relative baby compared to the F111.
I recall the Italians at one point leased Tornado F3s from the UK for a while.
GR4 Specs as follows:
Engines: Two RB199 turbofans
Thrust: 16,000lbs
Max speed: 1.3Mach
Length: 16.72m
Max altitude: 50,000ft
Span: 8.6m
Aircrew: 2
Armament: Storm Shadow, Brimstone, ALARM, AIM-9 Sidewinder, Paveway II, Paveway III, Enhanced Paveway, General Purpose Bombs, Mauser 27mm, Cluster Bombs
The GR4 can carry up to three Paveway II, two Paveway III or Enhanced Paveway Laser and Global Positioning System Guided Bombs (LGBs), and by using a Thermal Imaging Airborne Laser Designation (TIALD) pod it is able to self-designate targets for LGB delivery. The GR4 also has a ground-mapping radar to identify targets for the delivery of conventional 1000lb bombs and BL755 cluster bombs. All GR4 aircraft are capable of carrying the Air Launched Anti- Radiation Missile (ALARM), which homes on the emitted radiation of enemy radar systems and can be used for the suppression of enemy air defences. The GR4 is capable of carrying up to nine ALARM missiles or a mixed configuration of ALARM missiles and bombs. In the reconnaissance role the GR4 can carry the Digital Joint Reconnaissance Pod to provide detailed reconnaissance imagery; this is currently being replaced with the RAPTOR pod, which provides an even greater day-and night reconnaissance potential.
I am a fan of the Tornado and I agree that the GR4 has a lot to recommend it with capabilities that the RAAF could certainly use. The trouble is that it would be a completely new aircraft which would probably take far too much infrastructure support and training to be viable as a stop gap aircraft.
I think it makes far more sense for the RAAF to choose the SH if it decides it needs an interim type to fill a capability gap. The SH would be comparatively easy to introduce and support. It could also be more than a stop gap as it could serve alongside F35s for a considerable time into the future if circumstances require.
A while ago in a during a similar discussion, I also asked why not go down the road of the Tornado as a replace/stopgap for the 111s.
The answers at the time were with regards to its age and that they are no longer in production. Im sure those who answered at the time will be able to fill us in with more info.
Why not buy some of them? We'll (german air force) decomission some 150 of them in the near future and only keep 80. Most of them airframes haven't reached the end of their operational life yet and it sure is one of the most capable fighter bombers in the world. A few 100 million spent on modernising avionics and adapting to Australian needs would do the trick and provide a capable stop gap.
The spare aircraft are for attrition and to cover long-term deep maintenance.
In reality the operational squadrons have to cope with less than 12 aircraft as the total number of spare aircraft is to few to maintain them at full strength.
8 of lease aircraft are deployed to support operation in the Gulf. All operational squadrons and the OCU provide ground and air crews to support this detachment in rotation.
The RAF have ordered Litneing III pods which are being integrated with the aircraft as an Urgent Operation Requirement (UOR). The initial trials were carried out just before Christmas, so I would expect this capability to be declared operational very soon.
Work is underway to install a AESA radar into Tornado aircraft. Some time ago a Blue Vixen radar was installed in the TIARA F2AT Tornado and subsequently my have been integrated with a Vixen-500 front end. The F2 aircraft has been used for many years as hack aircraft.
There are reports that work is underway to fit an AESA radar to the Tornado GR4, this maybe the Captor CAESAR trial radar that has been tested on the BAE 1-11 trials aircraft and on Typhoon aircraft (DA4, now retired). It is hoped that this trial radar will be the basis of the radar used in the Tranche 3 Typhoon.
There are plans (and funding approved) to modify the current Tranche 1 radar up to the Tranche 2 standard by retrofitting a new more powerful processor that is also compatible with the AESA radar planned for the Tranche 3 Typhoon. The Tranche 2 processor is required to enable the radar to perform all of the A to G modes. It has been shown that going from a Tranche 2 radar to CAESAR is very quick and easy (done in a day), so that it would be easy to upgrade to Tranche 3 standard.
This approach has merit as it would allow significant commonality between the radars used on both aircraft; however many other systems in the aircraft would have to be replaced (i.e. weapons computer etc). This would be carried out as part of a large modification program and hence additional aircraft would have to bee drawn from operational squadrons. The RAF cannot afford to do that until sufficient Typhoon aircraft are in service. Catch 22.
The Saudi order of 72 Typhoon aircraft will require the RAF to give up 24 Tranche 2 production slots in 2008/2009. This will obvious put back the deployment of the RAF aircraft. (Indeed the Tornado F3 aircraft will have to remain in service longer than originally planned). But it might allow time for the practicality of installing the Captor radar in the Tornado GR4 to be assessed.
If the Tornado GR4 can be fitted with an AESA radar then it might provide a fall back position for if the order for Tranche 3 Typhoons is not forthcoming (at least for the companies producing the radar, which is one reason why industry went ahead with the CAESAR). The plan is likely to be install CAESAR and prove the concept and the install Captor Tranche 2 standard first and retrofit to Tranche 3 when the AESA becomes available.
BAE Systems has also won a contract to update the Saudi Tornado IDS aircraft to the GR4 standard. (96 were originally purchased). If the RAF GR4s can be modified with an AESA radar then there is the possibility of a follow-on contract for Saudi.
The upshot is that whichever way it goes the RAF are very unlikely to have spare aircraft that can be used by the RAAF. However, all is not lost Germany and Italy also operate Tornado IDS aircraft. As their fleets are upgraded as Typhoon is deployed some of their aircraft are likely to become available. If required they could be updated to the GR4 standard and ultimately with AESA radar. (Note that both countries have already significantly cut the number of aircraft they have in service and Italy in particular has not updated its aircraft as much as the RAF. Some of the German aircraft are of a similar standard as the RAF GR4).
The problem is that it is unlikely that any aircraft will become available in the timeframe required by the RAAF.
In the short term I think that the only answer is for the RAAF to purchase F-18/E/F aircraft, to overcome shortages during the F-18 CBR program and in the longer term replace the F-111C, prior to the acquisition of the F-35.
The RAF might have Tornado GR4+AESA aircraft available, but not for at least 10 years.
Indeed the RAF is looking at how to replace the Tornado GR4 aircraft in the long-range strike role and is considering the purchase of F-35C aircraft.
So in practice I think the RAAF should forget about the Tornado GR4, unless it can sweet talk, Italy or Germany to release some of its similar aircraft.
So in practice I think the RAAF should forget about the Tornado GR4, unless it can sweet talk, Italy or Germany to release some of its similar aircraft.
As of today the Luftwaffe operates 188 Tornados (35 of which are ECR variants), of these appr. 100 will be decomissioned over the next years (only two wings remaining). I don't think any of ours come close to the GR4 in capabilities but as I said, with a little money... So you have an excellent airframe with payload, speed, range and crew comfort, a retractable refuelling probe etc., and the Brits have the experience with upgrading it. A lot of American vintage weapons already are or can be integrated. Plus we don't have a history of selling used equipment for high prices (See Leo 2, Alpha Jet etc.) Could be a rather cheap solution even though you need infrastructure and training and so on.
Perhaps I'll write a letter to our secretary of defence
A bit off-topic: Chris, I didn't read about the posibility of adding the ASEA-captor to the tornado, I'm very interested, can you provide a link?
Why would Austrailia invest in second hand air frames that are in dire need of upgrade (a bit like suggesting we should fly A-10's) . Even if JSF chokes we would not buy cast off airframes.
I like the Torndao but it is superceeded technology of the same ilk as the FA-18A.
As of today the Luftwaffe operates 188 Tornados (35 of which are ECR variants), of these appr. 100 will be decomissioned over the next years (only two wings remaining). I don't think any of ours come close to the GR4 in capabilities but as I said, with a little money... So you have an excellent airframe with payload, speed, range and crew comfort, a retractable refuelling probe etc., and the Brits have the experience with upgrading it. A lot of American vintage weapons already are or can be integrated. Plus we don't have a history of selling used equipment for high prices (See Leo 2, Alpha Jet etc.) Could be a rather cheap solution even though you need infrastructure and training and so on.
Perhaps I'll write a letter to our secretary of defence
A bit off-topic: Chris, I didn't read about the posibility of adding the ASEA-captor to the tornado, I'm very interested, can you provide a link?
I will do some research but I think you are way off in the number of Tornado currently being operated the Luftwaffe, I was under the impression that the RAF was currently the biggest operator by far. BTW The contract for Saudi is to up date 80 IDS aircraft.
I apologise for back to back posting, but I have discovered that my understanding of the number of German Tornado aircraft in service was erroneous.
The site I usual use for the current status of the Tornado fleet is off line at the moment, however here is what I have managed to find: -
Wing Staffel Type Base
JaBoG 31 311 IDS Norvenich
JaBoG 31 312 IDS Norvenich
JaBoG 32 321 IDS/ECR Lechfeld
JaBoG 32 322 IDS/ECR Lechfeld
JaBoG 33 331 IDS Buchel
JaBoG 33 332 IDS Buchel
AG 51 511 IDS Schleswig-Jagel
AG 51 512 IDS Schleswig-Jagel
FAH IDS Holloman AFB, NM, USA
Procurement of 180 Eurofighter Typhoons to replace the F-4 and MiG-29. JG73 will commence re-equipping in April 2004, followed by JG 74 in 2005 and then JBG 31.
85 Tornados to receive mid-life update, with the 80-90 that remain being withdrawn from service by 2007.
Elsewhere it was stated that 25 aircraft usually operate from Hollman AFB. I could not find reference to any other training units in Germany. I am also assuming that each of the operational units have 16 aircraft (the RAF strike squadrons usually have 12 aircraft). That gives 8 X 16 = 112 + 25 at Holloman = 137 + 51 spares = 188 (Falstaff estimate)
Doing the sums the other way around. 85 will be updated, and 80 90 will be withdrawn from service = 165 175. less 8 X 16 (112) = 53 63 less 25 at Holloman = 28 38 spares.
In this case spare aircraft would be undergoing long-term maintenance and would provide replacements for attrition.
So I apologise the estimate of 188 is not way off, my error was not realising that the German wings still had two operational units.
I think that 188 may be a little high and also that the estimated number of aircraft to be retired (100) may be a little high, but you are right that a lot of German Tornados mat become available in the near future, but I am not sure what state they will be in.
The recently completed mid-life update is the second major update carried out to the RAF Tornado fleet. I understand that some of the German fleet are undergoing a mid-life update, but I do not think that the other aircraft had all the structural modification carried out to the RAF aircraft. Overall most the aircraft not subject to the MLU will still have flown less hours than the RAF aircraft because I think that the flying rate has been less.
So in retrospect ex-German Tornado IDS aircraft could be available to the RAAF, but probably would need considerable work to be carried out if they were to remain in service for 10 15 years. That is they would need the MLU.
As has been pointed out they will still be old aircraft and would require the RAAF to establish a new support system.
But the real problem is that the F/A-18E/F aircraft are required to support the F-18 CBR program first. I understand that early delivery of some aircraft will be arranged so hopefully introducing another type of aircraft into service will not be necessary.
Failing that the RAAF maybe able to borrow additional F-18s from the USN/USM.
Failing that rather than purchase ex-German Tornado aircraft borrowing may be a fall back position, but rather expensive.
it seems to me that the CAESAR option may be expensive for Tornados with a limited remaining airframe life. Are there any other AESA options which might do the job more cheaply? I have to admit here that I don't know what the performance of the radar in the GR.4 is, & so have no idea what would be needed to give a worthwhile improvement. Despite that ignorance, I suspect that the Vixen 500 may not be up to scratch, but would one of the larger antenna (750 & 1000 have been mentioned) variants be adequate, for less money than CAESAR? Or are my questions silly?
I expect lots of guesstimates are necessary about both performance & price, so I'll quite understand if you say it's not possible to judge.
(See Leo 2, Alpha Jet etc.) Could be a rather cheap solution even though you need infrastructure and training and so on. 
