Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
This is a discussion on Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; HI Barra
may i ask you what you mean about dont get me started on the 111's?
I am a ...
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
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)
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
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.
The problem with Australia’s indicative F-35 order needs is that we want some 40% of them from LRIP
Quote:
Originally Posted by abraham gubler
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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
________________
Lead, follow, or get out of the way!
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham Gubler
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
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
Last edited by gf0012-aust; March 14th, 2008 at 07:18 PM.
Reason: merged back to back
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.
This is my source for such things (from the F-35 Project Office):
"ANNEX A (APRIL 2007 REVISION) ESTIMATED JSF AIR VEHICLE PROCUREMENT QUANTITIES"
The estimated JSF Air Vehicle procurement quantities of the Participants are identified in Table A-1.
Table A-1
Participants’ Estimated JSF Air Vehicle Procurement Quantities
(Projected FY of Production Contract Definitization (approximately two years prior to delivery))
I've counted F-35s ordered in CY 2014 (2016 builds) as 'LRIP' while they are actually the first full rate production year. I have done so because the volume hasn't worked up to the sustained rate and their cost is very high. The percentage values are still of the same proportion for the formal LRIP.
Australia has 27% of F-35s from the formal LRIP. Italy has less than 10%, Netherlands ~20% (but they have two very early aircraft), UK ~8%, Canada, Norway, Denmark 0%.
So either way the figures are not good for Australia, we are spending big early which costs more and ups risk.
Hey thanx Barra,Magoo and Ozzy Blizzard for the info on the F-111,Copp makes it sound as if we dont upgrade these aircraft,well the RAAF wont have any planes to do strike missions,interdiction and chain box kill.
Also regarding the RAAF using a 1 tier force,im a bit up in the air about what we should have.i.e. 100 JSF or a mix of 50 JSF+50 odd Super Bugs.
Both forces have there pros and cons but witch is the best?well i leave that to the senior members of this site to comment on,your understanding far exceeds mine.
Also an idea poped into my head(it dose this from time to time)as we could have written a joint proposal of information,in what direction the government should take on defence related matters.The government has called for submissions on this issue?
I know that there are alot of people in this forum who are well placed to share info on this topic.Would loved to have seen a DEFENCE TALK SUBMISSION on this topic
Thanx
Hey thanx Barra,Magoo and Ozzy Blizzard for the info on the F-111,Copp makes it sound as if we dont upgrade these aircraft,well the RAAF wont have any planes to do strike missions,interdiction and chain box kill.
Also regarding the RAAF using a 1 tier force,im a bit up in the air about what we should have.i.e. 100 JSF or a mix of 50 JSF+50 odd Super Bugs.
Both forces have there pros and cons but witch is the best?well i leave that to the senior members of this site to comment on,your understanding far exceeds mine.
Also an idea poped into my head(it dose this from time to time)as we could have written a joint proposal of information,in what direction the government should take on defence related matters.The government has called for submissions on this issue?
I know that there are alot of people in this forum who are well placed to share info on this topic.Would loved to have seen a DEFENCE TALK SUBMISSION on this topic
Thanx
MEEP MEEP
I think you'll see that at least 1 member of the forum here, will be submitting a submission to the 2nd phase of the review. The first phase is a joke.
The SH will be confirmed, the F-111 will be retired. HUG and JSF will continue and we won't get any F-22's. Fitzgibbon simply wanted a "get out of gaol free card" so that he can explain that the critics views (ie: Air Power Australia) have been investigated...
This is reflected in the fact that the Clown Club have now turned their attention back to the Senate, after failing to get what they seek from the Executive...
I think you'll see that at least 1 member of the forum here, will be submitting a submission to the 2nd phase of the review. The first phase is a joke.
The SH will be confirmed, the F-111 will be retired. HUG and JSF will continue and we won't get any F-22's.
snip
By HUG are you including the CBR? I thought that 'they' were finding more things needed replacing than originally expected (and budgeted for).
And that the number of RAAF hornets proposed to be CBR'd was in a state of flux (up until recently anway).
By HUG are you including the CBR? I thought that 'they' were finding more things needed replacing than originally expected (and budgeted for).
And that the number of RAAF hornets proposed to be CBR'd was in a state of flux (up until recently anway).
rb
Exactly how many legacy Hornets need to undergo the CBR process is still being decided I think. I've seen publicly announced that up to 49x platforms are to be done, however RAAF has announced since that it is reconsidering the number, considering the industry issues (ie: lack of capacity and will to do it) surrounding the CBR process.
CBR is a part of the HUG, so yes I was including it, however other activities including an internal self protection jammer, BOL counter measures dispenser, and other EW and weapons integration tasks are ongoing (JASSM for instance) so HUG program is still a fair way from completion and I believe it will be continuing even in the "worst" case scenario.
Even if APA's most fevered dreams became reality and we decided upon an Uber Pig/F-111 combo (and could get it, afford it etc) a purchase of F-22's tomorrow would still take 3-5 years to arrive and another 2-3 years to achieve FOC. The Uber Pig upgrade (UPU) would take years to become operational and would result in significantly reduced airframe availability for operational activities.
The Hornet would have to carry the majority of RAAF's combat capability in that "gap" anyway...
This is reflected in the fact that the Clown Club have now turned their attention back to the Senate, after failing to get what they seek from the Executive...
Pardon my ignorance but who exactly is the clown club .Copp and co or the broadsheets?
Pardon my ignorance but who exactly is the clown club .Copp and co or the broadsheets?
Regards
Tom
Air power Australia and it's associates. Basically all those who are pushing the F-111/F-22 barrow, but with a specific agenda in mind that has nothing to do with what is actually best for Australia.
Air power Australia and it's associates. Basically all those who are pushing the F-111/F-22 barrow, but with a specific agenda in mind that has nothing to do with what is actually best for Australia.
The side benefit is that now that the Defence Minister is actually getting access to approp data (relevant to his level) he is now discovering how technically ill informed these muppets are. It's no surprise that he has modified his tune now that he is being informed at those approp levels from a variety of professional sources (and not just RAAF or the vendor)
The best thing they could do is pull their heads in, however they are helping to reinforce that they are in fact quite clueless in the scenarios that they submit as evidence of proof of life of alternatives.
The problem is that they haven't realised it yet. Although at the media level there are a few journos who are now quietly tapping on other sources now that they realise that the loudest talkers are not the most informed after all.....
In a perverse sense I hope they keep up the public attack, as it's now starting to become transparent to some of the broadsheet journos that they need to modify their own bleatings so that they don't end up looking like berks (like they did with the F-111 in the 70's and the Collins). Their (Clown Club and Criss and Co) push last week to malign the Uniforms at the Hearings has exposed them for what they are - and its blown apart their rapidly fragmenting credibility even amongst journos who wouldn't know a Sopwith Camel from a Nokia phone.
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
The Australian Defence Force (ADF) will proceed with plans to acquire Boeing Super Hornet aircraft ordered by the previous government, Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon announced.
Mr Fitzgibbon said the Super Hornet was an excellent aircraft capable of meeting any known threat in the region.
"It is the only aircraft which can meet the small delivery window created by the former government's poor planning processes and politically driven responses," he said in a statement.
Mr Fitzgibbon, releasing the first section of Labor's air combat review, accused the coalition of a lack of sound long-term air combat capability planning during the past decade.
The retirement of the RAAF's F-111 strike bomber fleet had been made in haste but was now irreversible.
"The cost of turning the F-111 back on would be enormous and crews and skills have already moved on," he said.
"The former government's decision to leave Australia's air defence in the hands of the Joint Strike Fighter project was a flawed leap of faith in scheduling terms, and combined with the quick decision to retire F-111 early, allowed an air combat capability gap to emerge."
Confirmation of the leak that appeared last week in News Ltd papers.
The Australian Defence Force (ADF) will proceed with plans to acquire Boeing Super Hornet aircraft ordered by the previous government, Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon announced.
Mr Fitzgibbon said the Super Hornet was an excellent aircraft capable of meeting any known threat in the region.
"It is the only aircraft which can meet the small delivery window created by the former government's poor planning processes and politically driven responses," he said in a statement.
Mr Fitzgibbon, releasing the first section of Labor's air combat review, accused the coalition of a lack of sound long-term air combat capability planning during the past decade.
The retirement of the RAAF's F-111 strike bomber fleet had been made in haste but was now irreversible.
"The cost of turning the F-111 back on would be enormous and crews and skills have already moved on," he said.
"The former government's decision to leave Australia's air defence in the hands of the Joint Strike Fighter project was a flawed leap of faith in scheduling terms, and combined with the quick decision to retire F-111 early, allowed an air combat capability gap to emerge."
Confirmation of the leak that appeared last week in News Ltd papers.
Much gnashing of teeth for some folks today.
You got a link on that one bud? (i know it wont post URL's but we can cut and paste in a new window).
Well we all knew this was comeing. Of course Mr Fitzgibbon couldnt help but point out that the former governments platform choices were "politically driven" (pot meet kettle ) but at least the right choice was made. My money is on the F-35A being approved in the 2nd section.
. 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. 
Although at the media level there are a few journos who are now quietly tapping on other sources now that they realise that the loudest talkers are not the most informed after all.....
