Air 6000 for ADF

[cherry]

With the selection of the JSF for the next generation fighter for the ADF virtually inevitable some time next year, it is probably worth debating how many of these aircraft we should purchase and what other type of aircraft should be complementing it. According to the DCP 2004 there is $15.5B allocated to this project (all phases added up). And according to defence minister Hill at the 2005 Avalon airshow, the absolute maximum budget for the JSF purchase is $12B. This would incorporate the budget allocated to phases 1 and 2. This then means that RAAF are looking at another type of aircraft for phase 3 of this project, possibly UCAV?

Firstly, it it a strong possibility that only approx. 70 JSF will be purchased through phases 1 and 2. If this is so then would it be appropriate to purchase at least one squadron of VSTOL JSF to operate from our new amphibious ships? Even though the aircraft has less range, can pull less G's, and carry less munitions, it would still be a very valuable asset to have at sea.

In terms of aircraft type for phase 3 of the project, would either UCAV X-45C or X-47 be an appropriate aircraft for this stage? Or another option would be to use this $3B on fitting out our new destroyers with Tomahawk or some other equivalent as well as our JSF to extend our strike capability?

Again, just trying to stir some debate.

[daisy_cutter]

Actually I think that it would depend on the regional circumstances, but I can't see a need for more than two active squadrons of JSF to keep the capability and for expeditionary operations. Assuming JSF unit cost is $US50 million in today's dollars, thats a total cost of around $A 6.7 billion. That leaves you with about $A 9 billion for other aquisitions.

IMO the best use of this money would be on ASW. Capable SSKs are proliferating throughout the region, and China will be looking to improve that area as a good investment for its purposes. Its been rather out of fashion and neglected, but I think ASW will become very important. Given that the RAN will likely have only the 3 AAW DDGs capable of ASW, I think this is a clear area where more needs to be invested.

It would be useful not only for any coalition operations in Asia, but also to protect our own SLOC.

Escorts would be good, and also we will see how good the new MMA is, and any UAVs developed for this role.

EDIT: I forgot to add - I don't think it would be a good use of space and supplies aboard the LHDs to fly F/A-35Bs.

[Aussie Digger]

If the JSF is chose and unfortunately it looks increasingly likely that it will. About 100 JSF's will be acquired if Air Chief marshall Angus Houston (Chief of the RAAF) has anything to say about it. He has written publicly on the RAAF's force structure requirements when preparing a paper for the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. (Known as: JSF is it good enough?)

He states unequivocally that to provide sufficient aircraft for the defence of Australia and also for expeditionary forces, the RAAF will require a minimum of 4 operational fighter squadrons, plus an operational conversion unit and attrition, research and development aircraft.

With Australia intending to maintain the NATO standard squadron size of 20 aircraft per squadron, an OCU with about 10 aircraft, you are already looking at 90 aircraft. On top of that, you have to budget for attrition and you need to have aircraft for research and development (including weapons and equipment integration, maintenance development techniques etc).

AS to ASW warfare, our current AP-3C's are provided excellent service in that field (though the damn Brits just won Fincastle back!!!). In addition long range maritime (and land) surveillance UAV's have been budgeted for (over $1 Billion already for either Global Hawk or Predator: Mariner), plus we WILL acquire the MMA when available and funding has been specifically set aside for that capability. On top of this our Naval ASW helo's are very capable and should remain so with planned block upgrades through to their retirement.

I think that IF the JSF is acquired we would be mad NOT to acquire at least 1 Squadron of the STOVL version. These aircraft could deploy on our Amphibious ships when required (indeed the Spanish IZAR design is specifically designed to incorporate a permanent mix of helo's and STOVL aircraft with no loss of capability compared to the French design) and would provide excellent capabilities in Defence of Australia scenarios with their "rough field" take off and landing capabilities, ie: they don't need normal runways.

I'm not convinced the JSF is the best way to provide the sole air combat capability for the RAAF, but am convinced that if it is acquired, at least some should be the STOVL variant. Even the USAF has recently changed it's mind on this and will acquire some STOVL aircraft...

I seriously doubt the RAN would ever get Tomahawk, short of us being already involved in a major war. Our regional neighbours would cry "bloody murder". They have already done this with our announcement of us acquiring stand-off weapons for the F-18's and AP-3C Orions and arguably present much less threat.

I CAN see however the RAN getting the "mooted" ship launched variant of the JASSM. The JASSM is likely to be chosen for the RAAF (it was already chosen the 1st time round before the project was canned and then restarted) and using it on RAN warships, (giving them a 300 Klm precision land strike capability in the process), would be far more palatable (not to mention cheap) scenario for our criticism shy Politicians.
Any thoughts re: this? Anyone?

[daisy_cutter]

He states unequivocally that to provide sufficient aircraft for the defence of Australia and also for expeditionary forces, the RAAF will require a minimum of 4 operational fighter squadrons, plus an operational conversion unit and attrition, research and development aircraft. It depends on how things play out, but I would have thought that at most three squadrons would satisfy our requirements. The JSF is a multirole aircraft so we should not need separate air superiority and strike squadrons. IMO it is likely that our relationship with Indonesia will grow closer, and I also don't think the TNI-AU will be threatening, especially in light of better relations. I have a better opinion of how the JSF should turn out, and also taking into account the early warning systems and tanking we are setting up, I think two squadrons would be sufficient for our defence, but we'll see how the strategic situation unfolds.

In addition long range maritime (and land) surveillance UAV's have been budgeted for (over $1 Billion already for either Global Hawk or Predator: Mariner), plus we WILL acquire the MMA when available and funding has been specifically set aside for that capability. On top of this our Naval ASW helo's are very capable and should remain so with planned block upgrades through to their retirement.Yes but the UAV's you mentioned are of little value to ASW. I didn't know we had signed up for the MMA, I must have missed that. The Anzacs are severely deficient in ASW capabilities, and their design hampers any improvements.

I think that IF the JSF is acquired we would be mad NOT to acquire at least 1 Squadron of the STOVL version. These aircraft could deploy on our Amphibious ships when required (indeed the Spanish IZAR design is specifically designed to incorporate a permanent mix of helo's and STOVL aircraft with no loss of capability compared to the French design) and would provide excellent capabilities in Defence of Australia scenarios with their "rough field" take off and landing capabilities, ie: they don't need normal runways. Considering the shortages in other areas, such as Army and ASW in the RAN, I think the money could be better spent. Izar's SPS is designed to operate as a carrier when their sole carrier is in dock. It is not intended carry both helicopters and STOVL jets on amphibious missions, being 27 tons as opposed to the ~40 kton Tarawa and Wasp class ships.

[Aussie Digger]

We haven't yet signed a contract for the MMA, but probably the next best thing has been accomplished. Mony has been dedicated to the replace or refurbishment of our AP-3C Orions when they reach their life of type, in 2015.



Funding has also been specifically dedicated to acquiring the Globalhawk (or Mariner) as well. You're right about the UAV's lack of utility in ASW. I was confusing that acronym with anti-surface warfare back there.



The reason that 4 Squadrons are intending to be acquired for AIR 6000, is to provide some chance that the RAAF will "over-match" any potential regional adversary. Despite what some analysts might say, our region is anything but benign in the strategic sense IMHO. A mere 2 squadrons would not even allow us to undertake the tasks we perform now, let alone "improve" our air combat capability, which is the primary intention of AIR 6000 afterall. Even 4 Squadrons is still a reduction on the 5 Squadrons the RAAF currently operates.



Network Centric warfare is not the panacea that many would have us believe. The ability to concentrate "mass" in warfare is every bit as relevant today as it has ever been.



As to our AWACS and new Tankers providing us with the ability to reduce our fighter numbers, well the intrisic value of these aircraft will require aircraft to protect them in all but the least intensity warfare. Can you honestly imagine the RAAF putting a Wedgetail in harms way without a dedicated fighter escort?



Plus, if you've only got 2 operational Squadrons, it's going to be impossible to deploy one of them, and if you do anyway, you're not going to be able to rotate it, should hostilities last more than a matter of weeks. Sustainability is a fundamental part of warfare and all the data fusion in the world is not going to make the slightest difference to this.



AS to the ANZAC's they are severly deficient in most warfare areas. The platform however is very well suited to most upgrades required to make them capable, it's the defence budget that's not suitable. The ANZAC undersurface and surface warfare upgrades in progress now (Harpoon Block II, Eurotorp MU-90 lightweight torpedo's, new towed sowed array etc) should have been part of the original equipment fit. The ANZACs AFAIK are at least as capable as our FFG's for ASW though, and the Collins class are pretty good...



You are quite right about the deficiencies present service wide. You only have to look at our impending deployment to Iraq, where 5/7 RAR (our ONLY mechanised battalion) has had to leave it's own vehicles behind and operate out of RECON vehicles simply because our APC's are obsolete and have been for 25 years and the Government WILL not fund an adequate replacement!!!



Anyway, I'm getting off topic, iIf you would like to message me your email addy, Daisy, I can email you Air Marshall Angus Houston's paper on the JSF if you like. He certainly likes the JSF, though his arguments are severely lacking in detail and don't necessarily stand up to criticism particularly well...

[daisy_cutter]

Well as it stands right now.... in terms of our own defence we don't have any air threats to deal with, and could probably get by with a squadron of F-111s or F/A-18s tasked to maritime strike. The only country close enough to have the potential to develop an air threat is Indonesia, and their plans have been pushed back due to the tragic and catastrophic Tsunami. With the billion dollar aid package and emergency medical and logistical support from the ADF, relations between the Indonesian and Australian governments are probably at their warmest since before the INTERFET operation. Obviously things could change, and obviously our capability plan would change should a threat begin to emerge.

Even 4 Squadrons is still a reduction on the 5 Squadrons the RAAF currently operates.Yes but (based on a buy of 90-100 JSF) would have far higher availability, and when you compare the actual effect would be far more capable than what we have ever had.

Plus, if you've only got 2 operational Squadrons, it's going to be impossible to deploy one of them, and if you do anyway, you're not going to be able to rotate it, should hostilities last more than a matter of weeks. Thats incorrect. An extra squadron costs money as well as providing rotation assets.

The platform however is very well suited to most upgrades required to make them capable, it's the defence budget that's not suitable. The ANZACs AFAIK are at least as capable as our FFG's for ASW though, and the Collins class are pretty good...As a platform the Anzacs were designed as OPVs, and the platform does not have the qualities required for capable ASW, unlike for example the Type 23s. The Collins are great, but their limited mobility means that they are not going to make up for the lack of ASW in the skimmer fleet. Thats why I think that if the TNI-AU doesn't take sudden and disproportionate priority for the Indonesian government and have its capabilities rapidly upgraded, and short of regional states acquiring some Blackjacks or what have you, it would be vastly more valuable to take money out of Air6000 to spend on ASW in particular, and a myriad of other areas in Army.

P.S. - if AM Houston's paper on the JSF is as good as you say it is, I should have a look at it (although I think I may have read it) =p I'll send you my email on the message system.

[Aussie Digger]

The ANZAC's are limited and we have mr Beazley to thank for that, but the underwater and surface warfare upgrade program currently underway should bring them up to a reasonable standard in both these areas and make them at least as capable as any regional platform. It is in anti-air warfare that they are truly deficient and they won't be upgraded for that role...

As to the 2 squadron force structure your advocating, you're not secretly Paul Dibb are you? The problem that I see with only 2 squadrons is that it would not be possible for the RAAF to deploy a squadron size force of fighters on operations. any longer.

Deploying 1 entire Squadron would leave a mere Squadron to provide for the air defence of ALL of Australia. We have no credible surface to air missile system to provide ground based air defence of our Country and are soley reliant on our fighters. It is widely recognised that in an emergency even our current force structure would be insufficient to deploy sufficient fighters to cover our entire territory. Any reduction on this would leave us dangerously exposed...

The ability to rotate and sustain a force generally requires 3 quantities of the force you are attempting to deploy. If you have a squadron deployed and intend to replace it with a similar sized force, you have your next Squadron undergoing pre-deployment training. It is not ble to do this AND conduct normal DOA tasks, which is precisely the reason 3 Squadrons of Hornets were eventually acquired, when the Government initially only wanted to acquire 2.

When the Soviets invaded Afganistan the Government fully expected to have to deploy it's Hornets operationally. The RAAF convinced the Government that the only way to do that AND concurrently provide for the DOA was to adopt a 3 fighter squadron model...


Now I know we don't currently have a direct state on state threat against Australia, such as we expected during the "Cold War" however their is a "mini" arms race occuring within our region. China, India, Malaysia and Indonesia have all ordered Su-27/30 series fighters and Thailand and Singapore have recently ordered additional F-16 fighters and are looking to acquire new build 4th gen fighters. (I believe Thailand just last year signed a contract to acquire Gripen fighters).

Nearly all of these Countries will individually, should we adopt the 2 Squadron model you seem to prefer, possess greater air combat power than ourselves, particularly if we chose the JSF over other types such as the F-22... At least the F-22 with it's supercruise ability can almost double the sortie rate of exisiting fighters, the JSF won't possess any such capability however...

I understand your point about reducing the buy for AIR 6000, however, another way needs to be found to properly fund and address the glaring deficiencies in our Land and Naval forces. As the White Paper stated, air combat power is the single most important capability the ADF possesses and is critical to allowing all other ADF capaibilities to operate unhindered...

[daisy_cutter]

The problem that I see with only 2 squadrons is that it would not be possible for the RAAF to deploy a squadron size force of fighters on operations. any longer.
What you mean is deployed indefinately. I think thats a worthwhile compromise in order to make up for the severe deficiencies in other areas. their is a "mini" arms race occuring within our region. China, India, Malaysia and Indonesia have all ordered Su-27/30 series fighters and Thailand and Singapore have recently ordered additional F-16 fighters and are looking to acquire new build 4th gen fighters. (I believe Thailand just last year signed a contract to acquire Gripen fighters). The only country close enough to have the potential to develop an air threat is Indonesia, and their plans have been pushed back due to the tragic and catastrophic Tsunami. With the billion dollar aid package and emergency medical and logistical support from the ADF, relations between the Indonesian and Australian governments are probably at their warmest since before the INTERFET operation. Obviously things could change, and obviously our capability plan would change should a threat begin to emerge. Lastly the Indonesian government doesn't seem to have been concerned about the superiority of Malaysian, Singaporean, and Australian air forces for a long time. They have other priorities, and are a long way from becoming a threat. If they did we could always develop a capability to counter that over and above two active squadrons.

[Aussie Digger]

I don't mean indefinitely, I mean a deployment that will last longer than 6 months. Just because there hasn't been one recently doesn't mean there won't be one in the future...

[daisy_cutter]

It is not a good idea to pay for the capability to provide for an unlikely deployment that is not fundamental to defending Australia's territorial integrity, when that money could be spent on capabilities that are very likely to be used.

[Aussie Digger]

It is not a good idea to pay for the capability to provide for an unlikely deployment that is not fundamental to defending Australia's territorial integrity, when that money could be spent on capabilities that are very likely to be used.

Guess you're not a fan of the new air to air refuellers then eh? Such a capability priced at around $2 Billion, will only have minimal usage in direct DOA operations. They will possess some utility by increasing our fighters CAP duration, but this capability is not critical to our ability to defend our Country, as the fighters can still operate without them, or surely we would have had a proper capability to refuel our fighters for a long time.

The B707's don't really count either. The purpose of acquiring them was to acquire a training A2A refuelling and limited operational capability. The new A330's are designed to slightly enhance that role. Not provide a high level capability...

Probably not a fan of F-111's either eh? The F-111 would have almost no direct involvement in any likely DOA operations, short of a massive conventional invasion, something no-one besides America has the capability to do. The F-111 is superb at flying long distances and bombing an enemy in his home. It doesn't have much use in the sort of limited air attack scenario that is likely to affect Australia should relations turn frigid with one of our neighbours...

I don't think it unlikely either that Australia will continue to deploy fighter Squadrons on operations. In fact now that our Hornets are being brought up to a decent level of capability, as compared to the rest of the world, I think it more likely that they would deploy. In fact the Secretary General of NATO was in Australia today discussing a possible future Australian deployment to Afganistan as part of ISAF. I could easily see a detachment, if not a Squadron of Hornets deploy in the not too distant future. They would fit in very nicely...

Anyway this argument is a bit silly. The Federal Government has already stated that it will seek to acquire up to 100 aircraft to replace it's current fleet. If the JSF is chosen, and regretably it seems increasingly likely that it will, the Government will acquire as many as it possibly can.

Some reports indicate as few as 70 will eventually be purchased due to cost increases in the flyaway price of the platform (even Dr Steven Gumley admitted this at Avalon 2 weeks ago, stating JSF's would now cost $100 million per plane)... 70 would still be sufficient to form 3 Squadrons, due to the slightly smaller Squadron sizes that would be operated if JSF or F-22 were to be chosen. Never have I seen that anything less than this is even being considered...

[daisy_cutter]

I can't explain it any more clearly: the need for prolonged deployment of fighter squadrons, is, to my mind, not as great as the needs in other parts of the ADF.
Anyway this argument is a bit silly. The Federal Government has already stated that it will seek to acquire up to 100 aircraft to replace it's current fleet. If the JSF is chosen, and regretably it seems increasingly likely that it will, the Government will acquire as many as it possibly can.To be honest with you, our conversation is getting rather tiresome. I doubt government policy is to acquire as many JSF as possible within the budget. Use your common sense, they'll look at the costs and decide what represents a worthwhile investment. If they find other areas more deserving of funding..... fill in the blanks.

[Aussie Digger]

Ok, I've just one more point to add to your last comment. The budget for phase 1 of AIR 6000 is AU$12 billion. Senator HILL seemed fairly determined at Avalon as little as 2 weeks ago that the budget would remain at this level for AIR 6000 and AIR 6000 alone.

Of course they will look at everything involved including weapons, logistical support, training etc, but like anyone else the RAAF will be trying it's darndest to get as much bang for it's buck as possible, ie: as many platforms as it can fit in under that budget. Common sense, whether you agree with the idea or not should tell you that...

Anyway I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree then and end this particular discussion here. :D

[SirBedevere]

Apologies for restarting this, in a sense, but I was perplexed by the comment made previously of a regional Asia-Pacific power acquiring long-range strategic bombers. I believe the platform mentioned was the Blackjack, although reports of the Backfire being offered for sale have been filtering for a while now and seems far more likely a choice for the role. What particular countries would even consider operating such an aircraft and for what specific role? Apart from the PRC with its Harbin H-5s, to anyone's knowledge has any regional nation fielded a strategic bomber in the last fifty years? Endnote: I do realise this has practically no links whatsoever to the Air 6000 tender.

[Aussie Digger]

It does, but only in the Strategic sense that the ADF's new fighter will be required to "match up" to any such purchase. Intercepting high speed long range cruise missiles, which would likely be the primary armament of a Blackjakc bomber force is the role the JSF is least capable of performing. I've read reports that China and India have been considering acquiring the Blackjack bomber, but I doubt any other SE Asian nations could afford it...

[SirBedevere]

I am not up to date with the two countries' inventories, however, would supersonic antiship missiles be a more likely threat launched from any strike aircraft against strategic targets? Given that the PLAN has had these in use for many years for that purpose and cruise missiles are somewhat of a diplomatic burr-point for every nation closeby.

[Aussie Digger]

I would expect that most SU-30 series fighter operators would be seeking a standoff land/ship attack missile capability. The days of being able to overfly targets or flying close to them in order to drop ordance on them are ending IMHO. Air defences are simply becoming too potent...

[knightrider4]

I think to employ aircraft to dispose of cruise missiles is probably not the most efficient use of these assests especially when you have a small AF. Much better to leave the stand off weapons to the more sophisticated SAM systems such as the RBS23.;) Did I mention that the BAMSE system is quite a good..........!

[Aussie Digger]

Unfortunately Knightrider, most cruise missiles massively out-range SAM's, particularly the RBS-70 system which is the ONLY Ground based air defence system operated to be operated by the Australian Army or Air Force. This system is capable of point defence of a particular target, however we only currently possess 1x Battery (111 Bty 16 Air Defence Regt) of them (ie: about 18 systems).

We also currently possess 1x Rapier SAM Battery, (110 Bty 16 Air Defence Regt) however this system is less capable than RBS-70 and is to be phased out in the next couple of years in favour of additional RBS-70's. The requirement for a medium/long range air defence/anti-cruise missile capability was summarily dropped from the Defence Capability Plan in 2004, with no replacement program currently known...

In addition to which the RAN (until the Air Warfare Destroyer comes along in about 2013) only possesses a limited ability to provide long range air defence with it's FFG's/ SM-2 combination. Unfortunately due to limitations in the FFG's Radar and Fire control systems, the full capabilities of the SM-2 are unable to be exploited by the RAN.

As you can see, if we intend to provide ANY defence or resistance whatsoever to the threat of cruise missile attack, our air defence fighters become extremely important in this role. The choice of the JSF ovewr other potential types does not help this...

[Viggen]

Aussie Digger

You gave this statement in your first response to this topic:

If the JSF is chose and unfortunately it looks increasingly likely that it will....

I am wondering what option/s you would rather have as the Hornet and F-111 replacement other than the JSF?

Would you prefer F-15 or Typhoon or perhaps a mix including UCAVs?

Cheers

Viggen

[knightrider4]

Geez in an ideal world it would be great to be able to purchase say 50 odd F-22's and around say the same number of F-22B strikers if they get developed, however seeing as Uncle Sam only wants to sell us block 2 model JSF's I cant see that happening.

[nz enthusiast]

Very interesting discussion,
I think Australia chould go the JSF and UCAV way, if they go for the P-8 they could use that as cruise missile platform. I like the idea of using F-35Bs but there must be a limit to the Australian defence budget.
I think Australia needs to get a proper air domince fighter if anything. I'm concerned about the possible lack of ability of the F-35 in an air domince role. Australia should try and get one or two squadrons worth of F-22s. Problem is the US would not want to sell them (because if they sold them to Australia, they would feel presured to sell to everyone else).
I also don't get this Australia obsession with 'strike' god damn it its even starting to get annoying. Why don't they care about air domince more? there defence reviews say it very clearly, air domince is very important in the strategic enviroment Australia finds itself in today.

[Aussie Digger]

Very interesting discussion,
I think Australia chould go the JSF and UCAV way, if they go for the P-8 they could use that as cruise missile platform. I like the idea of using F-35Bs but there must be a limit to the Australian defence budget.
I think Australia needs to get a proper air domince fighter if anything. I'm concerned about the possible lack of ability of the F-35 in an air domince role. Australia should try and get one or two squadrons worth of F-22s. Problem is the US would not want to sell them (because if they sold them to Australia, they would feel presured to sell to everyone else).
I also don't get this Australia obsession with 'strike' god damn it its even starting to get annoying. Why don't they care about air domince more? there defence reviews say it very clearly, air domince is very important in the strategic enviroment Australia finds itself in today.

Because Australia will never be able to acquire sufficient fighter aircraft to protect it's territory. We've got about the same landmass as contintental USA to protect with a GDP that's only half as much again as the USA defence budget...

A strong strike capability is used as a deterrent. Deterring war is infinitely preferable to winning war. A big stick (the F-111) in my opinion has saved us (AND probably NZ) many, many battles over the past 30 years. A JSF purchase is arguably NOT going to provide such a capability. An F-22 purchase on the other hand, would provide both strike capabilities equal or greater to that we possess now and the Air Dominance you consider so important...

The US has already indicated (when AIR 6000 was actually in full swing) that they would sell the F-22 to us should we decide to acquire it. The problem is OUR politicians have invested too much politically on BOTH sides of the house in the JSF. One can only hope that the JSF turns out to be the Sergeant York program of the new Millenium...

It also looks increasingly unlikely that Australia will acquire the P-8 MMA in the near future. A far cheaper option will be to further upgrade the AP-3C Orions and "re-life" them much as NZ has done. This is due to doubts that the P-8 will meet Australian requirements and because funding for it will be required "right smack in the middle" of the $15 billion AIR 6000 and the $6 Billion SEA 4000 (Air warfare destroyers) project and a heap of other major projects...

They may still be used as missile firing platforms though with JASSM and SLAM-ER due to be integrated onto the AP-3C's prior to 2010.

[Viggen]

Because Australia will never be able to acquire sufficient fighter aircraft to protect it's territory. We've got about the same landmass as contintental USA to protect with a GDP that's only half as much again as the USA defence budget...

We have already the capacity to defend CONOZ with our air combat element. There isn't a force comparable that can deny our DCA via incursions into Oz airspace.

Does anyone seriously believe a dozen geriatric Indonesian non-BVR F-16's constitutes a threat?

The US has already indicated (when AIR 6000 was actually in full swing) that they would sell the F-22 to us should we decide to acquire it.

I posed a similar question to a senior USAF source on another web forum and it was rejected. Seems at no stage had the Pentagon considered asking US Congress for foreign military sales rights to Oz wrt F-22 Raptor. It's a non-starter unless you are a acolyte of Carlo Kopp and his ilk.

It also looks increasingly unlikely that Australia will acquire the P-8 MMA in the near future.

Exactly, as BAMS/HALE will take over the mundane surveillance roles, a B737 P-8A derivative is overkill.

While we are moving to theProduction, Sustainment and Follow-on development phase of JSF with an acquisition decision for 2008, DefMin Hill has said Nope to any near term investment in System Design and Development of the Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft.

The skinny is that Defence is still unsure as to if the USN requirement actually fits the ADF requirements.

Latest news I have suggests the ADF is baulking at the funding costs of $3.5-4.5 billion for new B737 based P-8A's and instead is looking at refurb/re-winging Orions for $1 billion.

I'm not sure we need a B737 to do maritime surveillance.

The Great Southern Ocean ops require the Orion to feather props. Imagine conserving fuel by shutting down one of only two engines of a B737!

It ain't gonna happen!!

I think some people in the general media don't realise that the UAV will take over MOST of the current roles and that the basic - throw out a flare or liferaft will be the only real non-military role of the future Orion fleet.

Sonobuoys, anti-sub torpedoes and harpoon firing is the remaining mil role.

Several platforms will fire harpoon and there will probably be better sub hunting alternatives in 20 years time anyway.

It sounds great, but in reality and with budget constraints I think saving $3 billion+ on the P-8A is better than buying maybe only a small handful of 3-4 planes anyway.

It's not like we can afford to replace 19 Orions with 19 B737's!!

I personaly think we should stick with refurbed Orions. The UAV will take some operating pain/accrued hours from the individual Orion airframes, hence they will last longer.

If you look at current market prices for a green civvy B737-800 you are looking at $US61-69M per aircraft. Not to mention fitting it out with Milspec interior/equipments.

They may still be used as missile firing platforms though with JASSM and SLAM-ER due to be integrated onto the AP-3C's prior to 2010.


I seriously doubt SLAM-ER will get up as it isn't planned for service on USN JSF.

Can somebody say ORPHAN?

Check following article:


JANE'S DEFENCE WEEKLY - JULY 06, 2005


Australia almost sure to buy JASSM

Ian Bostock JDW Correspondent
Sydney

Australia is almost certain to select the Lockheed Martin AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-Off Munition (JASSM) for its next long-range stand-off weapon (SOW) as the need to take the weapon onto the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) and cost come into play.

Under Project Air 5418, the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) will equip its F/A-18 Hornet strike fighters and AP-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft with Follow-On SOWs (FOSOWs) between 2007 and 2009 to engage targets on land and in maritime environments. Air 5418 has been allocated a budget of A$350 million and $450 million (US$270 million and US$348 million).

The project, delayed for several years due mainly to funding constraints, was originally intended to equip the first RAAF aircraft with FOSOW by late 2005.

Two companies responded to the Air 5418 request for tender released in
2004: Lockheed Martin with the JASSM and Boeing offering the AGM-84H
Stand-off Land Attack Missile-Expanded Response (SLAM-ER). Despite being an early contender for the Australian FOSOW, the Taurus KEPD 350 was not offered.

In April, the US Defense Security Co-operation Agency (DSCA) notified
Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale of JASSM and SLAM-ER to
Australia. The notification stated that Australia had requested a possible sale of up to 260 FOSOWs. The JASSM and SLAM-ER purchases are estimated to cost up to US$163 million and US$430 million respectively if all options are exercised.

Either purchase would include a full in-service support package comprising war stock, telemetry and captive air training missiles, support equipment, integration and certification support, containers, spares, repair items, test equipment and technical and training manuals.

According to the DSCA, there are no known offset agreements proposed with the forthcoming sale.

Given the significant disparities in cost between the two missiles and the allocated budget for Air 5418, the National Security Committee of Cabinet is likely to look favourably on the cheaper option. Also counting against SLAM-ER is that it has not been nominated by the US for integration into the JSF, which is set to replace the RAAF's F/|A-18s from about 2015.

Australia is increasingly averse to assuming the technical and financial responsibilities associated with integrating weapon systems into new and existing platforms.

Defence Minister Robert Hill made it clear earlier in 2005 that his
preference is for an FOSOW capable of transitioning seamlessly between the F/A-18 and JSF.

In 1999, the Defence Materiel Organisation, supported by capability and performance analysis conducted by the Defence Science and Technology Organisation, identified that JASSM best met Air 5418's requirements.

[Aussie Digger]

Yes, but JASSM has anything BUT an assured future in-service, with the US House Defence Appropriations committee trying hard to kill it. They have only provided $2 million for further development this year instead of the $150 million required.

Congress is pushing extremely hard to can this weapon as it's considered to essentially duplicate the capabilities of an in-service weapon that's reportedly providing excellent capabilities ie: SLAM-ER.

Here's the Australian Aviation Magazine Article on this:

JASSM FACING AXE

The Lockheed Martin AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM), a leading contender for Project Air 5418 to equip the RAAF’s F/A-18 Hornets and AP-3C Orions, is reportedly facing the axe after a series of test failures in recent months.

According to a report in the online Defense Daily, the US House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee is looking to kill the JASSM program as part of several cost-cutting measures designed to arrest a projected blowout of the US’s 2006 defence budget, and has reportedly provided only US$2m (A$2.62m) of a requested US$150m (A$197m) to the program for the 2005/06 fiscal year.

The program has been marred by a series of test failures in recent months, including one where the missile’s foldout wings failed to deploy after being launched, and another where a missile failed to reach its intended target. The wing failure is reportedly related to a production problem with the missile’s complicated wing-fold mechanism.

"The Committee continues to have grave concerns regarding the viability of the JASSM," the appropriators wrote in explaining their decision.

The missile is currently in a low-rate initial production (LRIP) phase, and has been designed to equip USAF B-52H, B-2A, B-1B, F-16C and F-15E, and USN F/A-18C/E/F aircraft. The USAF hopes to acquire up to 4900 JASSMs, with the USN taking another 453.

Obtained from www.ausaviation.com (http://www.ausaviation.com) (subscriber link only).

It beats me why they didn't look seriously at Storm Shadow. At least it's approved, in-service and possesses reportedly greater range than SLAM-ER...

As to an F-22 purchase, it was Angus Houston who publicly stated that the RAAF had received extensive briefings on the F-22 and "assurances" that Australia would be authorised to acquire F-22 should it decide to do so. Just like you, I don't think much of Kopp myself, Houston however is a different kettle of fish...

I completely agree about the P-8. I think it's completely unnecessary for Australia when the AP-3C's are doing a fine job. As I mentioned the upgrade/replacement program falls right in the middle of required funding for the biggest programs in Australia's history and I think the money is needed elsewhere than on a new Maritime patrol aircraft.

[Viggen]

Aussie Digger


Am interested to know which platforms you would like to have seen replace Bug and Pig with for Air6000.

You mentioned a preference for Storm Shadow, are you a fan of the Typhoon and would you have liked to see that downselected?

If so (or not), what numbers and roles (A2A/A2G) etc.

Curious.

Regards

Viggen

[Aussie Digger]

I mentioned the Storm Shadow because it is in the same class as the Tauras KEPD 350, JASSM and SLAM-ER and the Tauras weapon was included in the potential bidders list to start with for the FOSOW project. By including Tauras it shows that the ADF obviously wasn't adverse to looking at a non-US weapon system, unless it was simply "making up the numbers"...

The SS was never even considered apparently and I thought that a bit strange. I also thought it more likely to be integrated onto the JSF due to the British connection, plus it's an in-service and combat proven weapon system, something only the SLAM-ER can truly boast besides it...

I'd like the RAAF to seriously look at acquiring even a small quantity (1-2 Squadrons in total) of F-22's. They "may" be too expensive, and possibly difficult to acquire, but I think they'd be worthwhile even so. The qualitative edge of the RAAF would be ensured with this aircraft, plus the other enhancements already decided on (Wedgetail, A330, Vigilare etc). If the F-22 could be acquired even in limited quantities, then I would agree the JSF should be acquired to round out the force.

If the F-22 is unobtainable for whatever reason I think a serious evaluation of another "Twin tier" air force model should be conducted. This would include a THOROUGH evaluation of JSF, Typhoon, Rafale and evolved F-15 variants. (I have no particular preference for any of these aircraft, though I'd lean against F-15's simply because of their age).

I don't like the idea of a single aircraft type for our air force, particularly the JSF as I don't think any version of it will be a sufficiently capable air to air player for Australia's needs.

On top of this, AIR 6000 was effectively ended by a political decision (ie: to likely acquire JSF). Not a sound expert decision by the military after an exhaustive evaluation.

This is a $16 Billion dollar acquisition after all and is around 3 times more expensive than the next dearest defence project in Australia's history... It's also a decision that's been made by a Government that probably WON'T be in power when this capability is supposed to come on line (and therefore NOT answerable)...

I still think that around 100 aircraft spread through 4 Operational Squadrons and a number of OCU's are required for Australia's defence, regardless of the type. Quality is very important but mass still has a role to play, particularly in the large and open areas Australia needs to defend.

I'd be quite happy for 1 Squadron and 77 Squadrons to retain the primary strike/air to surface (as Maritime Strike is one of the most important missions for the RAAF) mission and for No. 3 and No. 75 to be the primary A2A Squadrons. Of course with the multi-role aircraft to be purchased in any event all such capabilities will overlap and every squadron will be capable of each of these roles to varying degrees.

What are your thoughts on these matters?

Cheers.

[Viggen]

Cheers, mate.

[cherry]

I often wonder what the best solution for Air6000 would be for Australia, obviously because I am not convinced that the current proposal of around 100 JSF will provide the edge we have previously been afforded. My mind about the right mix of platforms changes as often as the weather. Lately I have come to the belief that JSF does have its merits, and perhaps a smaller purchase of this platform can be made, for example, 40 X JSF conventional take-off, 20 X JSF STOVL to operate from the new amphibious ships, and then either a small purchase of 20 X FA-22 for air dominance and strike roles (this would be the most desirable platform) or 20 X of an evolved F-15 that consists of such features as super-cruise, a radar of similar performance as FA-22, more stealth features (if this is physically possible), etc. An F-15 with the same capabilities or close to the FA-22 without the all-aspect stealth would still put Australia well ahead of any other country for years to come. This could all be topped off with a handful of UCAV (maybe around 12) for the roles it is designed to provide including maritime strike. If the Navy came on board and selected a long range strike missile for either the new AWD or subs, then ADF would have all bases covered.

One thing that recently frustrated me was the meagre tax cuts the fed government gave us. It added up to over $20 billion, and now I get an extra $6 a week. I would be quite happy to give up that $6 a week and have the government spend a couple of extra billion on a new dominant airforce (as detailed above), in fact a few extra billion spread over all ADF to really bring us into the 21st century. $6 a week extra won't buy my vote, but assurances of a dominant Defence Force that provides my security certainly will.

[cherry]

I forgot to add that I agree with the idea of upgrading the Orions for ADF instead of heading down the MMA path, but only if the $2-$2.5 billion saved is put into Air6000. If this is done then perhaps some of our wishlists may just become affordable???????

[Supe]

I don't like the idea of a single aircraft type for our air force

I still think that around 100 aircraft spread through 4 Operational Squadrons and a number of OCU's are required for Australia's defence, regardless of the type. Quality is very important but mass still has a role to play, particularly in the large and open areas Australia needs to defend.



I agree with those points. There's always talk about a 'qualitative' edge but too often that means a sacrifice in numbers. The region is experiencing a bit of an arms race, with some nations reducing the 'qualitative' edge Australia has at least in 'frontline' aircraft terms. If they get serious and buy tankers and AEW&C type aircraft to go with their fighters, then any previous edge Australia had will be largely neutralised. Australia should seek regional dominance in types and numbers of aircraft it procures. The deterrent value alone would be worth the money. Then of course there's the role they could play in future expeditionary/coalition formations.

[cherry]

Just to make the debate a little more interesting, I found a little bit more information about the F/B-22 on a website. Very interesting. Sounds like the bomber version will be even more unaffordable than the attack version. Interesting though the new external bomb pods for the wing mounts, perhaps these could be used on the JSF?

http://www.afa.org/magazine/Jan2005/0105raptor.asp

[Aussie Digger]

As to a long range land attack missile, It's not up to the Navy, it's up to Treasury and to a lesser degree, DFAT. Navy has asked for a long range land attack missile capability for the AWD's. Whether it will get them remains to be seen...

[cherry]

Is anyone aware of the estimated unit cost of both a JSF and a F/A-22 that includes all support in the price. I was under the impression that it is a around $150M for JSF and $300M for F/A-22, is this right?

[chrishorne]

I'm curious, does anyone think that Australia could be looking at the carrier (c) version of the F-35 instead of the standard (a) version? With the C's increase payload and range (and price) do you think it is being considered?

[Aardvark Fury]

For what it's worth, I was fairly convinced by an article in August 2004's ADM magazine by Air Commodore John Harvey that the capabilities of the JSF would be enough to ensure Australia's qualitative edge in the region would be maintained.

Its capabilities include a Synthetic Aperture Radar, with Electronic Attack and Ground Moving Target Indicator modes, plus an advanced electro-optical Distributed Aperture System (DAS), as well as a significant data networking and data fusion ability.

If Australia was to acquire 100 of these (not less), plus the 'force multiplier' capabilities of the Wedgetail and MRTT I am comfortable our regional superiority can be maintained. The biggest challenge I see will be to ensure they enter service in 2012 as promised.

However, despite the Government's current plans, I would not wish to see the F-111s withdrawn before the F-35s enter service and replace both the F/A-18 and F-111. This decision, which was always silly in my opinion, is even more silly when you consider the AGM-142E will only reach IOC early in 2006. Why does the Government refuse to retain the F-111 in service until the F-35s arrive, or about 2 or so years longer than its current (ridiculous) plans?

[Aussie Digger]

Cause they cost an absolute fortune and the Government thinks that money would be better spent going into the rest of the acquisition program for the ADF. What do you think is going to pay for the Bomb improvement program, follow on stand off weapon and other F/A-18 upgrades? The savings from retiring the F-111 fleet...

[Whiskyjack]

The problems the RAAF is facing is:

1) JSF
When will the JSF be available, I believe there will be a gap between when it will be operational and when the F/A-18 will reach the end of its life. Even when it is delivered there is the possiblilty it will not have everything intergrated weapon wise, so will be less capable.

The above does not take into further account time slippage in the program and cost over runs, how many western fighter programs have not suffered that?

2) Will it be capable of countering the emerging threats. The latest Asia Pacific Defence Reporter has an article on the new Russian fighter engines that will give the SU-27 and all of its varients the ability to super cruise, the article also points out that it is next to very difficult for a non-supercruise fighter to intercept a supersonic in-coming aircraft.

Given all this, the JSF is primarily designed as a Stealthy bomb truck, not an air superiority fighter, other western nations that are buying the JSF have Typhoons and Raptors as the main air superiority aircraft.

I imagine there are some nervous people around the RAAF at the moment.

[pepsi]

Im still surprised that they chose it considering the f/a-18 was chosen over the f-16/mirage etc, due in big part to the fact that it was twin engined

I cant help but think the decision for the JSF was more of an economic one than anything else..

[knightrider4]

Theres not a lot I am in agreement with Dr Kopp but the points he makes regarding the F-35 are very valid and more to the point unescapable. Geometry is geometry and kinematics is kinematics no matter who is delivering the info. I dont have a problem with the F-35 as such just a problem with the RAAF asking it to perform an air dominance role which it was never designed to do. Lets use em what they are meant for and thats dropping ordinance on the enemy on a battlefield devoid of serious enemy air opposition and if the F-35 can zoom around with impunity then the fight is already over. However if you happen to come accross an enemy who is equipped with the advanced Russian fighters equipped with the Phazotron Zhuk radars which I believe as an amature enthusiast outranges the APG-81 AESA of the F-35 then you are in for a nasty surprise. As for its stealth just make sure you dont get attacked from the rear as the negligable stealth is only good for the front sector.

[machina]

I think a combination of F-35Bs and Typhoons would be a good purchase, say two squadrons of each. This would provide for air support and air combat roles. It would also allow for both amphibious ships to operate a squadron of JSF if that were necessary. Since the Brits seem to be getting both of these aircraft, weapons and upgrades programs could be shared.

[Occum]

Because Australia will never be able to acquire sufficient fighter aircraft to protect it's territory. We've got about the same landmass as contintental USA to protect with a GDP that's only half as much again as the USA defence budget...

A strong strike capability is used as a deterrent. Deterring war is infinitely preferable to winning war. A big stick (the F-111) in my opinion has saved us (AND probably NZ) many, many battles over the past 30 years. A JSF purchase is arguably NOT going to provide such a capability. An F-22 purchase on the other hand, would provide both strike capabilities equal or greater to that we possess now and the Air Dominance you consider so important...

The US has already indicated (when AIR 6000 was actually in full swing) that they would sell the F-22 to us should we decide to acquire it. The problem is OUR politicians have invested too much politically on BOTH sides of the house in the JSF. One can only hope that the JSF turns out to be the Sergeant York program of the new Millenium...

It also looks increasingly unlikely that Australia will acquire the P-8 MMA in the near future. A far cheaper option will be to further upgrade the AP-3C Orions and "re-life" them much as NZ has done. This is due to doubts that the P-8 will meet Australian requirements and because funding for it will be required "right smack in the middle" of the $15 billion AIR 6000 and the $6 Billion SEA 4000 (Air warfare destroyers) project and a heap of other major projects...



To a Newbie who is still reading in on these matters, what is being said here (and in other posts to this thread by Aussie Digger) makes a lot of sense and demonstrates some appreciable insight into matters of a military aerospace nature.

One could almost say there is a certain prophetic quality to these posts.

Other posts on this forum claim that it wasn't the politicians who forced the current situation on Defence but the other way around. The fact there is a Parliamentary Inquiry into this matter would suggest these posts were closer to the truth than first thought.

The point about the US being prepared to sell Australia the F-22 "when Air 6000 was in full swing" raises a whole raft of questions. Presumably, this was around the 2001-2002 timeframe. If so and if true, then this goes directly to the integrity of the Air 6000 process, the veracity of what we are being told today and the credit of those doing the telling.

Does anyone else find this all becoming somewhat odoriferous, and unpleasantly so?

:confused:

[Aussie Digger]

To a Newbie who is still reading in on these matters, what is being said here (and in other posts to this thread by Aussie Digger) makes a lot of sense and demonstrates some appreciable insight into matters of a military aerospace nature.

One could almost say there is a certain prophetic quality to these posts.

Other posts on this forum claim that it wasn't the politicians who forced the current situation on Defence but the other way around. The fact there is a Parliamentary Inquiry into this matter would suggest these posts were closer to the truth than first thought.

The point about the US being prepared to sell Australia the F-22 "when Air 6000 was in full swing" raises a whole raft of questions. Presumably, this was around the 2001-2002 timeframe. If so and if true, then this goes directly to the integrity of the Air 6000 process, the veracity of what we are being told today and the credit of those doing the telling.

Does anyone else find this all becoming somewhat odoriferous, and unpleasantly so?

:confused:

Quite. I have changed my opinion slightly since I made all those comments, but only insofar as the purchase of F-22's. I DO think we should purchase F-22, to provide the "high-end" capability for our airforce, but NOT at the expense of ANY JSF's. I would lend my support to a F-22 purchase "over and above" the planned JSF purchase, and that's it.

This is because the F-22 WOULD provide us with an air dominance capacity, probably only equalled by the US. A small fleet of say 24, would have an effect far outweighing their numerical strength, much like the F-111 did.

Australia however requires a fighter to perform a wide range of taskings and F-22 is not that aircraft.

IF the money could be found, it would perform very well for Australia I'm sure. I don't THINK we'd have any trouble getting it, if we could afford it, but you never really know until you TRY do you???

[Occum]

Quite. I have changed my opinion slightly since I made all those comments, but only insofar as the purchase of F-22's. I DO think we should purchase F-22, to provide the "high-end" capability for our airforce, but NOT at the expense of ANY JSF's. I would lend my support to a F-22 purchase "over and above" the planned JSF purchase, and that's it.

.......This is because the F-22 WOULD provide us with an air dominance capacity, probably only equalled by the US. A small fleet of say 24, would have an effect far outweighing their numerical strength, much like the F-111 did.

Australia however requires a fighter to perform a wide range of taskings and F-22 is not that aircraft.

IF the money could be found, it would perform very well for Australia I'm sure. I don't THINK we'd have any trouble getting it, if we could afford it, but you never really know until you TRY do you???

Now I am even more confused. What about your comment -

A JSF purchase is arguably NOT going to provide such a capability. An F-22 purchase on the other hand, would provide both strike capabilities equal or greater to that we possess now and the Air Dominance you consider so important...

From what I have read, I reckon you were spot on with this statement and what is happening today with both programs confirms this.

By the way, why are you now saying the 'F-22 is not that aircraft'?

Again, from all I have read so far and been told by professional associates in the industry and DoD in the USA, the F-22 is, by design, a far superior aircraft to the JSF. By 2010, when the JSF is still at Block 1 status, the Raptor's overall capabilities will still be far in excess of even the Block 4 JSF currently in planning as the first post SDD upgrade (presently circa 2015). Apparantly, but not surprisingly, there are physical constraints that prevent the JSF coming anywhere close to the capabilities of the F-22.

This view is further reinforced by the interview with LtGen David Deptula, Vice Commander of USAF PACAF, that appeared in Defence Today recently.

If you haven't seen his comments, will try to get a link.

If you have reason to disagree, would welcome the opportunity to hear why this is the case.

As to your comments about 'TRYING', why hasn't Defence tried?
What happened back when 'Air 6000 was in full swing' and the Americans were prepared to sell Australia the F-22?
Who is saying the Americans won't make them available to Australia today?

Can anyone shed any light on these?


:)

[Aussie Digger]

Now I am even more confused. What about your comment -



From what I have read, I reckon you were spot on with this statement and what is happening today with both programs confirms this.

By the way, why are you now saying the 'F-22 is not that aircraft'?

Again, from all I have read so far and been told by professional associates in the industry and DoD in the USA, the F-22 is, by design, a far superior aircraft to the JSF. By 2010, when the JSF is still at Block 1 status, the Raptor's overall capabilities will still be far in excess of even the Block 4 JSF currently in planning as the first post SDD upgrade (presently circa 2015). Apparantly, but not surprisingly, there are physical constraints that prevent the JSF coming anywhere close to the capabilities of the F-22.

This view is further reinforced by the interview with LtGen David Deptula, Vice Commander of USAF PACAF, that appeared in Defence Today recently.

If you haven't seen his comments, will try to get a link.

If you have reason to disagree, would welcome the opportunity to hear why this is the case.

As to your comments about 'TRYING', why hasn't Defence tried?
What happened back when 'Air 6000 was in full swing' and the Americans were prepared to sell Australia the F-22?
Who is saying the Americans won't make them available to Australia today?

Can anyone shed any light on these?


:)

In terms of long range strike capacity, the JSF is actually likely to possess greater range. It can carry 2000lbs class weapons internally whereas the F-22 cannot, being limited at most to 1000lbs class weapons, internally. This cannot be changed because of physical constraints of the airframe.

The JSF has an internal EO/IR targetting system (a development of the current generation Sniper XR pod) and an IRST system. The F-22 has neither. The F-35JSF features advanced versions of the F-22's engine and Radar system and will possess advanced radar capabilities such as SAR and GMTI (ground moving target indication) modes. The F-22 will not.

The F-22 is only rated to carry the GBU-38 500lbs JDAM internally and NO other air to ground weapon. The Block upgrades that were designed to address these capability gaps have been cancelled in favour of funding for an additional 4 aircraft and at this stage their are no signs to show that they will be re-instated in the near future.

The F-35 is being designed from the outset with a full suite of air to air and air to ground weapons, including standoff missiles, (JASSM)0 anti-ship missiles (Harpoon, NSM, SLAM-ER), anti-radiation missiles (Harm, Advanced HARM) and JDAM, SDB, JSOW, LGB's and WCMD type weapons. The F-22 will not be able to utilise any of these weapons besides, GBU-38 JDAM.

The JSF will not be able to supercruise and that's about it compared to F-22. It is speculated that it will not be as "stealthy" as F-22, but I fail to see how anyone can be an "authority" on this, as the performance data will never make it into the public domain and those who do know will be extremely reluctant to talk about. A few cyptic comments here and there will be about it.

I have read that article and the author of it, posts on another forum, but what is not pointed out, is USAF is desperately trying to get a sufficient number of F-22's to replace it's F-15 fleet. It does not have that yet, and to talk publicly about an aircraft they are ALSO buying which has performance anywhere near that of the F-22is unlikely to convince Congress that it's worthwhile increasing investments in the hideously expensive F-22.

The RAAF have publicly commented (at the current Parliamentary enquiry) that it is still uncertain even today, that the US WOULD sell the F-22.

I'll post more soon, but have to run for now...

Cheers.

[Occum]

Aussie Digger -

I'll post more soon, but have to run for now...

Look forward to it. Do you have any references to your comments on capabilities?

:)

[Aussie Digger]

Sure, have a look at this;

http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/joint/commttee/J9128.pdf

It takes a bit of reading, but is well worthwhile.

Basically it provides the RAAF's attitude towards JSF, F-22 and any F-111 extension.

RAAF, despite Messir's KOPP and GOON "opinion" HAS studied this issue extensively. It DOES have access to ALL available data on these issues (unlike Messiers GOON and KOPP). It HAS concluded that the JSF will provide superior capability and "bang for buck" over any other platform given the parameters within which it is REQUIRED to work, by Government.

As to the capabilities of the JSF platform itself, reputable public data is available from any number of websites (airforce-technology.com etc). This info is not entirely accurate however. True performance data is (naturally) highly classified and available (if at all) in only cryptic comments in public... ;)

[Occum]

Sure, have a look at this;

http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/joint/commttee/J9128.pdf

It takes a bit of reading, but is well worthwhile.

Basically it provides the RAAF's attitude towards JSF, F-22 and any F-111 extension.

RAAF, despite Messir's KOPP and GOON "opinion" HAS studied this issue extensively. It DOES have access to ALL available data on these issues (unlike Messiers GOON and KOPP). It HAS concluded that the JSF will provide superior capability and "bang for buck" over any other platform given the parameters within which it is REQUIRED to work, by Government.

As to the capabilities of the JSF platform itself, reputable public data is available from any number of websites (airforce-technology.com etc). This info is not entirely accurate however. True performance data is (naturally) highly classified and available (if at all) in only cryptic comments in public... ;)

Thanks for this, AD, but this has been read in detail, along with all the submissions, most of which raise some very valid points and most of which (21 out of 23) disagree with the position taken by Defence.

Defence and its two supporters made a lot of statements at the hearing. However, I am a numbers, data and facts kind of person and I don't see a lot, if any, of these here. Rather, this reads like one of the five famous sayings that start with - 'Trust me, I am from the Government' and ends with something that I am not sure can be put up on this forum.

The question that needs to be asked is "Where are the facts?" or, as one of my mentors used to say, "Where's the data?"

;)

[Aussie Digger]

Thanks for this, AD, but this has been read in detail, along with all the submissions, most of which raise some very valid points and most of which (21 out of 23) disagree with the position taken by Defence.

Defence and its two supporters made a lot of statements at the hearing. However, I am a numbers, data and facts kind of person and I don't see a lot, if any, of these here. Rather, this reads like one of the five famous sayings that start with - 'Trust me, I am from the Government' and ends with something that I am not sure can be put up on this forum.

The question that needs to be asked is "Where are the facts?" or, as one of my mentors used to say, "Where's the data?"

;)

Not with Kopp and Goon THAT's for sure.

As for numbers and facts, the F-35A can carry 2000lbs class weapons internally, F-22 and F-35B can't.

F-35A HAS a funded and undergoing development EO/IR systetm a confirmed IRST system, a confirmed tatical datalink system that IS capable of transmitting as well as receiving (unlike F-22 which has "receive" only capability).

F-35A will be designed to carry and operate a wide variety of A2G munitions. F-22's planned upgrades to acquire similar capabilities HAVE been cancelled.

F-22 production run has been increased by 4 aircraft only over the 179 already funded. However the cancellation of the planned upgrades was required to fund these extra airframes and the production of these aircraft was "stretched out" to allow the production run to last until 2012, in the hope that funding can be found so the USAF can purchase additional F-22's. I wouldn't be holding my breath and the F-22 has NOT yet been approved for export, so any discussions about "buying" them instead of anything else is futile until this happens.

All official sources, including Lockheed Martin executives still insist that F-35 WILL be significantly cheaper than F-22.

All of these facts are publicly available and help BOOST the case for F-35 over any other option.

Now to a few "un-official facts" that I have on the very best of authority, but cannot "name, names"...

The F-35A is lighter than F-22, has only 1 engine (which generates less thrust than the 2 on F-22), carries more fuel than F-22 and is about the same drag wise. Which platform do YOU think is gonna go further???

[rjmaz1]

The F-35A is lighter than F-22, has only 1 engine (which generates less thrust than the 2 on F-22), carries more fuel than F-22 and is about the same drag wise. Which platform do YOU think is gonna go further???
Thats sounds like something you read in the newspaper that twist the facts

Based on the fact that each F-22 engines would have to produce only half the thrust of the single JSF engine to maintain the same speed, then the range would be similar.

Producing half the thrust will roughly use half as much fuel per engine both aircraft having the same fuel capacity, this means that the range of an JSF at 100% thrust and the F-22 at 50% thrust would be the same. This would be at a speed around mach 1.

However increase the F-22's thrust up to 100% still not afterburning and the JSF now has to use full afterburner to keep up with the F-22. The F-22 will now travel twice as far as the JSF will at around Mach 1.5.

So in some missions the JSF will have the same range as the F-22. But in missions that require higher speed the F-22 will travel 50 even 100% further.

So once u average this out the F-22 range is far superior to the JSF.

Based on your analogy we could use Air Blimps as they have heaps of range for the amount of fuel used but too bad they go slow. :D

[Occum]

Just received an interesting article from a friend in Wash DC. Apparantly it is making the rounds and catching a lot of people's attention.

http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.106/pub_detail.asp

Has this capability, its growth through the next two decades along with the likelihood of export or provision as foreign/military aid to other countries in the region been considered in the formulation of the Air 6000 strategic needs and resulting requirements?

Given the single type JSF solution, would seem this has not been considered.

Comments welcome.

;)

[Occum]

Originally Posted by Aussie Digger
The F-35A ........... carries more fuel than F-22 and is about the same drag wise. Which platform do YOU think is gonna go further???

F-22A fuel load is in the order of 20,600 lbs internal and 36,500 with full externals (ref - Safety Supplement in TO 00-105E-9SS-6).

Are you saying that the fuel capacities of the CTOL JSF are going to be more than these figures?

I thought the CTOL JSF internal fuel was around 18,000 lbs and the externals were limited by the station load capacities of Stns 2/10 and the now smaller tank (426 gal C-13 tank vs 480 gal legacy) due to separation and flutter issues et al.

Would be interested to know if this has all changed.

:)

[gf0012-aust]

F-22A fuel load is in the order of 20,600 lbs internal and 36,500 with full externals (ref - Safety Supplement in TO 00-105E-9SS-6).

I've got TO 00-105E-9SS-9, so I'd be interested to see TO 00-105E-9SS-6 Can you plse PM me re this

GF Edit: Ignore Prev. I've managed to source a copy.

I thought the CTOL JSF internal fuel was around 18,000 lbs and the externals were limited by the station load capacities of Stns 2/10 and the now smaller tank (426 gal C-13 tank vs 480 gal legacy) due to separation and flutter issues et al.

according to a colleague of mine involved with weapons development, testing and clearance on F-117 and F-22 (and who will undertake the same role with JSF), the JSF will be tagged to use the same 2503l external tanks - but would not realistically run dirty with 4. According to the same source (and this can't be substantiated in public) the planning for JSF has involved longer unrefueled data.

Although its an unacceptable qualifier, I do have a lot of faith in the validity of this operators claims as he:


is involved with foreign platform testing - and has been involved with Su-27 assessments
has been involved in USAF "black emergent" programmes for the last 35 years
isn't prone to grandstanding
you're always going to get differences of opinion in areas like this. he for example does not consider Carlo to have an absolute appreciation of network centric warfighting (which would be heartily contested by Carlo of course) - he therefore regards some of the AusAirpower traffic to be "Oh Virginia" marketing. he thus regards some of the AA assumptions to be interesting academic utterances that are based on making assumptions and playing around with favourable unclassified data.

again, its a horses for courses debate - although Carlo made some references in JSC to the fact that people in USAF are supportive of his theories, I can certainly reinforce that some of the operators I know in USAF and who are project current (and who I'm fortunate enough to be in regular contact with) have a very very different opinion.

for me, I'll go with people who have the clearances and who live and breathe this for a job.

the professional vis a vis "interested" cohort will never be unanimous - or even in unison. Its a variation of the "Holden and Fords" argument

[Occum]

Originally Posted by gf0012-aust
.....the JSF will be tagged to use the same 2503l external tanks - but would not realistically run dirty with 4.....

No it won't and it couldn't carry 4 of them anyway/anyhow. Suggest you do the arithmetic and compare weights with load capacity of Stns 2/10 (2,500 lbs, if memory serves).

Original plan was for 480 gal external till Miss Separation and Mrs Flutter et al made their presence felt in the analysis. Some old and bold flight test types reckon there is more to come. Confirmation some way off, though, as weapons testing won't start for a while yet.

You were right, it was an unacceptable qualifier.

;)

ps. Why the fascination with Dr Carlo Kopp?
.......or were you replying to the earlier post about the PLA up on the Strategy Center website?

If so, I should have said professional comments welcome.

:eek

[gf0012-aust]

No it won't and it couldn't carry 4 of them anyway/anyhow. Suggest you do the arithmetic and compare weights with load capacity of Stns 2/10 (2,500 lbs, if memory serves).

Original plan was for 480 gal external till Miss Separation and Mrs Flutter et al made their presence felt in the analysis. Some old and bold flight test types reckon there is more to come. Confirmation some way off, though, as weapons testing won't start for a while yet.

You were right, it was an unacceptable qualifier.

Did you read my prev properly? I was also under the impression that separation and flutter were present in the 4 tank disposition but not in the 3 tank. Or are you suggesting that you know more than some of the people on the project? ;)

I respect your right to be enthusiastic in support of your own assessment, but to be blunt I don;t know you from a bar of soap.

OTOH the other people I deal with are:


involved with F-22
involved with doctrine development
have assessed the Su-27 at both a flight level - and the Red Hat operational level
do have a track record of credibility with me through different projects and associations
do have current and approp sec clearanceson a basis of establishing credentials, they rank highly with me. I'd have to say that when it comes to technical input, I do tend to have greater faith in people who have the right access - I don't have the same degree of qualified support for those who may be academically smart - but aren't privy to all the data.


ps. Why the fascination with Dr Carlo Kopp?

There isn't for me. I think he does some interesting stuff - his data mining etc is always a work of art - but I disagree with some of his interpretations. Its an egalitarian society. I happen to think that the presentations are coloured by enthusiastic self belief at the expense of pause and access to all the data. Or are you suggesting again that Kopp is able to make more qualified statements when he's not in the clearance loop?

.......or were you replying to the earlier post about the PLA up on the Strategy Center website?

in the main - yes

If so, I should have said professional comments welcome.

is the pithy response an example of yours?

[Aussie Digger]

No it won't and it couldn't carry 4 of them anyway/anyhow. Suggest you do the arithmetic and compare weights with load capacity of Stns 2/10 (2,500 lbs, if memory serves)


Why the fascination with Dr Carlo Kopp?

If so, I should have said professional comments welcome.

:eek

Because you and others keep quoting him as an expert. Clearly he is not. He is god at collecting data from publicly available sources that you OR I could and putting together articles. As GF said once, "he's an expert at powerpoint presentations" nevermind what's included in the info...

That article is simply a re-hash of the same Headsup and Aus Aviation / Defence Today / Air international articles he has written NUMEROUS times.

The fact is he is not allowed access to classified information about these aircrafts.

Details of such things as internal fuel loads, range performance, radar detection ranges etc, are closely guarded national secrets for good reason. Such things needed to be kept closely guarded lest "enemies" find ways around or gaps within our capabilities.

They don't need to be released simply because someone or some group are interested in a debate. It is not a cover up. if you worked in the military (or most Government agencies for that matter) you would know that no-one is going to risk their job by providing these details. It is ILLEGAL to do so in any case.

In my work, you cannot even TALK to the media without higher approval first. Anything said must then be very generic and non-specific because certain parties will twist the info to their own uses. I am a Detective in Queensland and though we often do release information in relation to our investigations, it is not until we have already exhausted those avenues, and never anything to "tip off" any "crooks" until WE are ready to do so.

when we do so, it is because we are trying to elicit more info from the public, not because they have any particular NEED to know. In fact most people would be better off if they didn't know about a lot of my work...


By now I'm guessing you're probably aware of my source for that bit of info. Care to share any of YOURS?

You've made some pretty definite statements about what the JSF WILL and won't be able to do.

Some evidence (and I don't consider anything by Kopp as such) would be nice...

[Magoo]

Because you and others keep quoting him as an expert. Clearly he is not. He is god at collecting data from publicly available sources that you OR I could and putting together articles. As GF said once, "he's an expert at powerpoint presentations" nevermind what's included in the info...

That article is simply a re-hash of the same Headsup and Aus Aviation / Defence Today / Air international articles he has written NUMEROUS times.

The fact is he is not allowed access to classified information about these aircrafts.

Details of such things as internal fuel loads, range performance, radar detection ranges etc, are closely guarded national secrets for good reason. Such things needed to be kept closely guarded lest "enemies" find ways around or gaps within our capabilities.

They don't need to be released simply because someone or some group are interested in a debate. It is not a cover up. if you worked in the military (or most Government agencies for that matter) you would know that no-one is going to risk their job by providing these details. It is ILLEGAL to do so in any case.

In my work, you cannot even TALK to the media without higher approval first. Anything said must then be very generic and non-specific because certain parties will twist the info to their own uses. I am a Detective in Queensland and though we often do release information in relation to our investigations, it is not until we have already exhausted those avenues, and never anything to "tip off" any "crooks" until WE are ready to do so.

when we do so, it is because we are trying to elicit more info from the public, not because they have any particular NEED to know. In fact most people would be better off if they didn't know about a lot of my work...


By now I'm guessing you're probably aware of my source for that bit of info. Care to share any of YOURS?

You've made some pretty definite statements about what the JSF WILL and won't be able to do.

Some evidence (and I don't consider anything by Kopp as such) would be nice...

Gee...its' gone quiet all of a sudden. Do you suppose Pet...err... umm... sorry, I mean, Occum thinks he's been rumbled? :rolleyes:

Magoo

[Occum]

Gee...its' gone quiet all of a sudden. Do you suppose Pet...err... umm... sorry, I mean, Occum thinks he's been rumbled? :rolleyes:

Magoo

Magoo,

BAH! BAH! (pronounce this with a dropping inflexion like a gameshow ‘You got it wrong’ claxon).

Close but not close enough, so no prizes for you. :lol3

As for ‘gone quiet’, have been busy 'cause some dork with access to classified information put a blister fairing right behind a NACA duct. Can’t spend my whole day on newsgroups like some, you know. :)

As for source data, the following should help you. All is open source, public releasable information.

1. JSF Program Brief 2003
2. JSF Program Brief 2004
3. JSF Program Brief 2005
4. Presentation to International Aircraft Stores Compatibility Symposium XIV, ‘Many Uses of CFD in JSF Stores Separation’, Hudson/Charlton

If you do the arithmetic, you will see that the 2,503 litre (592 gal) tank can't be carried on Stns 2/10 so, basically, whoever is saying this is wrong! The laws of physics and engineering pay no heed to whether a person has access to classified information or not. If it is one of the project office people, then we have a serious problem.

FYI. The baseline was the 480 gal tank but this has now been changed to a special 426 gal tank which is understood will be unique to the JSF. You might also want to do the numbers for a full version of this tank on Stns 2/10. SG (AVTUR) = 0.67 (give or take).

;)

[gf0012-aust]

As for ‘gone quiet’, have been busy 'cause some dork with access to classified information put a blister fairing right behind a NACA duct.


Jet fighter or transport? maybe its a shock ramp? ;)

If you do the arithmetic, you will see that the 2,503 litre (592 gal) tank can't be carried on Stns 2/10 so, basically, whoever is saying this is wrong!

see below

The laws of physics and engineering pay no heed to whether a person has access to classified information or not. If it is one of the project office people, then we have a serious problem.

well, there's no shortage of aviation edsels designed by people with quals in engineering and who are supposed to understand the laws of physics. ;)

FYI. The baseline was the 480 gal tank but this has now been changed to a special 426 gal tank which is understood will be unique to the JSF. You might also want to do the numbers for a full version of this tank on Stns 2/10. SG (AVTUR) = 0.67 (give or take).

I was under the distinct impression that stations 2 and 10 would not be used for fuel on JSF (wing loading issues as well as sep and flutter issues due to proximity). Hence the move to go to a triple for inboards and a centreline.

[Occum]

Jet fighter or transport? maybe its a shock ramp? ;)

< 400 KCAS beasty with paddles


see below

Where??? I see nuthing!

well, there's no shortage of aviation edsels designed by people with quals in engineering and who are supposed to understand the laws of physics. ;)

Are you suggesting the JSF could be some sort of 'aviation edsel'? Or is this one of those comments from those who can't about those who do? :p:

I was under the distinct impression that stations 2 and 10 would not be used for fuel on JSF (wing loading issues as well as sep and flutter issues due to proximity). Hence the move to go to a triple for inboards and a centreline.

Keh?? Where on the centre? Or are you suggesting the bomb bays? :rolleyes:

The external fuel capability of the JSF is grossly inefficient, IMHO. Only 426 gals on 5,000 pound rated pylons and outers limited by 2,500 lb rating.,

I also take it from your use of the term 'wing loading issues' that you are not an aeronautical type


:)

[gf0012-aust]

The external fuel capability of the JSF is grossly inefficient, IMHO. Only 426 gals on 5,000 pound rated pylons and outers limited by 2,500 lb rating.,

I also take it from your use of the term 'wing loading issues' that you are not an aeronautical type

My use of the term "wing loading" was in the literal weight bearing sense - not in the aeronautical sense.

and yes, I'm not aeronautical, mine is basically acoustic warfare systems and submarines. But, I've never professed to be an expert in aviation anyway - I'm much more comfortable listening to those qualified within the trade.

On that note, I'm probably more inclined to listen to operators who are current or who have some direct association with the project.

But then again, going on your IP address(es), you should have worked out who I am already. :D

[Magoo]

This from the Defence Update column in June's Australian Aviation magazine which came out today...

The JSF debate has hotted up again.
The Joint Standing Committee for Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (JSCFADT) has again heard about the relative merits of the Joint Strike Fighter acquisition and the F-111 retirement, with Defence again stating its case for choosing the JSF over other options such as the F-22 Raptor.
The committee received 23 submissions in the lead up to the hearing on March 31. Many took the line that Australia should acquire the in-service F-22 Raptor instead of the unproven F-35 JSF and radically upgrade the F-111.
Presentations were made by Dr Carlo Kopp and Peter Goon from the Ausairpower thinktank; Dr Alan Stephens, visiting fellow to the ANU’s Strategic and Defence Studies Centre; Ross Babbage and David Connery from the Kokoda Foundation thinktank; and the RAAF led by Chief of Air Force Air Marshal Geoff Shepherd.
“If this nation makes the wrong choice in coming months, Australia’s strategic position in this region, and its capacity to act unilaterally in regional conflicts, will be damaged for the next 30 to 50 years,” Dr Kopp a former contributor to Australian Aviation, warned in his opening statement at the hearing.
Dr Stephens says claims by Ausairpower and others, and ongoing media reports associating “the arrival in our region of a handful of Su-27s with a significant control of the air competency”, were “disappointing and ill-informed.”
Such claims have long been the foundation of Kopp and Goon and their supporters’ arguments. They say the proliferation of Sukhois along with other weapons among the forces of regional powers such as China, India, Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia justifies the need to retain the F-111 and to acquire the F-22.
They say the JSF is just not survivable in such a regional hotbed. Dr Stephens says we should be looking beyond the raw platform versus platform debate and instead look at what capabilities future platforms will bring to their operators.
He claimed that Australia is far ahead of regional powers in the development of an integrated and networked force structure. “What has not been stressed sufficiently ... is the fact that the JSF has been designed from the ground up for network-centric operations,” Dr Stephens said. “Previously, the question was asked: ‘in what domain is the JSF superior to the F-22? It was not sufficiently emphasised, in my opinion, that it will be considerably superior in the ISR – information surveillance reconnaissance – domain.”
There’s no doubt the F-22 will be the most outstanding fighter aircraft ever built. However, opponents say the RAAF needs more than the pure air-to-air ‘fighter’ capability the F-22 offers. It needs a multirole aircraft for strike AND control of the air.
Lockheed Martin and the USAF both say the F-22 will require several block or ‘spiral’ software and hardware upgrades for it to reach its full networking and air-to-surface potential early next decade.
Further, unless the US budgetary landscape changes dramatically, these upgrades will probably never come.
The F-22 has longer range, is stealthier, faster, and more able in the air-to-air arena than the JSF, but it can’t match the JSF’s ability to become a key node in the networked battlespace.
Additionally, the JSF promises to be a true multirole fighter – equally at home supporting dug in troops with precision weapons; striking strategic fixed and maritime targets; performing offensive counter air missions; protecting high value airborne assets; or performing ISR missions.
The situational awareness the JSF and its advanced systems promise to bring to its pilots and the ADF’s commanders cannot be over-emphasised.
Nonetheless, the opposition has jumped on the F-22 bandwagon, with Labor Defence spokesman Robert McClelland claiming the Raptor is the best solution for filling Australia’s looming air power gap. “I think we should seriously be looking at an off-the-shelf product, which is the Raptor,” he said in mid March. He later told the ANU’s Strategic and Defence Studies Centre in early April that “It is simply irresponsible for the government to ignore the reality that the JSF program will confront significant delays, which will likely affect both delivery and operational date.”
However, AM Shepherd says there are currently no indications there will be any major delays to the JSF program. “We are an informed customer,” he told the committee. “We are fully engaged in the program and all the indications to date are that the program is proceeding on track and on time.”
“As Chief of Air Force ... it is my professional opinion that the government’s plan to enhance the current air combat force and to then acquire a cost effective fifth generation system is the smart and responsible way to ensure a strong air superiority capability.”
Regardless of whether the F-22 spiral upgrades go ahead, the current late-build Raptor’s flyaway cost, even if it were available for export, will be at least double that of an early JSF, in the region of about US$140m (A$185m) each before FMS and any development costs to be passed on are factored in.
But barring major blowouts or delays, early JSFs will likely cost around US$80m (A$110m). While this is far more than the US$45m (A$60m) average flyaway cost being quoted by ADF and program officials, the sums are still on the side of the JSF – and the ADF will end up with arguably a better all round aircraft.

Dr Alan Stephens is certainly a well-respected commentator and academic in this arena, as is Ross Babbage. Interesting take...

Mods - sorry I don't have a link but it's behind a subscribers-only login.

Magoo

[CX6]

If this nation makes the wrong choice in coming months, Australia’s strategic position in this region, and its capacity to act unilaterally in regional conflicts, will be damaged for the next 30 to 50 years.

I agree with Kopps's assessment however, a comprehensive Effects Based Strategy (EBS) would argue that Australia is unlikely to act unilaterally in any regional conflict. East Timor was an example of AU waiting for a UN mandate before committing forces (and ET was as 'regional' as you can get!). UN Security Council Resolution 1264 ensured international legitamacy to the operation - a precursor to any future RAAF operation.

Unfortunately Carlo's estimate of 30-50 years is more of a testament to the Government's bureaucratic budgeting limitations than it is to our Strategic footprint. With the Defence Capability Plan being the weaklink in the modern, agile, knowledge edged force, the reality is that a $16B purchase of the wrong strike/fighter may very well take this long to recover from. (eg low observeability was demonstrated in 1991 and 21 years later we may have a capability in AU).

“the arrival in our region of a handful of Su-27s with a significant control of the air competency”, were “disappointing and ill-informed.”
Defence of Australia (DOA) was a budgeting exercise used by the Government in the nineties to half the size of the ADF (and save $) - not a valid military strategy. Every international conflict AU has been in is testament to this ie expeditionary and offshore (save the vital area defence VAD of Darwin in WW2). Structuring the ADF to fight TNI-AU Soos is not relevant...and never was.


Such claims have long been the foundation of Kopp and Goon and their supporters’ arguments. They say the proliferation of Sukhois along with other weapons among the forces of regional powers such as China, India, Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia justifies the need to retain the F-111 and to acquire the F-22.

I believe Kopp/Goon are half right here. Soos do warrant the F22. The F-111 however, is not a First day of War (FDOW) platform and definitely wont be in the future. Even an AMRAAM shooting F-111 with AESA, DRFM jammers etc etc will struggle in an air engagement due to its low altitude wing. Agility is the key to modern air combat ie thrust vectoring, supercruise etc etc not a swing wing bomber designed for one thing - low altitude high speed flight with a shit load of iron. Change the wing and maybe you have a capability.

“What has not been stressed sufficiently ... is the fact that the JSF has been designed from the ground up for network-centric operations,” Dr Stephens said.

In WW0 they used carrier pigeons, WW1 trench runners, WWII radios and now we have networks. The hysteria surrounding NCW is created by those who sell the boxes to those who have never used the boxes. Command, Control and Communication. The faster you do this the greater your military advantage. However, just because F-111s had radars in vietnam and the enemy did not, did not lead to overconfidence...which I suggest we are with the JSF.


The F-22 has longer range, is stealthier, faster, and more able in the air-to-air arena than the JSF, but it can’t match the JSF’s ability to become a key node in the networked battlespace.
Nodes don't kill the enemy...weapons do. And the network will not be there on all occasions. AEW&C will not push into an AO with a deep strike (as deep as the JSF can get...maybe shallow strike is more appropriate;) ). Links can be targetted. If you hinge your national security on a mobile signal you had better hope telstra is not your provider.



However, AM Shepherd says there are currently no indications there will be any major delays to the JSF program. “We are an informed customer,” he told the committee. “We are fully engaged in the program and all the indications to date are that the program is proceeding on track and on time.”
Has anyone told Shep there were no WMDs in Iraq?

[Aussie Digger]

I agree with Kopps's assessment however, a comprehensive Effects Based Strategy (EBS) would argue that Australia is unlikely to act unilaterally in any regional conflict. East Timor was an example of AU waiting for a UN mandate before committing forces (and ET was as 'regional' as you can get!). UN Security Council Resolution 1264 ensured international legitamacy to the operation - a precursor to any future RAAF operation.

Unfortunately Carlo's estimate of 30-50 years is more of a testament to the Government's bureaucratic budgeting limitations than it is to our Strategic footprint. With the Defence Capability Plan being the weaklink in the modern, agile, knowledge edged force, the reality is that a $16B purchase of the wrong strike/fighter may very well take this long to recover from. (eg low observeability was demonstrated in 1991 and 21 years later we may have a capability in AU).


Defence of Australia (DOA) was a budgeting exercise used by the Government in the nineties to half the size of the ADF (and save $) - not a valid military strategy. Every international conflict AU has been in is testament to this ie expeditionary and offshore (save the vital area defence VAD of Darwin in WW2). Structuring the ADF to fight TNI-AU Soos is not relevant...and never was.

However, just because F-111s had radars in vietnam and the enemy did not, did not lead to overconfidence...which I suggest we are with the JSF.

Nodes don't kill the enemy...weapons do. And the network will not be there on all occasions. AEW&C will not push into an AO with a deep strike (as deep as the JSF can get...maybe shallow strike is more appropriate;) ). Links can be targetted. If you hinge your national security on a mobile signal you had better hope telstra is not your provider.

Has anyone told Shep there were no WMDs in Iraq?

I don't agree with Kopp's and Goon's assessment for a few reasons. Primarily because they are predicated upon Australia having to "go it alone". Is the USA likely to lose it's military advantage over EVERYONE in the next 30 - 50 years? Hardly. It's at least a generation militarily beyond anyone else NOW and increasing the margin at a rapid rate.

For example, this whole discussion is centred on it's FOURTH GENERATION stealth aircraft. NO-ONE ELSE even has a FIRST GENERATION stealth aircraft.

IF China or India were to attack Australia with the hordes of "advanced fighters" that they are supposedly purchasing, they will both need a MASSIVE increase in tanking, AEW&C and other force mulitpliers plus and advance in fighter capability over what they have now, 1) to achieve overmatch against us and 2) a motivation to do so.

If China were to attack Australia the only thing they would achieve is a need to find a new Natural Gas supplier. We signed a $20 Billion dollar gas contract with them only 2 years ago. WHY would they jeopardise that with an attack that cannot conceivably GAIN them anything?

India has even closer ties with Australia than China. Our F-35A's are FAR more likely to fly ALONGSIDE IAF SU-30's than against them. Once again, EVEN if some crisis put us at such odds as to have India or China desire to attack us militarily our geography alone, gives us one of our best defences. Time is another. For the massive capability needed to be capable of conducting massive attacks on Australia from as far away as China and India, significant time will be needed to acquire such capability. Massive acquisitions of A2A refuelling and logisitical support elements will be needed and will be highly visible to intell persons and force planners.

Despite KOPP and GOON's assertions, such evidence does not appear to exist of this to me. For example, India is buying 3x Phalcon AWACS. China I believe has 1 under development (A-50 or some such).

If numbers counts for capability (as KOPP and GOON would have us believe) THEY should feel threatened by us, as we will have DOUBLE the capacity even of India within the next 2-3 years...

So getting back to strategic necessity, in some eventuality where Australian relations with America have fallen to the extent that they refuse to support us militarily when we are operating in the defence of our homeland AND relations with India and China have deteriorated to the point where they decide to attack Australia with military force, despite any conceivable reason or economic or political benefit in doing so, THEN Goon and Kopp's proposal makes sense.

IF some sort of doomsday scenario occurs where the WHOLE Asia-Pacific region is against us, (except our reliable allies NZ, Fiji and Tonga of course :rosie ) then I agree, we shall certainly require F-22's AND F-111's and a great many other capabilities, in far greater numbers than even in Kopp and Goon's wildest dreams.

The point is that idea's of this sort are so unlikely, that they make a person appear foolish.

Kopp's line to the Joint standing committee on defence, trade and foreign affairs that he sometimes "can't sleep at night" due to the threat of our declining strategic situation, illustrates this perfectly. How the committee members managed to keep a straight face when he said this is beyond me. :(

KOPP and his ilk want to argue facts and figures. The problem is that their facts and figures are built on a house of cards. The RAAF and RAAF alone is the only organisation that can provide accurate figures. As far as this debate is concerned, everything else is a guess. An educated one perhaps, but still a guess.

The only real figure that concerns me is cost. No-one can say accurately what a JSF will cost when in production. No-one appears able to say for sure what an F-22 costs either. I saw an article the other day stating the additional 4x F-22A aircraft approved for production for the USAF to bring it's fleet up to 183 stong cost a total of US$1Billion, or US$250m a piece. Will a full rate production F-35A cost $250m each? I doubt they'll cost half that.

I am all for a RAAF F-22A purchase, but not at the expense of platform numbers and not at the expense of a near total loss of A2G capability, which is what a current buy of F-22 would achieve, IMHO.

I would dearly love RAAF to operate F-22 but only as part of a 2 tier fleet with JSF, just as the USAF will do. Operating the F-22 as it's sole combat aircraft is simply not a viable option for RAAF in cost or capability, as far as I can see and I don't see the funding lavailable for a dual aircraft fleet.

BTW, apparently LM just ground tested it's initial LRIP F-35A with a warload of 2x 1000lbs JDAM, 2x 500lbs JDAM and 2x AMRAAM all carried in it's internal bays... (Thanks for the info Magoo. Hope I didn't breach copyright???) ;)

Be interesting to see what other combinations those internal bays can mount. 4x AMRAAM and 2x ASRAAM for instance???

[tphuang]

Just received an interesting article from a friend in Wash DC. Apparantly it is making the rounds and catching a lot of people's attention.

http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.106/pub_detail.asp

Has this capability, its growth through the next two decades along with the likelihood of export or provision as foreign/military aid to other countries in the region been considered in the formulation of the Air 6000 strategic needs and resulting requirements?

Given the single type JSF solution, would seem this has not been considered.

Comments welcome.

;)
That article overestimates the Chinese flanker force to no end. I would say that it has numerous outdated sources. Many of the stuff that he stated are just not correct based on the currently available information.

For example, this section

Other than structural changes, the principal distinction in the Su-30MKK is the weapon system. The newer N-001V series radar has extensive air to ground modes, and the digital fire control system has interfaces to support a range of guided weapons. These include the Kh-59M/AS-18 Kazoo series, analogous to the US AGM-142 Have Nap, the Kh-31P/AS-17 Krypton ramjet anti-radiation missile, the KAB-500L and KAB-1500L laser guided bombs, analogous to the US Paveway series, the KAB-500Kr and KAB-1500Kr TV guided bombs, analogous to the US GBU-8 HOBOS, and the KAB-1500TK, analogous to the US GBU-15 electro-optical weapon. The Russians are currently testing the KAB-500S-E and KAB-1500S-E with satellite aided inertial guidance, analogous to the US JDAM series. The PLA-AF fleet is expected to be equipped with the Russian Sapsan-E FLIR/laser targeting pod, analogous to the AAQ-13 LANTIRN targeting pod used initially on the F-15E.

The PLA-N Air Arm was evidently not satisfied with the domestically built JH-7 Flying Leopard strike fighter, and opted to expand its fleet by acquiring the Su-30MK2, a derivative of the Su-30MKK, with a rated maximum takeoff weight of 85,000 lb. The Su-30MK2 has an enhanced weapon system optimized for maritime strike, built around the N-001VEP radar. The radar will target the supersonic Kh-31A variant, equipped with an active radar seeker for anti-shipping strike. A radar guided derivative of the Kh-59M, the Kh-59Mk, was also developed for the PLA-N Flanker G. Chinese sources claim that 36 Su-30MK2 aircraft were ordered, with deployment as yet undisclosed.

The Russians were reported to be developing a third PLA variant of the Su-30, the Su-30MK3. This subtype was to incorporate the 'Panda' upgrade package for the N-001 radar, including a signal processor upgrade based on COTS software and a Ts-100 processor, and the new Pero phased array. The Pero, developed by NIIP and Ryazan GRPZ, is a reflective passive phased array antenna, replacing the legacy cassegrain design. It is lighter than the legacy design, but offers similar beamsteering agility to the latest Western AESAs. There have been no disclosed orders to date, and some reports suggest this program is no longer funded.

sapsan pod project simply suffered too much delays that I'm not sure what the status on it is right now. As a result of this, I'm not sure what kind of precision strike capability mkk has. So, the first paragraph is making a lot of useless comparisons.

Second paragraph, it's definitely 24 not 36 that got ordered.

Third paragraph, mkk3 arose no interest from China, neither did Pero. And Pero upgrade was not offered with mk3, but rather for J-11.

I'd expect a professional scholar to put more work into his articles than this.

[davidcandy]

Kopp and Goon at least lists the strategic basis of their arguement. The Government doesn't. I disagree with them and most of you for the same reason.

Enemies will attack with surprise. We will start an important war by initially losing.

For Kopp and Goon
I don't see why the North West Shelf project is so important. Blow it up and NSW, Victoria, and SA will prosper. If the role of the RAAF is to fly a CAP over the NW Shelf then we may as well save our money and give up the airforce.

For Aussie Digger
If Australia gets involved in an important war then the US is probably also involved and may be under pressure. Say Russia wanting to become a pacific power rather than a pacific joke. Say Russia and China teaching the US a lesson with Australia just collateral damage. Remember WW2. Britain was under pressure herself.

Although I see our most likely role as reinforcing our northern neighbours.

As the government doesn't publish anything it is unaccountable. Before WW2 the RAF believed in bombing. The voters of Britain believed in defense and forced the RAF to buy fighters. Then came WW2 and the RAF learnt the couldn't find targets, if they fluked finding a target (often city sized) then they couldn't hit it. The bombers also couldn't defend themselves. So it was lucky for the brits the Germans iniated the Battle of Britain as least their fighters could do the job. The brits were also knocked out of the Battle for Berlin (the air one). So their bombers couldn't even do the job at all. Though the war was near the end.

I've read one essay by some RAN (or RAAF) student that stated a strategic threat. India (or China) seizes territory in SE Asia to interdict the other's (or protect their own) SLOCs.

In this case our military policy will be to attack ONLY the fielded forces as both India and China have nukes.

While I'm glad the budget is going for SAMs (hopefully not manpads) up untill that happens the RAAF (and perhaps the Navy) will need to defend everywhere. My fear is that the SU-30s will use buddy refuelling (any trick) to get one bomb over one Australian city. I fear the government will give in to political pressure and try to fly CAPs over our cities and thus demass the airforce, use our offensive assetts defending against military insignificant attacks. As an attacker I would not fight a battle I would lose, so either attack where the enemy isn't or be certain of overmatch.

SAMs allow an economy of force reactions to political attacks allowing the Airforce to do what it is good for - offense.

We also have very low force to space ratios and very long distances. Having the entire ADF critically dependent on 6 AWACs to me means there are just 6 targets to hit.

I believe we need a force structure that degrades gracefully. We will have 33% of our army on two floating targets being defended, over long distances, by 6 AWACs a a few tankers.

I think we need to structure our defence force to be useful after attrition.

To repeat the arguement that the military is not always the best judge of military matters. WW1 had spirit was all important. The machine gun proved that wrong, or more likely one's stupidity overcomes one's spirit.

Vietnam had body counts. Showing a complete lack of understanding of war.

For me, and my comments are mostly based on range, is that the JSF would be great for the WW2 Luftwaffe. It suits their doctrine of supporting the fielded forces. I don't see how it suits Australia's circumstances. Long range is essential. The germans found short ranged planes wern't up to strategic attack.

I too support a two tier force. A strategic plane (with range - F22 will do) and a tactical plane (JSF sounds fine).

[Aussie Digger]

Kopp and Goon at least lists the strategic basis of their arguement. The Government doesn't. I disagree with them and most of you for the same reason.

Enemies will attack with surprise. We will start an important war by initially losing.

For Kopp and Goon
I don't see why the North West Shelf project is so important. Blow it up and NSW, Victoria, and SA will prosper. If the role of the RAAF is to fly a CAP over the NW Shelf then we may as well save our money and give up the airforce.

For Aussie Digger
If Australia gets involved in an important war then the US is probably also involved and may be under pressure. Say Russia wanting to become a pacific power rather than a pacific joke. Say Russia and China teaching the US a lesson with Australia just collateral damage. Remember WW2. Britain was under pressure herself.

Although I see our most likely role as reinforcing our northern neighbours.

As the government doesn't publish anything it is unaccountable. Before WW2 the RAF believed in bombing. The voters of Britain believed in defense and forced the RAF to buy fighters. Then came WW2 and the RAF learnt the couldn't find targets, if they fluked finding a target (often city sized) then they couldn't hit it. The bombers also couldn't defend themselves. So it was lucky for the brits the Germans iniated the Battle of Britain as least their fighters could do the job. The brits were also knocked out of the Battle for Berlin (the air one). So their bombers couldn't even do the job at all. Though the war was near the end.

I've read one essay by some RAN (or RAAF) student that stated a strategic threat. India (or China) seizes territory in SE Asia to interdict the other's (or protect their own) SLOCs.

In this case our military policy will be to attack ONLY the fielded forces as both India and China have nukes.

While I'm glad the budget is going for SAMs (hopefully not manpads) up untill that happens the RAAF (and perhaps the Navy) will need to defend everywhere. My fear is that the SU-30s will use buddy refuelling (any trick) to get one bomb over one Australian city. I fear the government will give in to political pressure and try to fly CAPs over our cities and thus demass the airforce, use our offensive assetts defending against military insignificant attacks. As an attacker I would not fight a battle I would lose, so either attack where the enemy isn't or be certain of overmatch.

SAMs allow an economy of force reactions to political attacks allowing the Airforce to do what it is good for - offense.

We also have very low force to space ratios and very long distances. Having the entire ADF critically dependent on 6 AWACs to me means there are just 6 targets to hit.

I believe we need a force structure that degrades gracefully. We will have 33% of our army on two floating targets being defended, over long distances, by 6 AWACs a a few tankers.

I think we need to structure our defence force to be useful after attrition.

To repeat the arguement that the military is not always the best judge of military matters. WW1 had spirit was all important. The machine gun proved that wrong, or more likely one's stupidity overcomes one's spirit.

Vietnam had body counts. Showing a complete lack of understanding of war.

For me, and my comments are mostly based on range, is that the JSF would be great for the WW2 Luftwaffe. It suits their doctrine of supporting the fielded forces. I don't see how it suits Australia's circumstances. Long range is essential. The germans found short ranged planes wern't up to strategic attack.

I too support a two tier force. A strategic plane (with range - F22 will do) and a tactical plane (JSF sounds fine).

First of all, I'll just address a couple of issues as I'm pressed for time. What sort of range do you think the SU-30 has? Your scenario seems to suggest that SU-30 has the range to strike anywhere in continental Australia that either China or India might want to attack. EVEN Kopp and Goon don't suggest that because it's ridiculous. It has nothing like the range needed for this.

If you want to learn about difficulties of long range strike ops using tactical fighters read up on the El Dorado raids on Libya conducted by the USAF using F-111's flying from England.

The range to Australia from China or India is longer and their supporting assets FAR less. Plus the USN was able to put up tactical A2A fighters to support the strikers. I can't really see India risking it's only new carrier to do that, do you? China doesn't have that capability anyway so it's moot for them.

Now they could base their forces closer, if certain other Countries co-operated with them and this would increase the threat to Australia. However it would also bring them that much closer to strike range by us. The JSF for reasons mentioned before, is likely to have a an equal or greater range than F-22, by virtue of (slightly) great fuel capacity and lighter airframe weight.

In addition the F-35A can carry a greater internal warload for strike operations than the F-22, because this afterall is what the JSF is primarily designed to do...

Now Australia only has 6 AWACS you say? This will be true in a few years. Do you think RAAF will abandon it's GCI capability however simply because we now have AWACS?

Do you think we will withdraw our brand new Lockhed Martin/Raytheon TPS-117 (TPS-77) air surveillance radar systems?

Do you think we will abandon JORN?

AS to the RBS-70 capability, whilst it still technically I guess is a MANPAD system, it's starting to strain the definition of the word. We now have 2x battery's of operational launchers, totally 36 (I think) launchers in total for 16 AD Regt.

These launchers are now linked to Lockheed Martin PSTAR radar systems to provide alert cueing, monitoring and a C2 system to provide a tactical air picture and target assignment.

In addition they have a new IFF system and a new missile; Bolide, which provides significant additional range over earlier generation missiles (upwards of 2k+, as well as over 1k in additional altitude).

The capability of our RBS-70's is now borderline with systems considered to be "medium" range SAM's anyway.

I too hope we acquire a "top end" medium range SAM like SLAMRAAM or CLAWS etc, but I recognise that our upgraded RBS-70's DO provide a good capability in the meantime, certainly better than that we had with the Rapier/RBS-70 combo...

I'll come back to the other arguments later.

Cheers.

[davidcandy]

When Nelson or Hill (or ADFJ or AAJ) announced the extra missiles they said 2 batteries of three platoons of 5 launchers. And extolled the virtues of three's, so they seem to be for deployment in platoon strength. That was rather recently.

I like the RBS-70 because it is almost a medium missile and is unjammable. But I would like a radar guided missile too so everything doesn't depend on line of sight.

I don't expect anyone to put fleets of planes over Sydney. But as an attacker I would do everything I could to get 1 bomb over a capital to force the population to demand the government keeps planes dispersed over our 8 capitals.

It was important to the US to bomb Japan asap. They put bombers on carriers that had to crash after bombing. I'm actually unaware of the Japanese response to this. When the British started bombing civilians Hitler redirected the Luftwaffe from airfields attacks to revenge attacks. Another factor in the Battle of Britain. Soccer moms are really going to put up with any bomb dropped anywhere near their kids? Local members watch out. (as an aside here a 911 transcript of a soccer mum http://www.snopes.com/crime/cops/burger.asp - you tell me if this is a good civilian to have on one's side in time of war).

[Brutus Caesar]

Just back onto the JSF for a second, I saw this in the Australian and thought it might be of interest:

New-age jet fighters are coming, Nelson promises
Patrick Walters, National security editor
May 11, 2006
AUSTRALIA's $13 billion joint strike fighter is on track for delivery to the RAAF from 2012, according to Defence Minister Brendan Nelson.
In an interview with The Australian, Dr Nelson strongly defended the JSF as the best possible choice to replace the frontline combat force of F-111 bombers and the F/A 18 fighters.

He said the Government expected to sign a memorandum of understanding with Washington late this year on sensitive technology transfer issues relating to the JSF, and then commit a further $180 million to the next phase of the program. "We are not going to go into it unless we get access to the technical data we need. I am very confident we will," Dr Nelson said.

A final decision to buy up to 100 strike fighters in Australia's biggest-ever military purchase would be taken in 2008.

"There are a lot of uncertainties in the JSF program, but in the key elements it's on track. All of the evidence I have got is that we may reasonably expect to see one here in 2012."

Dr Nelson said calls for the Government to reconsider its decision to buy the JSF and look at alternative combat planes such as the F-22 Raptor were misplaced. "In terms of the suite of challenges we are likely to face, the JSF is a superior aircraft and will be at least half a generation more advanced than the F-22."

He said the Government could still decide to delay the arrival of the first batch of aircraft to get a better budgetary deal, but 2012 remained the target date.

Dr Nelson agreed that the commitment to fund the defence budget at 3 per cent real growth beyond 2010 would make it difficult for future governments to cut military spending.

The decision will add more than $10 billion to defence from 2010-2015, locking in the purchase of the JSF as well as new warships worth at least $8 billion and helicopters and armoured fighting vehicles.

"It's clearly something that needs to be done. It's the baseline commitment for the foundation of the defence budget."

Dr Nelson remained "reasonably confident" about developments in Iraq, but said the next 6-12 months would prove a big challenge for the new Iraqi government and the coalition forces.

The key issue for Australia would be to negotiate the terms by which military support would be offered to the new government in Baghdad once the deployment in al-Muthanna providing security for Japanese forces ended later this year.

"With the Iraqi Government, if the defence force is going to be used to support domestic Iraqi security we need to be satisfied in terms of the chain of command and constitutional arrangements. I feel reasonably confident about Iraq in the medium to long term. I feel less confident about what is likely to happen in the next six to 12 months."

Dr Nelson said the Goverment's firm preference in negotiations with the US, British and Iraqi governments was for Australian troops to remain in al-Muthanna rather than take a new mission in other parts of Iraq.

[scraw]

I don't see why the North West Shelf project is so important. Blow it up and NSW, Victoria, and SA will prosper. If the role of the RAAF is to fly a CAP over the NW Shelf then we may as well save our money and give up the airforce.

It's important because it brings in (IIRC) 30 billion a year in export earnings, not to mention in times of need would be a significant source of energy for our country.

Not sure why blowing it up would make the south east prosper?

[davidcandy]

It's important because it brings in (IIRC) 30 billion a year in export earnings, not to mention in times of need would be a significant source of energy for our country.

Not sure why blowing it up would make the south east prosper?

When commodity prices are high WA and QLD boom. The Australian dollar rises. Manufacturers export prices become higher so they lay off staff and manufacturing contracts. When commodity prices are low the opposite happens. Although there is a horrible period when prices are dropping and mining contracts and it takes a while for mfg to start growing. In some ways it's a counterbalance to our economy. It is a problem and there is no real solution (except seperate currencies but a main point of being Australia is a single currency). We just have to live with it. But if the NW Shelf (of which I had a very very small role in but was also my biggest sale in my life) disappeared tomorrow the dollar would drop and SE Australia would have better prices for goods it makes. NSW unemployment jumped 0.5 percentage points in the results released this week. WA is at a record low.

It does have military implications. If mfg contracts then if the economy goes onto a war footing there isn't as many factories. OTOH in a limited war high commodity prices will allow lots of arm purcheses (as we are now seeing with C-17s being bought).

[Aussie Digger]

Quote: "Australia gets involved in an important war then the US is probably also involved and may be under pressure. Say Russia wanting to become a pacific power rather than a pacific joke. Say Russia and China teaching the US a lesson with Australia just collateral damage. Remember WW2. Britain was under pressure herself.

Although I see our most likely role as reinforcing our northern neighbours.

As the government doesn't publish anything it is unaccountable". (end quote)

David, I said I'd come back to this and here I am...

I seriously doubt that Russia and China combined could put US "under pressure" at present. The scenario your are referring to would be a massive war over Taiwan or North Korea, or a seizure by China of the Spratley's, I presume?

Even if they did, do you seriously think they'd have the assets to spare to conduct a strike on Australia, from their homeland, just to "embarass" the USA?

I have read plenty on WW2, and Britain was hunderds of k's away, not thousands. 61 years hasn't changed the difficulty involved in striking over such long distances, particularly given the need to fly over Countries which are ALLIED to us.

In any of these scenario's at any rate, Australian involvement would be limited or non-existent, IMHO.

At the end of the day, it boils back down to the strategic situation of China or India gaining nothing by doing so. A platform v platform comparision is useless if there is next to no chance of said platforms going head to head. Under these circumstances, focussing on what a platform WILL do and how much it will cost, is far more useful than focussing on radar performance, fuel capacity etc.

India wants to sign up for our Uranium. They are NOT going to bomb us to try and force us to sell it to them. That would be the height of stupidity, something they are not well known for.

The fact is that we luckily live in an extremely benign strategic environment. The piecemeal acquisition of individual platforms does not significantly alter this, and this is where Goon and Kopps assessment of our environment falls over.

Given the obvious difficulties involved for China or India to attack us, this leaves only Indonesia, Malaysia or Singapore as legitimate threats due only to their proximity.

Of the 3, Indonesia is the geater threat, followed by Malaysia and Singapore, based on their excellent relationships with us.

Indonesia is not a country for us to fear. They do not have, and are unlikely to ever have the wherewithal to acquire sufficient military capability, to significantly threaten us. The acquisition of 2x SU-27's and 2x SU-30's which they cannot afford to ARM is not a cause for concern.

Malaysia has 9x MiG-29's, 8x F.A-18C/D and 18x SU-30's on order, as their main combat capabilities. hardly a force to put us in terrible fear even if they WERE an enemy rather than an ally. Their F/A-18's are not even armed with a BVR missile, AFAIK, and they distinctly lack a significant A2A refuelling capability, AWACS and standoff weapons for ALL aircraft types.

Look at the advancement of OUR military capability in the time these other so-called developments are occuring. Who has more to fear???

[davidcandy]

I don't fear Malaysia, Singapore, or Indonesia. I expect in magor war these three will be our allies. And Indonesia needs us in such a case.

My point is that Carlo and Peter lists a plausable (although not to me) strategic situation - China or someone bombing NW Shelf. Then they make force structure/strategy based on their assumptions.

The government doesn't do this. I am far more able to critique the US government than my own. It should be the other way around.

My point about the Battle of Britain is the the military got it very wrong. The pollies and citizens got it right. The type of institutions that militaries are is a mix of bureaucratic and total (total organisations are things like hospitals and gaols where people don't have personal freedom in all areas of daily life - eg a soldier in the Solomons has to do what he's told while he's there). Being human, and as all organisations are political, they get to screw up just like any other field of human endevour.

So the phrase often repeated here to do with those who say don't have classification and those who have classification don't say is a poor arguement.

I don't know what the DoD thinks. Therefore I cannot say if I agree with them of not. This is a problem. If our strategic policy is secret then we the citizens cannot correct it.

While I think NZ has got it strategy wrong I really appreciate the link with ends, ways, and means . NZ is implementing it's military strategy to suit it's particular strategic goals. Again I'll repeat, as I don't want to argue about their goals, that I think their goals are wrong. But the implementation is good.

As to specific scenarios how about India siezing a part of SE Asia to interdict China's SLOC. Further India believe Australia and ASEAN will object. So launched preemptive attacks as a warning or to remove strike assetts. We are in a war, as minor third party players, between two superpowers (and another two watching on).

I know the above can be considered plausable because some officer passed a course saying something similar (minus the preempotive part). I can't find it but I think it was from here
http://www.defence.gov.au/adc

My point isn't to say the above is likely (I don't know) but we the people need to know. Then we can assess and draw our political conclusions.

My background was Civil Defence (now called SES) in intelligence (later renamed to scientific branch). What that meant was I would be plotting fallout and calculating expected dosages during evacuations. I still hold 2 weeks canned food in the cupboard. I have plans what to do for my street in case of nuclear war (not that I'm likely to survive for longer than a few milliseconds). So war to me means big important wars of national survival (if not extermination).

So advocates of the JSF only (and as it will probably be JSF only, I hope they buy enough and VTOL variants) need to say what they envision them doing and why they are the best. Goon and Kopp have done this with the super F111. The government hasn't with the JSF.

[Magoo]

My point is that Carlo and Peter lists a plausable (although not to me) strategic situation - China or someone bombing NW Shelf. Then they make force structure/strategy based on their assumptions.

So, is it plausable or inplausable?

The government doesn't do this. I am far more able to critique the US government than my own. It should be the other way around.

The government is unlikely to publicly list "plausable" future political or military scenarios for fear of upsetting current or potential future trading partners. At the moment, the ONLY enemies Australia officially has are terrorists who are not bound by national borders. There is no way they are going to publicly renounce or label as future enemies any countries they may or may not be worried about behind closed doors.

I don't know what the DoD thinks. Therefore I cannot say if I agree with them of not. This is a problem. If our strategic policy is secret then we the citizens cannot correct it.

The DoD publicly thinks exactly what government tells them to think, and therefore they make procurement decisions based on this. Carlo and Goon can label as many countries as they like as potential future enemies, and can overstate or understate the military capabilities of these countries to their hearts content, however, as long as the 2001 White Paper and its revised incarnations are government policy, that's what our procurement decisions are going to be based on.

So advocates of the JSF only (and as it will probably be JSF only, I hope they buy enough and VTOL variants) need to say what they envision them doing and why they are the best. Goon and Kopp have done this with the super F111. The government hasn't with the JSF.

The government, through DEFMIN, CDF, CAF, and their representatives have consistently said what they plan to do with JSF, i.e, in a nutshell, use it in a networked coalition environment against hard and soft targets in a strike and fighter role - there's nothing else flying OR on the drawing board that can match the JSF's potential to fulfill this/these role/s - period! Carlo and Goon may also have done this with the F-111S, however their 'vision' is a warped one, one which I suspect would quickly be found wanting in any likely future war we will become involved in.

Magoo

[Aussie Digger]

I don't fear Malaysia, Singapore, or Indonesia. I expect in magor war these three will be our allies. And Indonesia needs us in such a case.

My point is that Carlo and Peter lists a plausable (although not to me) strategic situation - China or someone bombing NW Shelf. Then they make force structure/strategy based on their assumptions.

The government doesn't do this. I am far more able to critique the US government than my own. It should be the other way around.

My point about the Battle of Britain is the the military got it very wrong. The pollies and citizens got it right. The type of institutions that militaries are is a mix of bureaucratic and total (total organisations are things like hospitals and gaols where people don't have personal freedom in all areas of daily life - eg a soldier in the Solomons has to do what he's told while he's there). Being human, and as all organisations are political, they get to screw up just like any other field of human endevour.

So the phrase often repeated here to do with those who say don't have classification and those who have classification don't say is a poor arguement.

I don't know what the DoD thinks. Therefore I cannot say if I agree with them of not. This is a problem. If our strategic policy is secret then we the citizens cannot correct it.

While I think NZ has got it strategy wrong I really appreciate the link with ends, ways, and means . NZ is implementing it's military strategy to suit it's particular strategic goals. Again I'll repeat, as I don't want to argue about their goals, that I think their goals are wrong. But the implementation is good.

As to specific scenarios how about India siezing a part of SE Asia to interdict China's SLOC. Further India believe Australia and ASEAN will object. So launched preemptive attacks as a warning or to remove strike assetts. We are in a war, as minor third party players, between two superpowers (and another two watching on).

I know the above can be considered plausable because some officer passed a course saying something similar (minus the preempotive part). I can't find it but I think it was from here
http://www.defence.gov.au/adc

My point isn't to say the above is likely (I don't know) but we the people need to know. Then we can assess and draw our political conclusions.

My background was Civil Defence (now called SES) in intelligence (later renamed to scientific branch). What that meant was I would be plotting fallout and calculating expected dosages during evacuations. I still hold 2 weeks canned food in the cupboard. I have plans what to do for my street in case of nuclear war (not that I'm likely to survive for longer than a few milliseconds). So war to me means big important wars of national survival (if not extermination).

So advocates of the JSF only (and as it will probably be JSF only, I hope they buy enough and VTOL variants) need to say what they envision them doing and why they are the best. Goon and Kopp have done this with the super F111. The government hasn't with the JSF.

You don't need to explain the military or any other Government Branch to me, I served in the ADF for 6 years, served a short stint (3 months) with "Centrelink" and have now worked in the Queensland Police Service for going on 8 years.

Whatever the ADF does or does not say publicly, is exactly what the incumbent Government WANTS them to say. The children overboard issue is a perfect example. The Iraq WMD issue is another.

The Government HAS stated it's strategic vision in the Defence White Paper 2000, it's Bi-annual strategic updates and through the measures announced in the various Defence Capability plans released. The Government funded (partly) ASPI also provides regular assessments on Australia's strategic position and changes to Government policy.

The Government's policy is to maintain military CAPABILITY that remains qualitatively superior to those within our region, within a limited budget. Our forces are small, will likely always remain so, short of a "major" war of the sort you have mentioned occurring, although are relatively capable compared to regional capabilities.

The difference is that that a platform v platform comparison ignores the other realities of warfare and what is required to generate military capability.

Here's an example, the F-22 is the best A2A fighter on Earth, yes? It's pretty generally recognised. How much capability do you think, Zimbabwe for instance could generate if they purchased a Squadron of them? (I'm NOT picking on Zimbabwe either, I'm using them to illustrate a point).

Military capability is not based on total paper statistics, how you operate something, how good your pilots are, how well you can sustain your capability all count for just as much.

Seeing as though you use WW2 as an example, it is akin to conducting a comparison between Sherman tanks and Panther tanks. On paper the Panthers were a vastly superior tank. Sherman's however COULD prevail against them if handled well enough.

Now as to GOON and Kopp's strategic situation. Again it's only valid should relations between Australia and China and India massively degenerate. In a war between the 2, Australia would be FAR more likely to remain neutral. We have nothing to gain by taking EITHER side. We didn't take a position, particular AGAINST either side in the wars they HAVE fought already.

As to the long range bombing missions you seem to see as a worry, here's some statistics;

Between Hong Kong (one of the most Southern parts of China) and Darwin, as the crow flies, the distance is 4157k's, EACH way...

Between Madras (one of India's most Southern and Eastern major cities) and Darwin, the distance is 6259k's, EACH way.

The El Dorado Canyon raids provide an insight into the capability needed to support such long range raids. The USAF F-111 aircraft (with it's FAR greater range than ANY SU-30 series fighter) flew a total of 8800k's during this round trip, the mission took 14 hours to complete and required a total of 28x KC-10/KC-135135 class tankers to support 24 strike aircraft and 5x EW aircraft. Each aircraft was refuelled 4x times on the way there and 2x times on the way back, with the tankers launched hours before the strike/EW aircraft took off.

IF China or India starts developing these kinds of capabilities, THEN Australian would be well served to take notice, with the caveat though that mere possession of a military platform implies neither capability NOR intent...

Until then, the Government's plan seems fine to me. A 4x Squadron force of 80 or so operational F-35A's (which is where the Government seems to be intending to head, given 1 Sqn will be the first operational F-35A Sqn) should be well able to provide air defence of our homeland against virtually any aggressor.

[gf0012-aust]

The El Dorado Canyon raids provide an insight into the capability needed to support such long range raids. The USAF F-111 aircraft (with it's FAR greater range than ANY SU-30 series fighter) flew a total of 8800k's during this round trip, the mission took 14 hours to complete and required a total of 28x KC-10/KC-135135 class tankers to support 24 strike aircraft and 5x EW aircraft. Each aircraft was refuelled 4x times on the way there and 2x times on the way back, with the tankers launched hours before the strike/EW aircraft took off.

In addition - and to quote Col Paul Fazackeley who was part of the strike package made the following observations:

they had 35% platform attrition. ie 35% of the strike package had to abort due to platform failure whilst inbound
he referred to the platform as being old - and that 35% failure rate should be expected. This was from an operator who gave a debriefing in 1989
That the USN was responsible for guard duties on the return home
That the F-111's were responsible for 60% of the mission package - Navy was tasked for the balance 40% which were eastern targetsSo an airforce that was on a committed politically driven and military motivated mission, which was not short of support assets and resources, suffered a 35% attrition rate even though they were running support and pre-prep well in advance of and into a known hostile location.

Long range strike is a non trivial issue as can be seen by the above numbers. It also means that for any nation that is going to engage in long range strike against australia will need sufficient capability and prepositioning to get those assets to and from and supported in/outbound from the australian mainland targets.

It also means the negotiation of far more complex and friendly airspace - far more complex and divergent than the route taken by the F-111's against Libya. The airspace penetration/range numbers therefore are not "crow flies" numbers - they're going to be substantially longer. All of which means huge logistics impositions - and all of which means that radical changes in force structure/ORBAT are detectable in advance.

[robsta83]

Does australia have a "ready" flight or wing pair for Air intrusions etc is there any disclosable info on procedures, say a UFO terrestial of course or bogey whateva was detected, would there be pair of hornets in there air in 10, 15, one hour? Is that capability planned?

[Magoo]

Does australia have a "ready" flight or wing pair for Air intrusions etc is there any disclosable info on procedures, say a UFO terrestial of course or bogey whateva was detected, would there be pair of hornets in there air in 10, 15, one hour? Is that capability planned?

Since 9/11, there are always a 'few' Hornets on alert XX at Tindal and Williamtown. I wont elaborate.

Magoo

[gf0012-aust]

Since 9/11, there are always a 'few' Hornets on alert XX at Tindal and Williamtown. I wont elaborate.

Magoo

They've also been "cleared weird" twice since 2001

[Occum]

Just in from a member of the T&E community -

Global Hawk
I worked on Global Hawk several years ago during it’s OT&E out of Edwards. It has really long legs- can stay up for almost 2 days at altitudes above 60k. They flew it via satellite control to Australia, and we flew missions during OT&E that went from Eddy to upper Alaska and back non-stop. I also got the chance to work as pilot debriefer and test evaluator on the FA-22 OT&E summer before last at EDW. I was totally blown away by the airplane. Unless you have ever watched them go 2 or 4 V many on the big electronic game board, you have no idea what stealth brings to the battle. Basically, they come into the fight at a high mach # in mil thrust, start killing people way out with AMRAAMS, and continue doing that until everyone is dead, and no one ever sees them or paints them on radar. There is practically no radio chatter because all the guys in the flight are tied together electronically, and can see who is targeting who, and they have AWACS direct input and 360°situational awareness from that and other sensors. The aggressors had a morale problem before it was all over. The only shots that I ever saw taken on a 22 were when someone screwed up and popped up high enough to leave a contrail. I went in a skeptic and came out a true believer. It is to air superiority what the jet engine was to aviation.

Came with the picture of the Global Hawk in the rag hangar with its side wall papered with the mission decals.

By the way, for the few who keep claiming the Raptor only has such things as 'one way data links, etc.', suggest you might want to think again.

;)

[gf0012-aust]

Just in from a member of the T&E community -

I'd say that there is a good chance that "your" bloke knows "my" bloke if he's attached to the F-22 prog.

I've been itching to post some of his F-22 comments but he's a little uncomfortable with them going global.