RAAF FA-18F purchase problems exposed on TV

Originally posted by Willard856
Howlrunner

It's a report, not a documentary, they say that at the beginning. They may not talk to the pro-F/A-18F lobby, but they state teh reasoning given for ditching the current aircraft.

Journalists are supposed to report things in a balanced and fair manner. It is part of their code of ethics. In fact, their very first code is:

I am a television producer, so...

Given that this is 4C, I doubt very much that they didn't give Nelson et al the right of reply. As I say above, they state the reasons given by the government for its decision. Once those facts are stated, well, that is the right of reply. Disclosure of all facts? That's what this report is. The Gov't failed to do this when it announced its purchase. Do not suppress relevant facts? Again, the gov't did that. This report is the people's right of reply to the gov't. The gov't lied to us, 4C is showing where that lie lies (where the lie lies, geddit? Ha, I'm a comedian...but not a very good one )

It is impossible to arrive at a balanced conclusion to the show when it is so biased towards a single point of view.

The balance is by taking what the Minister said and then watching the report. The report is the balance. Besides which, given what happens on Monday nights at 9:20 pm and 4C's history of winning Walkley's, I'm still doubtful the gov't weren't given right of reply.

But it is interesting that we got the F-111 the “wrong” way, yet here are four people going on about how great it is, and irreplaceable. Maybe the same will be said of the Super Hornet in 40 years time?

Yes, I am grimly smiling at the irony of attacking the gov't for doing exactly what their (Lib) predecessors did, when on that occasion it gave us such a freakishly good platform. However, given the fact that F-111 was a truly groundbreaking/generation starting aircraft and SuperHornet is still mired in Gen4, I really doubt your second statement will be the case. To stretch an example to the breaking point, buying SuperHornet to replace Pig is like choosing Meteors over Sabres and then claimng we'd bought the best jet available (which is EXACTLY what Menzies did). As the world goes stealthy, we deliberately choose to stand in place?

You’re wrong. We didn’t contribute Hornets just to protect AWACs. We contributed Hornets because they offered flexibility for swing role tasking, and could contribute to Strike/CAS/Interdiction missions once air superiority was attained. The F-111s certainly could have done the latter, but not the former. And it is a fallacy to say that the Iraqi’s weren’t going to fly based on Desert Storm.

I don't drive fast jets and I'm not in intelligence, but I would have bet thousands of dollars Saddams's MiGs wouldn't fly. And look, I'd be a rich man now. Maybe staff officers thought they would, nobody else did. So the planners figured that the USAF and RAF would be stretched so thin on assets that they would need our multi-role aircraft? Really, when F15Cs were in theatre? By my limited understanding, by contributing F-111 we would have relieved the US of a need to multi-role, allowing them to protect their own air assets with in-theatre dedicated air-superiority fighters (reputed to be the very best in the world) while sending our jets into SAM country, jets whose strike capability is of far higher level than F/A-18C. How many weeks, months or years into Desert Storm was it before air superiority was attained? How many replacement jets did Saddam have in the decade between conflicts?

My understanding is it was a close run thing between the F-111 and the F/A-18 going to Iraqi Freedom. The multi-role capability of the F/A-18 was most likely the deciding factor.

And a waste of time. How much multi-roling did they do? When the Pigs could have flown instead, proving all that money wasn't wasted on training missions and allowing the jets to actually fire a shot in anger. And proving, into the bargain, that, just like the Stratofortress, they would still be relevant in 2020. Maybe there was a ministerial decision, or "suggestion", somewhere in there as well. Could have been embarrassing for some if Pig had flown perfectly executed missions in public...Or I could be grinding invisible axes...

F/A18Cs cannot project air-power outside Australia.

What, like the Middle East?

They weren't projecting air-power, the USAF and RAF were. My point is that Hornet doesn't have the range to project air-power to Jakarta, or Kuala Lumpur, or Beijing, without the support of other assets. Flying from Tindal, what is Pig's furthest reach, bombed up?

Not going into the next bit, because we're splitting hairs and won't convince each other.

It goes toward comparing apples with apples. The U2 can fly higher than a Sukhoi. So what? Again, some of the claims may be true. But does it matter? It is a throwaway claim designed to scare those who don’t understand the complexities of air combat.

Air combat may be a little more complex than it was for 266 squadron, but if I give you a Spitfire and a 109, which will you choose? If I give you a Zero and an Airacobra, which will you choose? How about a 15 and an 86? Or a 23 and a Phantom? Those are old arguments, sure, but there's truth in them and truth in this.

I only asked the next questions to highlight your not asking them, as you accuse 4C of doing about other issues.

You want us to go play in MiG Alley after we've already tanked once, putting us out of range from land-based support, because that also has to tank...and you're planning on using how many aircraft to do this?

Not sure what you are trying to say here.

You need to plan an incredibly complex mission with SuperHorntes to replicate what Pig could do with four jets. So, the fact is (using your language, you may want to point out where I'm misquoting you) the operational requirement/capability need hasn't changed, but we're replacing a system that does meet it with a system that doesn't.

Why wouldn’t we do this? If the risk level is appropriate, there is no reason not to.

Because the losses of our jets will be higher (possibly/probably) and of more $ cost to the RAAF if we fly this mission with -18F than with -111. As well as the $ cost of the mission. How many jets do we put in the air? 1, 2 sqns of -18Fs plus 1, 2 tankers? How much fuel are we burning, how many extra munitions might we expend?

And my contention is that the scenarios used by the show were not sufficiently detailed to arrive at any conclusion. And the conclusion they reached was that the Super Hornet could actually achieve the mission.

Not disputing that the mission can be achieved, looking at the logistics and they don't match up.

I simply disagree with their contention that the Flankers could cream the departing packages.

Maybe they can, maybe they can't. But I'm betting the Indos can do more damage than you're betting on.

Totally out of context, but you'll take an Armalite over a Kalashnikov? Not my first choice...

WAAAY out of context I’m afraid. We’re talking air to air weapons, a significantly different kettle of fish.

We may be, but you didn't qualify your statement, so I had fun with it. Plus, what I said has the added fun benefit of being true.

Are you talking about the LCA?

No, I wan talking about the recent announcement that India and Russia will be cooperatively developing a fifth generation fighter.

I need to get out more Given that, why would we be happy with a 4th Gen plane when the others will be bringing in Gen5 during its service and the Yanks at least, and probably Russians (in partnership),Chinese and Euros, will be working on their Gen6 prototypes.

Westy, Willard,

IMHO The use of the term air superiority in the program was misleading, in that the purpose of the F-111s (in the sense that we bought them and utilize them) is power projection and deterrent - if you wish, a regional equivalent of the B-1 in US service - not air superiority. Obviously the same was true of the replacement of the F-111 in US service. It is a quirk of the post 1962 USAF designation system that the F-111 had an 'F' designation at all. Like the F-105 before it, the F-111 in USAF service should really have had the defunct 'A' (for attack) designation. Therefore any comparison between the Super Hornet and the F-111 is invalid.

As an aside, the use of the 'F' designation seems to have misled many including the contemporary US administration regarding the F-111 - how on earth could anyone have ever thought that one aircraft could do the job for both the USN (who needed a fleet air defense fighter - ultimately resulting in the Tomcat) and the USAF (who needed a strike fighter/medium bomber)? Insanity - all because they were both 'fighters'! The F-111 was never, ever, a 'fighter', it was always the historic equivalent of the medium bomber (F-105 Thunderchief, Martin Marauder, North American Mitchell, etc). My personal feeling is that the role was blurred by the erroneous belief that future regional conflicts would be fought using tactical nuclear weapons delivered by 'strike fighters'.

I'm not at all sure that when we bought the F-111, it was done the 'wrong way'. I recall that the choices on offer were the F-111, the TSR-2 and the A-5 Vigilante (please note - none could be described as air superiority fighters, or indeed fighters at all). The Vigilante was already in service (with problems), while both the F-111 and the TSR-2 were on the drawing board. History tends to the belief that the choice was made outside the RAAF, mainly because of the (configuration and structure) controversy surrounding the F-111 at the time - and not least the controversy surrounding the cancellation of the TSR-2. While there was public controversy, there was no such controversy within the RAAF at the time.

Willard, I may have been a little confused about what you were saying regarding planning and evaluation. I see that you were referring to mission simulation, rather than overall force structure planning. I agree that officers of Roberton's experience will be utilized in the evaluation of competing types to fill a particular role, however it is officers at a higher level who formulate which roles need to be added, deleted, or updated within the force structure - it is only then that the task of evaluating the available platforms is passed to the Wg Cdr / Gp Capt level for role specialist evaluation. Certainly, the program gave Roberton little chance to compare the SH for the role of an F-111 replacement - as I said, the performance of the SH as an air superiority fighter is irrelevant as an F-111 replacement.

The whole point, however, is that Roberton's role in the affair has been nullified - there was no comparison done. He has merely been appointed to oversee the introduction of the SH.

I would be interested to hear Group Captain Roberton's opinion (unedited and without ADF censorship - highly unlikely given the political circumstances and the culture within the higher echelon of the ADF) regarding the SH's suitability as (even an interim) replacement for the role filled by the F-111 within the RAAF - something that he was not able to put forward during the program.

It is unfortunate that both the program and this forum have concentrated on the SH's air superiority qualities rather than its overall suitability to fill the role currently filled by the F-111. While there may not be an aircraft available which will fully replace the F-111 in our particular application, even ultimately the F-35, I feel that in the case of the SH it is a matter of apples and oranges.

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 1/11/07 by The Winged Wombat]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
The Pig is not an air defense fighter, as Willard said it has the bare minim needier for self defense while under escort.

No, it isn't. Their point is that it can create air-superiority by destroying the enemy's infrastructure at significantly less cost than can SuperHornet.

Without an advances air escort proving air cover for Austria forces it would not be able achieve air superiority on it's own not be as effective in the strike mission.

The Pig's operational brief in RAAF service is to operate without escort. Unless that has significantly changed and Pig and Hornet Sqns now train multi-tasked missions together. Pig can fly across the Timor Sea at little more than wave height without the need to meet a tanker. SuperHornet, as far as I'm aware, cannot.

If the predominant threat is Flankers than it makes sense to purchase and advance multi role fighter unlit the F-35 hits service.

See previous response for why this is not so.

The capabilities the F-111 has may no longer be as critical in light of this new threat. And they can be achieved via alternative means if need be, as Willard explained above.

Maybe yes, maybe no. Not an air analyst, so I'm working from the Jane's Manual (rhetorically speaking). But the point of Pig is that it can do the mission without needing to tangle with Flanker. Meaning that capability is even more critical. The alternative means needed by SuperHornet tie up many other assets and expose more planes to higher risk.

Anyway, as someone else said...

It seems to me that the jets best able to replace F-111 are either all Gen4 or too prohibitively expensive.

The Brits cancelled the world's only alternative, TSR2. Then jumped on F-111 bandwagon. Then jumped off and THEN built Tornado. A swing-wing with twin reheated turbofans, would you believe it?

Aside from Tornado GR4/4A (too old and not in production for anybody to ask for new ones, no matter how good it is) the only other possibilities would appear to be B1B Lancer (too old, expensive and famous for slight difficulties on take-off/landing), a semi-stealthy swing-wing, and B2 Spirit (WAY too expensive, really, how many would we get for our 6.6bn AUD? 3?), a fully stealthy flying wing. No-one is building a jet that can fly from Tindal to Jakarta and back without tanking AND carry bombs AND put them directly on the target.

It's like DHC Caribou. The only new aircraft in the world that can do what it does is Osprey. Caribous cannot go on much longer.

As it happens, Pig can't actually do what I'm demanding. but it comes closest.

Tornado (GR4) range: 1,390 kilometres (870 miles)
Pig range: 2,140 kilometres (1,330 miles or 1660 nautical miles)
Super Hornet range: Well, here it gets downright embarrassing, but will be good for arguments.

Range: 1,275 nautical miles carrying only 2 AIM9 missiles.
Carrier-borne combat radius: 150 nautical miles (170 miles/278 kilometres) carrying 6 air-to-air missiles and THREE (3) drop tanks!

Distance Darwin to Jakarta: 2,723 kilometres, 1,692 miles, 1,470 nm.
Pig 2,140 1,330 1,160
Tornado 1,390 870
Super Hornet (clean) 1,275
(combat - 135 minutes CAP) 150

The jets' figures came from Wiki and they appear to disprove some of my statements. I'll wear that, if I'm wrong. But, they still show that Pig can go furthest carrying the most. (This is where I caveat) Looking at those figures, I assume that Pig can tank, topping up, much closer to home (well out of Flanker's reach) and still hit Jakarta before tanking on the way home to make it home; I say this because it still uses less assets in the air (and therefore vulnerable) than Super Hornet. And it has a far higher variety of loadable stores. FAR higher.

(one question: did anybody ever develop an in-bomb-bay fuel tank for Pig to give it extra legs? And if not, why not?)

(next question: do these figures reflect RAAF "long-winged" Pigs? I believe we demanded that option for the range...)

edit: quotes

[edit on 1-11-2007 by HowlrunnerIV]

Howlrunner,

I don't agree that all the facts were disclosed, and I still think the show was unfairly biased with the F-111 crowd. Surely they could have found some ex-Hornet drivers to mount a counter point? They wouldn't be constrained as current uniformed members are, and it would have made things a bit more interesting (and balanced!). Hell, it would have been great viewing, Chris and Mills playing the Red team, and some Hornet drivers playing Blue team. If the opposite was true, and the show had a total bent in support of the Super Hornet, there would have been outcry that Goon and Kopp et al didn't get a chance to present their case. For me (and again, I recognise my own potential biases here) I was very disappointed in what I hoped would be a good discussion.

Yes, I am grimly smiling at the irony of attacking the gov't for doing exactly what their (Lib) predecessors did, when on that occasion it gave us such a freakishly good platform. However, given the fact that F-111 was a truly groundbreaking/generation starting aircraft and SuperHornet is still mired in Gen4, I really doubt your second statement will be the case. To stretch an example to the breaking point, buying SuperHornet to replace Pig is like choosing Meteors over Sabres and then claimng we'd bought the best jet available (which is EXACTLY what Menzies did). As the world goes stealthy, we deliberately choose to stand in place?

Well, we'll have to meet up in forty years and have this discussion

I still disagree with this continuing theme of the Super Hornet "replacing" the pig. It clearly can't. So the question is, has the capability need changed? Defence obviously thinks it has. But have they conducted the rigourous modelling and testing needed to identify/justify this? Or did they rely on a slick marketing pitch from Boeing? I'd say the latter, and again, I agree that this is not good enough. I pay taxes as well (course, I've burnt a lot of tax dollars in jet fuel as well, so I guess we're even...)

I don't drive fast jets and I'm not in intelligence, but I would have bet thousands of dollars Saddams's MiGs wouldn't fly. And look, I'd be a rich man now. Maybe staff officers thought they would, nobody else did.

Well, no-one said anything when we left, and I can assure you the first mission brief contained an analysis of the anticipated Iraqi Air Force reaction. Considered a job at DIO?

As for your other point, of course the US could have done it all on their own. But the Coalition aspect lent credibility to the operation that was sorely needed (unilateral US action in the Middle-East would have been even worse). As I said, it was a near run thing, but the US wanted our multi-role capability. It could just as easily been the Pigs.

And a waste of time. How much multi-roling did they do? When the Pigs could have flown instead, proving all that money wasn't wasted on training missions and allowing the jets to actually fire a shot in anger. And proving, into the bargain, that, just like the Stratofortress, they would still be relevant in 2020.

We did a bit. I can't go into details, but we certainly roled into other missions from our original assigned one. But anyway, the logic you use here could equally be used on the Hornet. And I don't think Iraqi Freedom proved any platform will be relevant in 2020. Including the Hornet.

They weren't projecting air-power, the USAF and RAF were. My point is that Hornet doesn't have the range to project air-power to Jakarta, or Kuala Lumpur, or Beijing, without the support of other assets. Flying from Tindal, what is Pig's furthest reach, bombed up?

Why weren't they? How is it different to what the RAF and USA did? In fact, we went further then all of them, and drop bombs in the adversaries back yard. If that isn't air power projection, I don't know what is! And we can certainly get a Hornet to those places. It takes more tanking Tindal, but we can do it. The question is, do we need to? And again, my point is, Defence I believe has decided that a long range strike platform isn't the deterrent it used to be, and we can achieve our strategic and operational effects without it. As for the Pig ranges, I don't know, I'm not a Pig guy. It is much greater than a Hornet though.

I only asked the next questions to highlight your not asking them, as you accuse 4C of doing about other issues.

Sorry, I really don't understand what I failed to ask?

You need to plan an incredibly complex mission with SuperHorntes to replicate what Pig could do with four jets. So, the fact is (using your language, you may want to point out where I'm misquoting you) the operational requirement/capability need hasn't changed, but we're replacing a system that does meet it with a system that doesn't.

The mission isn't that complex. We did more complex mission planning in the Gulf, and very short time frames, including coordination of fighter sweep, SEAD, jamming assets and other considerations, something that didn't happen in the poor scenarios used by 4C. My argument is the scenarios they used weren't balanced, weren't wargamed correctly, drew tenuous conclusions without evidence or rigour, and generally were designed to support the bias of those involved.

Because the losses of our jets will be higher (possibly/probably) and of more $ cost to the RAAF if we fly this mission with -18F than with -111. As well as the $ cost of the mission. How many jets do we put in the air? 1, 2 sqns of -18Fs plus 1, 2 tankers? How much fuel are we burning, how many extra munitions might we expend?

Now your thinking. How much does it cost per hour to keep a Super Hornet airborne? A Pig? Why drop 16 000 lbs of weapons when 2000 lbs would do? Or you could use SF to take out the target? The scenarios simply weren't rigourous and detailed enough to arrive at the conclusions they did. I do this stuff for a living, and I couldn't answer the question based on what they gave us.

Maybe they can, maybe they can't. But I'm betting the Indos can do more damage than you're betting on.

I'm quietly confident they can't.

We may be, but you didn't qualify your statement, so I had fun with it. Plus, what I said has the added fun benefit of being true.

There are a lot of people who needlessly bash Russian weapons. Some of them are quite good. But in my experience, I put my faith in US air delivered weapons.

I need to get out more Given that, why would we be happy with a 4th Gen plane when the others will be bringing in Gen5 during its service and the Yanks at least, and probably Russians (in partnership),Chinese and Euros, will be working on their Gen6 prototypes.

You and me both. The apparent gap relates to current 4th gen threats (ie current Flankers). The expectation is JSF will enter service before the others, and coupled with AIM-120D (if available through FMS), we will maintain air to air superiority whilst having an effective air to ground capability as well.

This is a complex subject, and I appreciate your attitude in asking questions. I'm not needlessly countering all your points, and I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on some. But hopefully people can make their own minds up. And at the end of the day, all this discussion is probably pointless. The Super Bug is going to hit our shores whether we like it or not.

I dunno.

It's quite probable that should he win this month's popularity contest Kevin Rudd could quite easily cancel the order for Super Hornets on the basis that Pig will still be flyable well after JSF makes service (assuming it's on time...when has that ever been the case?) and the massive cost-savings to the Little Aussie Battler, er, tax-paying citizens (I'm not one at the moment, currently in SEAsia).

I'm not saying he'll make it a package along with leaving Iraq, "surging" to Afghanistan and ratifying Kyoto, but given recent decisions across the Tasman about what is and isn't needed by local airforces, it's possible the contract could be canceled without too much penalty in the next six months. Of course, we'd need to see the contract, but the easiest way might be for the Ombudsman (or perhaps High Court Judge) to give a decision criticising the lack of open tender/bid process and the possible collusion by Boeing with minsterial (or Ministerial) staff rendering the contract legally questionable, if not downright illegal. Or a simple Parliamentary Enquiry...

Just some thoughts...

Hmm, DIO, yes, a long time ago, after a certain genetic condition refused to go away and I couldn't enter Duntroon. But I chose the wrong major and now it's too late...anyway, my aspirations went no further than 3RAR (and now they're going to have their red berets taken away from them )

edit: smileys...

[edit on 1-11-2007 by HowlrunnerIV]

Originally posted by Willard856

You need to plan an incredibly complex mission with SuperHorntes to replicate what Pig could do with four jets. So, the fact is (using your language, you may want to point out where I'm misquoting you) the operational requirement/capability need hasn't changed, but we're replacing a system that does meet it with a system that doesn't.

The mission isn't that complex. We did more complex mission planning in the Gulf, and very short time frames, including coordination of fighter sweep, SEAD, jamming assets and other considerations, something that didn't happen in the poor scenarios used by 4C. My argument is the scenarios they used weren't balanced, weren't wargamed correctly, drew tenuous conclusions without evidence or rigour, and generally were designed to support the bias of those involved.

Because the losses of our jets will be higher (possibly/probably) and of more $ cost to the RAAF if we fly this mission with -18F than with -111. As well as the $ cost of the mission. How many jets do we put in the air? 1, 2 sqns of -18Fs plus 1, 2 tankers? How much fuel are we burning, how many extra munitions might we expend?

Now your thinking. How much does it cost per hour to keep a Super Hornet airborne? A Pig? Why drop 16 000 lbs of weapons when 2000 lbs would do? Or you could use SF to take out the target? The scenarios simply weren't rigourous and detailed enough to arrive at the conclusions they did. I do this stuff for a living, and I couldn't answer the question based on what they gave us.

Ah ha!

The SF option, which I knew was what you were getting at. Which is why I originally talked about simplicity. I'm assuming you know more about actual explosives-on-the-target, so I'm not questioning the 16/2 equation, but I would assume (I'll keep using that word) that a Pig carrying 1 tonne of bombs instead of 8 tonnes could fly much further, or is that 4 Pigs with 1 tonne each, meaning the reconfigured mission could be 1 Pig with 4 (500lb) bombs or 4 Pigs with 1 bomb? (It seems to me that this makes even more argument for Pig).

It is still far simpler (and therefore less prone to snafus) than putting SAS troopers on the ground, either by HAHO, HALO or Collins insertion, having them assault a presumably guarded installation and then exfil, presumably by Collins or changing into civvies and heading for the airport. They may be good, they may be really effing good, but Troopers who get into firefights and get captured or killed make great propaganda. I know we had troopers in ETimor giving updates, but I assume they were on hilltops, not sitting on the fenceline of TNI barracks.

A destroyed installation is evidence of something pretty fishy (but can be spun many ways), but captured or dead Diggers is kinda hard to spin...

Okay, maybe my wording of "incredibly complex" is hyperbole, I was trying to compare it with what I saw as the "incredibly simple" mission described by the ex-Chief. What I meant is the need for many more (at least twice) strike/CAP aircraft to be over the target at the same time (or not quite, are you keeping your CAP out at sea, moving forward to meet the pursuit as your strike package beats a retreat? More co-ordination) after they have all tanked (at least once), you will need one, maybe two, tankers in the air, they will need CAP, and you will need AWACS to co-ordinate all this if the Flankers come up to play, not counting the 2nd stringers.

Now, the Israelis didn't use AWACS when they slapped Osirak around, but the missions that best match the style and objective of this described-but-never-launched mission seem to be Osirak and Raegan trying to show Gadaffi who was boss. Both of those were a long time ago and both have significant differences.

edit: sp
edit: gr

[edit on 1-11-2007 by HowlrunnerIV]

[edit on 1-11-2007 by HowlrunnerIV]

Sorry for being so piecemeal about all this

Originally posted by Willard856
I still disagree with this continuing theme of the Super Hornet "replacing" the pig. It clearly can't.

Okay, taking your "capability requirement" theme, we'll agree that Super Hornet is not replacing the Pig in the planning of operations.

You will agree that with the Pig out of service and the Super Hornet in service and the Hornet remaining in service or replaced by JSF, the Super Hornet will fill up the numbers in the arsenal as Pig does now?

(are my figures current?)

We have 70-some Hornets, (being a mixture of trainers (is that OCUs?) and in-service squadrons), 20-odd Pigs and 30 or so Hawks. Of these all are strike capable, but only Hornet is air-combat capable (having a2a radar). Total: 120

We will have an even ton of JSFs, 20 Super Hornets and the same 3doz Hawks, all of which will be strike capable and only the BAEs being incapable of a2a. Total 150.

We did have 12 A4 Skyhawks available to us as a strategic reserve until the Hawks were bombed up and even able to fly multi-role missions with (well, near) the Hornets, until Clarke had a meltdown and decided RAAF should be made responsible for keeping RNZAF Orions safe in the unfriendly skies.

The Pig was designed to deliver tactical nukes in the European theatre at low altitude supersonic speeds, and was initially ordered by the Menzies cabinet for this purpouse, but for use in a possible SE Asian theatre rather than a European theatre. The only missions the Pigs performed in SE Asia (once it was finally delivered) were for recon purpouses in conjunction with SAS forces on the ground in actions involving other countries in the region. I don't think these will ever see the light of day as the casualties involved might ruffle a few feathers in the region.

[edit on 1-11-2007 by and01]

the TSR2 wasn`t replaced by the tornado =- the tornado was allready on the drawing board as the MRCA and in fact it first flew in 1969 - the aircraft which replaced the TSR2 was much older Blackburn Bucceneers (which served up to 1993) and F4 Phantoms - both ex- royal navy types.

and the F111K was cancelled on most notably - cost and slipping delivery - they wouldn`t have recieved them till into the 1970`s and at 3 times the original airframe projection - then of course we know how long the faults took to put right....

reply to post by Harlequin

the TSR2 wasn`t replaced by the tornado

Yes it was, howlrunner was correct. TSR 2 was axed in 1965, F-111K existed as a programme from 1966-68 and then, after the Buccaneer was bought as a stop gap, MRCA began in 1969, flying in 1974 and entering service as the Tornado in 1982, 17 years after the TSR 2 was binned, and it still hacks me off to this day.

reply to post by waynos


Much like one could say the Avro Arrow was replaced by the CF-188. The thing that strikes me is that we only came close to the same performance 15-20 years later.

Hello all, sorry for not getting back to the thread been a bit preoccupied. Yes I know Wombat I started yet another thread on the RAAF and/or Super Hornet. Forgive me I was tired, lazy and studied out and, well just couldn't decide which of the existing threads to put it in. Hey at least my ATS points go up .

Willard as allways thanks for the input your opinion and time is greatly appreciated. I would like to point out that while I agree the report was biased, 4 corners did say they invited both the minister and CDF to take part in the program and both turned it down. To be fair though the program wasn't out to give a pro and con argument and never masqueraded as such. As they saw it there was a case of impropriety in reasoning and contract justification that needed to be exposed. The ABC despite it's often leftist leanings is required legally under its charter to show balance and for example, give equal air time to both major parties. It doesn't allways succeed but it's a lot better than the usual comercial pap we get asked to swallow.

I found the governments response in the days following this story to be both gutless and troubling. Instead of the minister addressing the claims directly they had the typical "spokesman for the defence dept" token response and further comment from your colleague in the Super Hornet transition team. Bloody typical, instead of the minister or CDF taking responsibillity it gets left to the men at the pointy end to provide the excuses and if neccessary look silly over their mistakes should it come to it.

I do have one major criticism of the program and the journalists involved. Instead of clearly defining the fact that the Super Hornet is supposed to be taking over the role and strategic responsibillity of the F-111 they got bogged down in endless "Sukhoi v's" scenarios. In reality I believe if they must be bought it should be to make up for any short comings in the lifespan of the classic Hornets. This distracted the two main arguments of whether it was suitable/relevant to do this role, and why no proper analysis and competitive tender was issued. In the end structuring the story this way was just begging for Kopp, Goon and Criss to hammer their line at will. I do note that today there is a long evaluation of the governments claims on the APA website. I havent had time to read it and probably wont till I get some study down time on the weekend ( study down time , yeah right!). Would be good to continue this but don't have the time right now, as I noted a few other points I have temporarily squeezed out of my head, Im sure they will come back

LEE.

Today i read in Australian Avaiation magazine that aus gov
approached us gov for 24 more super hornets and 8 growlers.

Anyone heard this before???????????

To offset jsf delays and legacy hornets not getting center barrelled??

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
(one question: did anybody ever develop an in-bomb-bay fuel tank for Pig to give it extra legs? And if not, why not?)

Yes, but it's a choice of one or the other. The external fuel tank that fits in the weapons bay takes up the entire bay.

reply to post by Zaphod58


So it's basically only for ferry duty, then? If you fill your internal (ie drag-free) bomb bay with fuel, you have to carry stores on pylons, or you carry fuel on pylons and stores in the bomb bay.

I'm assuming the designers couldn't see an option where the mission would want as "clean" an aircraft as possible and one fuel tank and one (or two) bombs would be the way to go.

I suppose it comes down to how much extra range that internal tank would give vs drag. I'll assume that the designers are a little more schooled in pysics than I am and gains or losses in range appear to be tactically irrelevant given cost...

I guess that if you're only carrying the stores out and not back then they only add drag for half the journey, but you can bring your fuel tank back for a refill.

reply to post by thebozeian

Firstly the ABC and the age will always find somebody to disagree with the desisions made by the last conservative govt. The reason the alp is coming out with this rubbish is to make the coalition and Brendan Nelson seem to make poor decisions with regard to defence , and therefore pick up a few votes. As we all know, this isnt the case. The coalion increased defence from 10.9 billion us dollars in 1996 to $21 billion us dollars in 2007 and $30+ by 2012- just as an example.

One of the reasons Brendan chose the f18E/F is because the air force has had experiance with them and knows how to repair them.

Another reason: The F111 are 40 year old, and by the time the new aircraft are built they will be 45 years old. Sure they may have past a wing strength test but how long for?

Another reason: The f111 are costing $500 million aussie dollars to maintain each year.

Another reason: He contacted the americans and they said that they won't sell the f22s to australia.

Another reason: He had to buy an american aircraft because the airforce is tring to reach iteropability with the americans.

Anyway, what other NEW american aircraft will suit our needs and are available in a fairly short period of time?

Originally posted by lambroast
Anyway, what other NEW american aircraft will suit our needs and are available in a fairly short period of time?

See, right there is the contentious point. Who says our new aircraft have to be Yanks?

Interoperability? So what.

When was the last time the RAF and the USAF flew the same combat aircraft?

The English Electric Canberra/Martin B57.

The Yanks don't fly SEPECAT, Panavia or Eurofighter, but there don't seem to be huge gaps in trans-Atlantic interoperability.

The point the ABC were making was that the deal smelled fishy. It did and it still does. Whether or not the Super-Hornet turns out to be the best choice (as Pig once did) doesn't change the fact that the process was not conducted correctly.

This report by the ABC has nothing to do with Rudd and his government, it was aired long before the election.

reply to post by lambroast
Ok lambroast let me clarify a few things here. Forgive me if I seem to get a little short with you, but I have some fairly strong opinions on this subject.

The reason the alp is coming out with this rubbish is to make the coalition and Brendan Nelson seem to make poor decisions with regard to defence , and therefore pick up a few votes. As we all know, this isnt the case. The coalion increased defence from 10.9 billion us dollars in 1996 to $21 billion us dollars in 2007 and $30+ by 2012- just as an example

New governments ALWAYS do that, standard operating procedure. Brendan Nelson and his predecessor DID make poor decisions, need I remind you of their failure to axe the Seasprite program when it was clearly not going to bear fruit, the Adelaide FFG upgrade farce that saw 2 of the class retired early to save money and the Navy is reluctant to send the upgraded ships to sea because of ongoing issues. The total idiocy that surrounded the signing of the contract for the Wedgetail AEW&C that saw the original purchase number suddenly shortened from 7 to 4 for cost saving, then after they realised they had essentially been forced to buy a couple of complete extra mission equipment sets, proceded to buy an extra two airframes anyway. The unfathomable purchase of the M1A1 for the army when the kind of ops we are engaged in see's such a heavy MBT's more a liability than an asset (and of course initially we had almost no way of transporting them, but hey! thats just a minor detail right?) Only 5 KC-30B tankers bought when in all likelyhood we will need a lot more if we keep up high operational tempos and continue to purchase fighter (replacing a 1000NM F-111 with a 600NM SH or F-35 will exacerbate this), transports and EW aircraft etc, that eat up fuel like its going out of style. And decision after decision that has either been rushed through without proper thought or study or has just had money thrown at the problem in the vain hope it will go away and win them more votes. Yeah no wonder they increased defence spending, half of it was to cover their own planning and purchasing F**K *P's!

One of the reasons Brendan chose the f18E/F is because the air force has had experiance with them and knows how to repair them.

That tired load of old bollocks just keeps on getting regurgitated doesnt it? To illustrate the point the Super Hornet has about as much in common with our upgraded A/B models as an F-8 Crusader had to the A-7 Corsair II. Sure they look simillar were based on the same design but they are physically different in size and do(did) a very different job. Something like 70-80% of the Super Hornets airframe and systems are totally incompatable with the early model Hornets.

The F111 are 40 year old, and by the time the new aircraft are built they will be 45 years old. Sure they may have past a wing strength test but how long for?..... The f111 are costing $500 million aussie dollars to maintain each year

Age is hardly relevant despite the moronic attempts by the common press to compare for example: Seasprite helicopters to an EK Holden car. The USAF's B-52 fleet is older than our F-111's and they plan on operating them till 2030-40. There are hundreds of wing sets available and completely rebuilding or even scratch building new wings is fairly straight forward. If people are so worried about using fatigue as an excuse then why are they not screaming their heads off about the current Hornet fleet fatigue issues. As for the $500 million a year, so what, A/C dont run on thin air, how much do you think our Hornets cost a year or the SH or F-35 will for that matter? We are spending well over $1 billion to re-fuselage SOME of the current Hornets and there have been program problems there as well.

He contacted the americans and they said that they won't sell the f22s to australia.

Dep Sec of Defence G. England is a known F-22 hater, former LM executive with an axe to grind, and disciple of that other Raptor hater former Def Sec Rumsfeld. He is hardly impartial. Further Nelson essentially asked England to supply a letter that was effectively an excuse as to why we couldnt have the Raptor. Have you not noted recent developments with the new US Def Sec who is looking at the issue with a view to asking Congress to lift any foreign sales ban to Australia, should we request the F-22?

He had to buy an american aircraft because the airforce is tring to reach iteropability with the americans...
Anyway, what other NEW american aircraft will suit our needs and are available in a fairly short period of time?

See HowlrunnerIV's coments immediately below yours on this. Interoperabillity is all well and good, but not if it costs the earth or compromises your needs to much. Why do you think the French have gone it alone and still were able to operate alongside US forces in the first Gulf war? As for other US aircraft, putting aside the obvious candidate(F-22) an F-15E based on Singapore's F-15S with the Golden Eagles AESA would have made an excellent candidate.

Like I said at the begining I am not trying to wail on you for what you said but you must realise that there is always another side to every argument. No doubt some others here will agree/disagree with my thoughts, thats fine we are all here for an exchange of knowledge and healthy debate. Feel free to post your thoughts again, sometimes I will agree sometimes I wont, but we are all friends here.

Happy debating.

LEE.

[edit on 8-4-2008 by thebozeian]

A short note that appears to add nothing new to the discussion at hand...

Originally posted by thebozeian
reply to post by lambroast

The F111 are 40 year old, and by the time the new aircraft are built they will be 45 years old. Sure they may have past a wing strength test but how long for?..... The f111 are costing $500 million aussie dollars to maintain each year

The USAF's B-52 fleet is older than our F-111's and they plan on operating them till 2030-40. There are hundreds of wing sets available and completely rebuilding or even scratch building new wings is fairly straight forward.

Correct me if I'm wrong (as I sometimes, spectacularly, am), but hasn't the US been telling "us" (you know, the inclusive opposite of "they") all about the strategic reserve sitting out in the moisture-free desert, failing to rust away while they go about building multi-billion dollar replacement systems...

If people are so worried about using fatigue as an excuse then why are they not screaming their heads off about the current Hornet fleet fatigue issues. As for the $500 million a year, so what, A/C dont run on thin air, how much do you think our Hornets cost a year or the SH or F-35 will for that matter? We are spending well over $1 billion to re-fuselage SOME of the current Hornets and there have been program problems there as well.

Any time politicians start quoting costs as a factor for decisions being made I automatically go looking for "the truth". As in Premier John Olsen telling us that he had to cancel the Adelaide Le Mans because the money was needed to pay for a nurse's raise, only for the nursing union to tell us that they had rejected that offer more than a week earlier and Olsen knew it.

What is cheaper?

Option 1. Buying more wing centre-boxes (not the correct term) and refitting the Pigs and extending their lives by that many more thousands of hours (and therefore years) and maintaining exactly the capability that we have and no-one else in the region has.

or

Option 2. Buying two whole squadrons of new aircraft. Two whole squadrons of new and conversion training. Two whole squadrons of new workshop manuals and tools and mech's training and spares and consumables. Plus having to operate at a higher tempo in order to match the "output" of what we currently have.

All for a tool that is a "stop-gap" and is designed to fill a capability hole that exists only because it was pre-manufactured by politicians who wanted to save money.

It sounds remarkably similar to successive British governments' utterly contemptuous treatment of the RN, the very thing that made Empire possible and kept it alive for so long. First, can manned aircraft, then can aircraft carriers, allow the Harrier and "through-deck cruisers" to limp in to existence. Owe the victory in Falklands entirely to SHAR. Then, 20 years later, can the a2a-capable SHAR, but keep the non-radar RAF GR Harriers flying from those old "through-deck cruisers". "Joint-Force Harrier"? Don't make me laugh.

If my 1981 Honda CB900F Bol d'Or is still capable of 215 kph, still has triple discs and still has 19in front and 18in rear wheels...

why would I scrap it in favour of a 2000 Hornet with a top speed of 220 kph, triple discs and 17in front and 17in rear wheels that don't cruise as well down the highway?

It makes no sense.

Did anyone see last night's (10-4-08) 7:30 report? Another story was done regarding the suitability of the F-35. Link 7:30 Report

The Rudd government is set to make Australia's biggest defence purchase in history, with plans to spend sixteen billion dollars on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft. But will the sale go ahead? 7.30's Mark Bannerman investigates.

This is one part I found interesting:

RICK FISHER: The weaknesses is that it will not be able to defeat the possible competition that you will face within a decade.

MARK BANNERMAN: These, of course, are pretty serious criticisms. They're the kinds of criticisms we wanted to put to the defence department.

Unfortunately neither defence nor Lockheed Martin, the company in charge of the JSF project, had anyone available to talk to us here.
Lockheed Martin, however, did send this statement.

(Excerpt from Lockheed Martin statement)

The fifth generation Lightening II Joint Strike Fighter is unlike any other. Designed from its outset as a multi-role stealth fighter, it offers "game-changing capabilities" that make all current fourth generation fighters obsolete.

(End excerpt)

Unlike others in this forum I am not an expert and would value some comments on the report. They seem to be indicating that there is some serious doubt as to whether or not the purchase will go ahead and he pressure is building for Australia to purchase the F 22.