RAAF FA-18F purchase problems exposed on TV

reply to post by _Del_


-Del-,

If you have a system in place to do a particular job and, when it gets old, you need to replace it, AND you feel that you still need the capabilities that you bought it for in the first place, then......

If a similar system exists (in this case an aircraft) then presumably you buy that system.

If no such system exists, then presumably you buy something that may be employed by your Navy or Army to do the job instead.

You DO NOT go out and squander your money on a system that your forces have never stated any requirement or desire for - in fact in this situation our forces stated publicly no more than 18 months ago that they didn't have any possible use or desire for SH.

The Winged Wombat

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
Willard,

You have selective memory. Go back our original discussion about submissions and you will find that I said that I did not make a public submission, but that I had made my submission some time previously, when IMO it would actually be considered or mattered! You read what you wanted to read.

So when was the "private" submission? For the ACR? In 1960? You were suitably vague in your original description. I asked you about it, you didn't want to talk about it. I respected that. Not really fair to then accuse me of having a selective memory, is it?

Now go back to the press release and findings of the ADR (which you posted) and you will discover that part of the finding regarding the SH purchase ratification was that the F-111s are already disbanding and that it would be too costly to reverse that. Now is that the government saying that the SH is a replacement for F-111 or that the SH is being bought for an entirely different purpose?

Yes, because that was one of the specific review items under the TORs for the review. Please point out where it says that the Super Hornet is a direct one for one replacement of the F-111. I posted above that Defence has said that the decision to retire the F-111 was made long before the Super Hornet decision. Legacy Hornets with long range stand off weapons can do what the F-111s currently do. The Super Hornet simply provides greater operational flexibility courtesy of longer range, improved survivability, and the ability to counter the Su-30 threat more effectively than current Hornets. Which is where the possible gap is (I don't think the Government has said that there will be gap, but that the Super Hornet decreases the risk of a gap eventuating. I may be wrong though).

Alternatively, since the RAAF was saying some 18 months ago that it had no foreseeable use or desire for SH then Brendon Nelson actually discovered the AA gap and plugged it all by himself? Doesn't say much for the RAAF then, does it.

Actually, the RAAF didn't specifically mention the Super Hornet, just that there was no identified gap. See discussion above. If the Government now feel that they need to mitigate any possible risk to Australia maintaining qualitative and quantitive air superiority regionally, then that's up to them.

Fine, the procedure exists - the fact that nobody appears to be following it is apparently fine also.

It isn't fine, and I've said that. Speaking of being selective...

And, yes, I did note that you appear to have changed your tune about the need to be able to strike back. So if we now agree on that then perhaps we can discuss whether SH or probably more importantly the single engined F-35 can adequately do that in our backyard.

And here's me thinking you weren't reading my posts! I never said we didn't need to strike back. I said the F-111 is no longer the platform to achieve that particular effect, and there are other ways of achieving those particular effects. What I did say was that we no longer needed the "big stick" of the F-111 to threaten our neighbours.

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
-Del-,
If a similar system exists (in this case an aircraft) then presumably you buy that system.

If no such system exists, then presumably you buy something that may be employed by your Navy or Army to do the job instead.

The Winged Wombat

Please note that I am not taking sides here, but what system would you purchase on behalf of any branch that can perform that function?

reply to post by Willard856


Willard,

Call it corporate, institutional, official if you like, how do I get it into you skull that if I put in a submission it would not be considered 'public' or 'private'.

Do you imagine that your Air Rank bosses could put in a 'personal' 'private' submission without endangering their career paths. Yikes!

I am far too busy to go back and quote you, or to quote all the press releases, so do it yourself - you have flipped on every point here.

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 15/4/08 by The Winged Wombat]

reply to post by _Del_


Sure -Del-, there may well be no such system, but perhaps stand off missiles, or even medium range ballistic missiles could substitute for long range strike aircraft. Perhaps submarine assets. Maybe even a carrier.

My point is that if you have a requirement and there is no platform to fill that requirement, it's not simply a matter of buying something that does part of the job.

Ultimately, perhaps you may have to abandon the capability or go for a lesser capability, but lesser capability equals increased vulnerability.

Eventually a country may feel that the capability is such a requirement that they will design and fund the platform or an adaption of a platform themselves, at great expense in relation to their GDP.

If you just buy what's available and it won't do what you need done, regardless of how well it does what it does do, then you've wasted your money. You are still not getting the job you need done done.

If you need a car to move your family, and you are offered a motor cycle, it doesn't matter how good the bike is, it won't do the job of moving your family.

The Winged Wombat

I'm not sure Australia is ready for a carrier (I mean fiscally/politically, not as a slight). Your finger is certainly closer to the pulse than mine, of course. Though if you bought a carrier you might end up with a requirement for SH's

Maybe the best bet would be to upgrade the Collins class with cruise missle ability? That still leaves the RAAF short two squadrons of attack a/c in the near future, but gives you a low-risk LR standoff capability.

Like I said, I've only got questions; no answers Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Originally posted by Willard856
The Super Hornet simply provides greater operational flexibility courtesy of longer range, improved survivability, and the ability to counter the Su-30 threat more effectively than current Hornets. Which is where the possible gap is (I don't think the Government has said that there will be gap, but that the Super Hornet decreases the risk of a gap eventuating. I may be wrong though).

This is gobbledegook!

If the government has not iterated an AA gap, then what reason has the government given as a justification, rationalization, for the purchase of 24 Super Hornets...... duh, the inability to maintain the F-111s - look it up!

Or are you suggesting that the Australian Government is purchasing 24 Super Hornets because they want to plug a gap that might appear - er - somewhere, in -er- some capability - er - which they can't actually identify and - er - which the Super Hornet might or might not be able to plug!

Either the government is fully aware of any AA gap (which would not make any such purchase controversial if they just said so - or indeed the RAAF had a requirement that said so) or they were purchased to fill a perceived gap created by the 'premature' retirement of the F-111s (which was controversial due to the RAAF believing - at the time - that the Pig could be maintained until F-35 service entry) - but I suppose now that you'll tell me that the RAAF really thought that the F-111 should have been retired five years ago - BS.

Or perhaps they were purchased for no reason at all - and that would be controversial!

So you reckon that the Government hasn't iterated a requirement based on an AA gap, and they are not buying the SH due to the retirement of F-111 - so how exactly do you believe that the government has justified the purchase to the public?

If you imagine that any force in the world can replace anything (including hats and coats) on a one to one basis then you live in fantasy land or are insultingly suggesting that I do!

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 15/4/08 by The Winged Wombat]

reply to post by _Del_


Sure,

I'm not actually making suggestions here, just illustrating that the point is to cover the requirements, and that they can be covered in a number of ways.

If the requirement can be covered by, as you suggest Collins class subs, then the RAAF would not be short anything, because the Navy would be doing the job that the 'two squadrons of attack aircraft' would have been doing. Therefore it would be right that the two squadrons of attack aircraft be disbanded because you would now have two assets doing the same job - and that surely is a waste of money.

Just because a force has a particular balance at any particular time, the changing availability of various weapons and their effectiveness may dictate changes to force structure (who does what) in the future.

Just because you have, say, two attack squadrons today, doesn't necessarily mean that you should have two attack squadrons tomorrow.

The point is that it is the requirement - what needs to be done - and who does what (Navy, Army, Air Force) that determines the size and structure of each of the forces, not the other way round. So if the Navy takes over what was previously an Air Force task then the Air Force should lose the assets they had to perform that task, otherwise it is a duplication of expenditure.

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 15/4/08 by The Winged Wombat]

Excellent points, but I would add that manned aircraft would have greater flexibility and provide a credible strike force in a long-lasting conflict that sublaunched cruise missles could not. Once you've empty your magazine on a sub, you've got to trek back home and reload. Perhaps with the cost savings of the two retired squadrons, you could equip another existing squadron with ALCM's, I'm not sure. Or maybe you decide you can do without the requirement completely.

reply to post by _Del_


_Del_,

I think this is where you might be getting a little confused.

By shifting a task from one service to another, there is NO SAVING. Yes the Navy budget gets bigger and the Air Force budget gets smaller, but the budgeting is a function of the tasks that get done and the distribution of money is to who does them.

Do not believe that if you had off a job to another service that your budget will remain the same. As Dire Straits said, that's 'Money for Nothing'

Only if a cheaper way of doing the job (not who does it) can be found does a saving occur. Alternatively, if a requirement can be completely negated (a very rare occurrence), then yes a saving can be made - but that saving does not equate to more toys for any particular service, rather it is a saving to the government and the taxpayer and less toys for whichever service was doing the particular job.

Unfortunately too many people seem to think that the services are there as some sort of institution to make a country look good - nothing could be further from the truth - the armed forces are (if you like) government departments paid to do particular jobs, not merely to exist. If the jobs needed to be done change (or indeed disappear) then the government (taxpayer funded) budget will change - anything else is usually called government wastage, or even corruption.

Ultimately a small country could, in fact, outsource its armed forces to a powerful neighbour (almost the case with Mexico, for instance, whose assets are more police oriented than military).

The Winged Wombat

Actually, I was looking at the bigger picture of savings. Updating the Collins to support a sub-launched cruise missle would almost certainly be substantially cheaper than keeping the F-111's alive or buying several dozen SH's. By using money earmarked for the SH you could perhaps update the Collins AND equip an existing Hornet squadron with cruise missles and still come up with a net savings to the defense budget as a whole while more or less retaining the strike capability. Atleast that was my train of thought.

Well, that's about it for me. If you don't want to keep things civil, I'm not going to continue playing games. I've been clear and consistent in my posts. If you can't grasp the basic fundamentals of effects based capability planning, then there is no possibility of helping you to understand the current situation. My position is clear. The original process was flawed, the ACR process was good, the Super Hornet is not replacing the F-111 (as a one for one replacement), and any perceived or possible gap revolves around the air to air arena. If you don't believe this, that's fine. Everyone else can make their own decisions based on what we have written. But your increasingly frustrated writing style and personal attacks just indicate to me that you have a chip on your shoulder about this for whatever reason. Personally I don't care. But the debate is no longer productive. And so it ends here for me.

reply to post by Willard856


Willard,

I'm sorry if you think I am attacking you, but you have been inconsistent, and if you like I will go back and extract the quotes but, really I don't give a [SNIP].

You totally, and perhaps deliberately, fail to see my point.

I am not interested in the slightest concerning what you or the RAAF believe is the justification for the purchase of 'anything'.

What I am getting at, and have always been trying to get at is what the Australian public has been told is the justification - you know the people who actually pay for the toys.

I don't know if it a communication problem for the RAAF, or the government, but the message getting to the people who are paying for your toys is that the SHs were purchased as a stop-gap for the F-111 until the F-35 is in service. And, 24 SHs, co-incidentally, would appear to be a 1 for 1 replacement for the 24 F-111s we originally purchased, whether you think it is or not.

Whether you believe that the SHs are being purchased to fill a perceived AA gap is totally irrelevant if the public are not being told that, by the RAAF or the Government.

So you can argue until you are blue in the face what the RAAF thinks, the fact is that that message is not getting to the public.

It really is about time that the armed forces came out of their little elitist bubble and realized that they are a government department answerable to the taxpayer just the same as any other government institution. Yes you have unique skills, but they are no more important than those of Fire Fighters, Ambulance Drivers, Dog Catchers and probably less critical that sewerage process workers (especially since we are increasingly expected to drink our own waste water). If you think this is an attack, then it simply justifies the statement as a statement of reality!

The Winged Wombat


Mod edit-Please read: Circumvention of censors

[edit on 4/15/2008 by Cuhail]

reply to post by _Del_


_Del_

In that case to maintain both the upgraded Collins capability and another asset to do the same thing would be duplication and therefore wasteful and the windfall should be to the taxpayer.

If the proposed new asset is actually required then a submission should be made to the taxpayer (the government) for that asset, regardless of the moving of the task or saving as the case may be.

If you are saying that it may take a combination of changes to assets to maintain the capability, then so be it, but that is a function for the services to propose to the government, and the government will look at the financial implications - at least that's the way it's supposed to work.

The point is that the services don't have a right to the money, because it isn't their money, it's the taxpayer's money, and if there is a saving to be had, it is the taxpayer's saving, not money that should be reassigned to something that there isn't already a requirement for.

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 15/4/08 by The Winged Wombat]

SO what exactly are you suggesting that the F-111's be replaced with? Or are you advocating that the RAAF abandon the mission the Varks performed untill the F-35's are ready? Or should other airframes been selected?

I understand your pissed about the politcal aspects (as you indicated in other threads) but what exactly is your solution to the matter?

I can agree with that. And I would say you would probably need both to replace the long range strike capability of the F-111's, but I don't set policy goals for Australia.

FredT and _Del_,

While I'll readily admit that I am not currently at the forefront of the classified details of individual platforms, I have mentioned elsewhere that there was possibly a window of opportunity to obtain a very nice deal on an F-15 based platform, but that window may well have closed by now. I noted this window on the basis that other nations in the region obviously (by their orders) regard the F-15 in it's currently offered form to be a suitable strike platform. In this regard I am looking at cost/effectiveness rather than pure high tech leading edge capability. But if the F-15 based package comes closer to the F-111's capabilities than SH, then I believe we should be heading in that direction.

If, as Willard maintains there is a possible AA shortfall, then this is entirely different matter which has not even been presented to the Australia public - to extend that on to possible purchases of Growler seems to be totally negating any checks and balances within the acquisition system.

I am of the general opinion that Australia should not abandon the capabilities afforded by the F-111 nor accept a reduction in those capabilities.

So, as _Del_ mentioned, the solution is probably a combination of assets for both RAAF and RAN to maintain the capability.

With regard to the F-35 itself, that's a different matter. The arguments regarding single vs twin engined aircraft continue as ever and are no less valid than they ever were, and I tend toward supporting the twin engined argument. How the F-35 compares in capability (in customer form) to the capabilities of the F-111 (and therefore Australia's requirement) remains to be seen.

The F-22 as an option, is not really in our hands, and is dependent upon the US Congress, but once again, nobody has yet even officially discussed what the capabilities of a 'customer' FB-22 might be, so it is impossible to even form an opinion there - other than to say that from the single / twin perspective the F-22 would make a far better replacement for our F/A-18s than the single engined F-35.

Just about anything else is pure conjecture, but as you say, I am mightily pissed about how the taxpayer has been treated here and the attitude (apparently from a serving member - God, I wish I was still writing assessments) that as long as the RAAF knows what it's doing (make that tells us that it knows what it's doing - which they have failed to do publicly) then the taxpayers can go screw themselves.

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 16/4/08 by The Winged Wombat]

One thing I have not seen is an acutally cost for keeping the F-111's in service. I admit I have not really stayed on top of the issue.

If the military wanted the F-15 (or the civilian leaders) it can still be had. In fact if anything Boeing should/would be pushing the F-15 not the F-18 which has several more years of navy production.

Well, yes, Fred, the fact that Australia might have been in an advantageous situation regarding F-15, and that Boeing needed a customer to re-establish confidence in the product (with the USAF crashes) was something that I discussed at the time.

With regard to the F-111, the original controversy was partly that the RAAF (at the time) believed that the F-111 could be maintained until the F-35 arrived, but that the Minister disagreed and bought the SHs.

The change of government resulted in an inquiry which validated the SH purchase, partly on the basis that the decommissioning of the F-111s was already underway and it would incur additional, un-justifiable expense to reverse that situation. Willard maintains that these things were coincidental and had no bearing on the SH purchase at all.

So whatever one may feel about the original assessment by the minister that the F-111s could not be maintained, one must accept that the situation has moved along and that maintaining them it is no longer an option. A bit like the old TSR.2 / Avro Arrow situation of destroying the jigs.

Also, of course, while The F-111s may well have originally been maintainable, as Willard quite rightly points out, the aircraft is past its prime and may well have difficult fulfilling its role in the current battlefield environment.

The Winged Wombat



[edit on 16/4/08 by The Winged Wombat]

The F-15 line is set to expire next year with the fulfillment of the Korean order, is it not? The F-15E would be intriguing as a choice to replace the F-111, but with a quick search I found this article, which makes me think there may be more to the SH acquisition than waiting for the JSF. Perhaps they are going to go with the block 3 SH until a JSF successor is ready as Boeing hints?

"The [Navy] C-version of the F-35 doesn't buy you a lot that the Super Hornet doesn't provide," says Bob Gower, Boeing's vice president for F/A-18 and EA-18G programs. "Our strategy is to create a compelling reason for the services to go to the next [sixth] generation platform. How do you bridge F/A-18E/F to get us there? We want to convince customers to stay with [Super Hornet] a few years longer -- by adding advanced capabilities and lowering price -- so that they can get to the sixth generation faster. If you go to JSF first, it's going to be a long time."

www.aviationweek.com.../6THG013008.xml&headline=Boeing%20Plans%20Sixth%20Generation%20Fighter%20With%20Block%203%20Su per%20Hornet&channel=defense