Review into Australia's Air Combat Capability

And here is the actual media release for those interested...

Media release: POOR AIR POWER PLANNING EXPOSED BUT SUPER HORNET TO STAY

This has been stated other places and maybe here as well, but, the S-H isn't being bought as an F-111 replacement but as a hedge against any continued delays to the JSF program which is the primary RAAF all-purpose combat aircraft of the future.

I'm sorry F-111 fans, but the Aard is getting old....and expensive....and Kopp is spinning a lot of tales. 30+ years of flying low and fast takes a heck of toll on an airplane and even one designed to do so. There is no replacement, at least known, out there for the -111 and it's future mission will be played by a mix of F-35/S-H, UCAVs, AEW, and naval assets.

This is just the new government, which played this up in the campaign season, pretty much knowing it was the most prudent action to take and making a public display for the publics' consumption in order to make themselves appear more thoughtful and responsible in the matter.

In short...........pure political BS.

reply to post by JoeinTX
Then why did the previous goverment state ad nauseam that the SH WAS being bought as an F-111 replacement? Because to have argued any less would have been tantamount to admitting that the legacy Hornet centre re-barreling wasn't a great solution or that the F-35 schedule and costing were unrealistic. And there is no way they would have ever admitted that. The irony is that this latter day "Ohh it was never meant to replace the F-111" bureaucratic goal post shifting is actually an argument that makes more sense. If only they would admit that it would make more sense to retire the 24 highest time and fatigued legacy hornets as well and saving that re-barreling money in the process, which of course wont happen.

Just saw the defence minister on the 7:30 report discussing the matter. I cant say he was very convincing. Trying to argue that it makes more financial sense to spend over 6 billion dollars on new aircraft than retain the existing F-111 for less than half that price is not a smart way to convince your taxpayers. And his rebuttals to the critics were lame at best, trying to discredit former senior officers by saying "they dont know what is what" is not an argument (even if they are wrong). Sorry nothing has changed for me on this. I have smelt mediocre bureaucratic meddling on this from day one. Sadly it looks like they won, unfortunately I always suspected they would.

LEE.

If I must accept that the F-111 'de-commissioning' is too far along to reverse, then I would have to agree that SH is probably the only airframe available in the time span to fill the gap to F-35.

That it is the ideal replacement for the F-111 I cannot agree with, as it involves loss of capability, but apparently we are now entering an era dominated by a 'fighter mafia' who believe that we must fight any future conflict on our own doorstep - by maintaining air superiority over whatever range and whatever area of our coastline SH (and later F-35) can establish. This, as a defense policy, is little more than isolationism.

I believe that it is not a wise decision to forgo the extra capabilities that the F-111 has bestowed, because a deterrent capability is more valuable (and more flexible) than being able to protect specific (and limited) airspace, but concede that there is really nothing available to us that will adequately do the job.

We will see what the ultimate decision will be regarding F-35, and that must be getting shakier as time goes on regards cost and other factors such as the single vs twin engined debate - something that doesn't appear to have been addressed as yet (from Australia's perspective).

From a combat radius perspective, F-35 will also mean a loss of capability with regard to the F-111.

Therefore, unless Australia is willing to give up the ability to strike back or to maintain a deterrent, then apparently this capability will have to be assumed by the Navy. I find it strange, to say the least that some RAAF personnel are more than happy to give up capability (any existing capability), and even stranger if the government is intending to delegate this aspect of national security responsibility to the USA.

If that's cynical, then so be it!

Does it all mean that we ultimately buy F-35, simply because that's all that is on offer, regardless of how it fits into out defense requirements or aspirations? Perhaps so, but if that's the case then we had better start building up the Navy.

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 17/3/08 by The Winged Wombat]

very very careful words chosen in the press statement - the F35 is not a certain purchase - and IMO reading between the lines , if it gets much more expensive then they will get more SH instead.

reply to post by Willard856


You may see this as cynical if you wish, but even the title of the media release reflects political priority - hit the opposition first and then tell us the decision!

Personally I don't trust politicians - any politicians - purely on their track records, of course.

The Winged Wombat

It was more to do with your earlier assertion that the decision had already been made to can the Super Hornet, and that the ACR was simply a mechanism to support this outcome.

If the gap in capability relates to our ability to defeat fourth gen + Sukhois, why would we keep the F-111? Especially if the assessment is that the F-111 wouldn't be able to penetrate far enough into hostile airspace to achieve a deep strike mission anyway? I'm baffled that people still seem to think there is some cover up going on here. We've had an independent review team, appointed by a brand new government, supported by qualified operators (including F-111 crew), with access to the latest intelligence information on adversary capabilities, and they still got it wrong? I'm not sure what it will take for people to move on from policies of the 60's, 70's and 80's.

And really, if you didn't take the time to make a public submission, you can't really complain about the outcome!

why arn`t the pigs being used in iraq or afghan anyway? get some life out of them

reply to post by Willard856


Willard,

I'm sure it won't be the last time that I will be disappointed with the actions of politicians. Unfortunately, thus far I'd have to assess the Rudd Government as 100 days - 100 committees. One can only hope that the situation improves.

Independent Review teams look at individual airframe choices and the capabilities of potential adversaries - they do not look at the geopolitical implications of losing or retaining roles and functions within our forces' capabilities.

With regard to the F-111 - it is not the airframe itself that I defend, but the function that it filled within our defensive framework. That the F-111 may no longer be able to live in the environment only reinforces that it should be replaced - with something that WILL do the job.

To relinquish the deterrent capability - if that is the way we are to go - may well change the political balance within our region, as the ability to achieve air superiority within 200nm of our coast will have no bargaining power when it comes to the sovereignty of, for instance, East Timor.

If the deterrent capability cannot be maintained by the RAAF, and it is not passed to the RAN - however that might be achieved with the same flexibility and economy as an aviation asset - then I feel that we will be making a grave error in our regional planning.

I don't actually care if we buy SH, F-35, F-22 F-15 or indeed maintain F-111 until it rusts away, each is but a tool - it is the loss of deterrent capability that I lament, both for the RAAF as an organisation, and for the country. That loss does not mean that we will suddenly be attacked on Australian soil, but it will influence what happens around us in our little corner of the globe, and that will affect us for many years to come.

It is exactly because I leave the assessment of the individual platforms to the current experts with the current data to make a wise decision as to what toys to use in the situation, that I did not make a public submission. The review had nothing to do with the retention, or otherwise, of particular role capabilities within the RAAF - that decision has apparently been made elsewhere (as indeed it should be) - therefore since my argument concerns role retention rather than platform selection, any such submission would be outside the terms of reference of the review. It is actually irrelevant to me what brand of toys you get to play with as long as they are good quality toys.

It may well be that there is no platform available to us, either politically or economically, that will maintain the capability. That does not change the implications of the loss of the capability.

So if our forces are to be reduced to playing in our own sandbox, then we, as a country will have to do the same politically and be a passenger in the future of our region and to a great extent our own destiny.

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 17/3/08 by The Winged Wombat]

I just read an article on "Air Power Australia" called "How to Destroy the Australian Defence Force" and I have to say it scared the crap out of me! Can anyone say if it is an accurate representation of the Sukhoi's capabilities and if there is any real defence against it?

I think it is a relevant article and question given the current review of our defence capabilities.

Article is found here

Then why did the previous goverment state ad nauseam that the SH WAS being bought as an F-111 replacement?


I don't know why they would have framed this purchase in that way but it's been stated in other media since this buy was announced that it was as much an insurance policy against the A/B CBU situation and potential delays with JSF delivery as an F-111 place-taker. The SH can do a lot of nice things but it can't do the things the -111 does.

JoeinTX,

They keep going on about the SH being a replacement for the F-111 because the JSF is supposed to be replacing the F-111 (and F/A-18A/B) and the SH has been purchased because the F-111s apparently won't last that long.

Therefore the SH is a direct replacement for the F-111, regardless of whether it will do what the F-111 will do or not. Like, there is certainly no F/A-18s being retired because we bought some SHs! There is no other possible reason for buying SH. Hence the controversy.

One could just as easily say that the JSF won't do what the F-111 does, but that would raise the ugly question 'Why does Australia want the JSF/F-35 in the first place?' The government makes no secret of the fact that it prefers the F-22 to F-35.

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 25/3/08 by The Winged Wombat]

Aus and Japan should get the F-22 if that fits thier defence needs. It may take a bit a time but the sale will eventually go through. Barring any other orders, the line will have to start intial shutdown soon and the USAF wants as many of the a/c as they can get and anoher buyer would stretch the line along.

Why not look to the F-15SG with AESA? Boeing is agressivly lowering the costs of its a/c to compete against the JSF and the F-22 (Perhaps).

Originally posted by FredT
Aus and Japan should get the F-22 if that fits thier defence needs.

Fred, not taking to you with my big stick, but your post seemed to set me off on an internal rant...

All this talk (mostly in the other thread) about "replacing the Pig" vs "replacing the capability" and the ideas about RAAF getting Raptors and Little Johnny Wayward's decision to put a huge $350m into the development of the JSF seems aimed at the same topic, but not for the same reasons.

No doubt WW, Waynos, theBozian and others will have a far better view of this than me, but, what jets do or don't suit nations' needs today is utterly irrelevant when it comes to the design and production of fast jets.

Jets are built to suit one customer: The DoD. (even that's not true, they're built to suit one customer: the Armed Services Senate Committee!)

All other customers are given no thought until the thing is in the air and in service and some ally puts his cap out and says "My F16/F5/F15s are getting a bit old, please sir, can I have some more?"

The JSF is designed to suit the operating range of a defence force that owns the world's largest supply of carriers (take your runway with you) and aerial tankers.

Not for the world's largest island-nation with the world's largest coastline to defend and some of the world's longest approach routes.

Now, my little rant doesn't happen to include Rafales, Typhoons and Gryphons, which were not built for said customer, but which, as it happens, were built with similar ranges.

As the global air-defence industry has merged, consolidated and gone broke the customer is left with an increasingly empty showroom when it comes to selecting their next purchase.

To the point where (in my esteemed opinion) nobody can offer us an aircraft which will replace the capability of the F111.

So we are left fighting over the crumbs of what is on offer because the only two aircraft that MIGHT fit the bill are off-limits as a matter of national US defence policy. Raptor is for sale to no-one and Spirit is simply out of our price range, even if it was made available.

Combat jets cost ever more money, can do ever more things, there are ever fewer models available and they fly ever shorter distances.

Jack-of-all-trades that excel at nothing and can't fly as far.

Or so it appears.

HowlrunnerIV,

Indeed this is the crux of the problem. In the US view of the universe the JSF is the replacement for both the F/A-18 (USN) and F-16 (USAF). It was never intended to replace anything in the F-111 class.

Australia is faced with the problem of replacing our 'heritage' F/A-18s and barring the availability of F-22, then F-35 would appear to be what is available. There are problems with that scenario, in that Australia (for much the same reasons as Canada) has never been interested in F-16 because it is a single engined aircraft. Just when that will raise its ugly head regarding F-35 is yet to be seen.

If Australia is to maintain the capability bestowed by the F-111, then the question arises as to just was is available to do the job.

The answer is - nothing - for the very reasons that you state - the manufacturers are not designing and building for the needs of Australia (or Canada) they are building for the USA and ignore the basic fundamentals of what other countries need. Of course the same has been the case with European designs over the years, for instance the EE Lightning would have been of no use to us due to its lack of range

FredT, if you look back through the previous thread you will find that I expounded the virtues of an upgraded F-15 quite some time ago, and the possibility of Australia getting a bargain price on it, since we would appear to be in the right place at the right time to help Boeing re-establish customer confidence in that particular product. It might not quite have the capabilities of the F-22, but could be far more suitable in maintaining more of the F-111's role. At this point in time it is yet to be decided exactly what capabilities the F-35 customer version will have, and when A2A capabilities will be available.

Therefore the SH is a direct replacement for the F-111, regardless of whether it will do what the F-111 will do or not. Like, there is certainly no F/A-18s being retired because we bought some SHs! There is no other possible reason for buying SH. Hence the controversy.

If you mean "replace" by the SH's will occupy the ramp space and inherent the personnel that the F-111 previously did, then yes they are a "replacement." Are they going to be doing the same things and performing the same missions as the F-111? No. The F-111 is a pure heavy tactical striker.........the SH is a conventional mult-role fighter-bomber.

The F-111 had not a care for air-to-air. Super Hornets will be operating as air defense units as much as strikers. Different training.....different missions.....different measures of success.

The Rhino will obviously work in the attack role.........just as the Hornet does today in the RAAF. But, it can not do the things the F-111 does and it will have a more limited role in terms of missions and profiles regarding strike.


The F-111's replacement? In literal, linear terms, yes. In terms of capability and mission planning? No, very different.



TextThey keep going on about the SH being a replacement for the F-111 because the JSF is supposed to be replacing the F-111 (and F/A-18A/B) and the SH has been purchased because the F-111s apparently won't last that long.


The F-35 is intended as a replacement for the F-16/18/AV-8B incorporating the advances in tech since their design. It is a single engine tactical all-purpose airplane but one designed to the extreme of modern tech in terms of speed, range, stealthiness, and avionics. In no way, at all, in any universe, is it an F-111 replacement. It will be a hale and hearty replacement for the A-C Hornets and a very nice complement to the Super Hornet.



In short, there is no F-111 place taker. All "replacements" are aircraft designed with different missions and roles envisioned who do different things to varying degrees of success. Modern manned combat aircraft, due to the costs involved in developing and producing them, must have the ability to do as many things as reasonably possible in order to justify their costs. There are no pure fighters or pure attack aircraft anymore......all on the market are a varied mix of the two breeds.

Australia won't have the F-111 anymore. But, it will have an evolving fleet of F-18s, Super Hornets, and F-35s combined with UAVs, the Wedgetail, and a new tanker fleet that will alter the way the RAAF conducts operations and plans missions today. Australia's awareness of impending threats and thus it's ability to react will increase.

Don't cry for the F-111................it's day is passing by. Technology in forms other than a manned airplane are passing it by.

TextAus and Japan should get the F-22 if that fits thier defence needs. It may take a bit a time but the sale will eventually go through.


I have to say, I have never really understood the Kopp-ist fetish that some Aussies have with the F-22....? It is not a great attack aircraft as it doesn't have any serious internal stores capacity and will have to carry any major load-out externally. It is inferior to the F-35 in this respect.


Australia's only potential, and at that a marginal one, threat is Indonesia with their dozen Flanker series jets. Is North Korea or China going to be launching a major strategic attack against the Oz? Why?

100 F-35s.......two dozen SHs.....Wedgetails.....KC-30s......growing naval capabilities.........who in the region is going to risk a tangle with the Aussies? Who?

Originally posted by JoeinTX

Australia's only potential, and at that a marginal one, threat is Indonesia with their dozen Flanker series jets. Is North Korea or China going to be launching a major strategic attack against the Oz? Why?

Well in that case let's just dissolve the RAAF altogether - what could a dozen Flankers possibly do to a country the size of the continental United States. What an absolute waste of taxpayer's money!

Here's some food for thought. We base our acquisitions on threat projections over, usually 5 years. In our cases (Australia and America) we are generally looking at countries which are perhaps more secretive, or less democratic than ourselves.

So it should be pretty easy to project what we might be doing in five years, shouldn't it. Yeah, right. Tell be, well informed people (with a better than 33.3% surety) who will be running the USA in, not 5 years, but 1 year!!!

When you've worked that one out, you can tell me who is going to be Prime Minister of Australia in 5 years time!

But you know what will and won't be a threat from outside Australia / America in 5 or 10 years time - sure you do.

Think about that for a minute.

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 26/3/08 by The Winged Wombat]

Actually the threat projections for capability acquisition for Australia is much further out than five years. That's why we have documents such as Force 2020, and operational concepts that consider this period of time. Will they ever be 100% correct? Of course not, but they are regularly updated, and for big ticket items such as air combat capability, it is possible to make informed assessments about what the region will look like in the future. And plan accordingly. Like buying Super Hornet...

OK, you've all convinced me that you know exactly what is and isn't going to happen over the next 10 to 20 years, and that we should shed capabilities, selectively on that basis.

Thankfully, it appears I won't be alive to test your theories.

So what's next weeks Lotto numbers?

The Winged Wombat