RAAF may halve F-35 purchase

[Trigger]

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

where's that raptor driver at?

I always wondered that myself........how they can justify a "high/low mix" concept when the low part of the mix (F-35) has generally the same weapons load in air to ground stealth mode as the high part of the mix (F-22).......

something has gotta give folks..........I expect the next 6-12 months to be very interesting.

Well, now hold the phone here. There are some things that the Viper is better at and better suited for than the Eagle and vice versa. That's what you do with your equipment - play on their strengths and that's why the High/Low mix concept has worked so well for the Air Force and the Navy (first with the F-14/F-18 and now the SuperBug/Bug mix). There's no reason to expect that concept to go away anytime soon. And don't go dogging the Hi/Low mix concept too much - there are quite a few Boeing products in there! :)

I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and maybe Murph or Waco can either confirm or correct me; the F-35 will be running to the end zone while the F-22 is playing defensive tackle. Kinda like how the F-15/16 mix is doing it these days. Now, some targets will be better defended than others and if the F-22 is more survivable against those, then that's what will be used (kinda like how the F-117 is used right now). If the X-45C is better suited for some targets, then that'll be used.

All this talk of UCAVs replacing manned fighters right now sounds a lot like the arguments in the late 50s/early 60s that missles had replaced the gun. Yeah, that idea turned out real keen...

[ross blackford]

Hi everyone,

I do believe the gun will be included in any near future fighter. From reading the threads on this subject, not only this one but many others as well it seems that the most popular opinion is that neither missiles or UCAV's are yet reliable enough to make the pilot or the gun redundant. I think what Australia needs is a fighter with capability to carry both and pilots trained to use them both to the greatest effect.

I have also made a small observation about multi-role aircraft. There have been precious few successful military multirole types and those that were, were mostly originally designed with one purpose in mind. A few examples: Mosquito, Spitfire/Seafire series, Ju 88, Messerscmitt Bf 110, Lockheed P38, P-51 Mustang, Yak-9, (yes there was a light bomber version with an internal weapons bay), Petlyakov Pe-2, Tupolev Tu-2 and various birds in the jet era. There have been a number of aircraft that were designed from the outset as "multirole" types but these have mostly (NB not always, but mostly) resounding flops in all their intended roles.

This is something that a country with such a large land mass and small population as Australia needs to keep in mind when ordering a new fighter type. As Mike has said the RAAF has a distinct preference for 2 engines after our experiences with single engined fighters. In talking to serving RAAF fighter pilots I can't see that preference changing any time soon. In 1990 we sadly lost the CO of 3 SQN in a midair collision with an other Hornet in the Tindall training area. When the wreckage of his bird was located the next day, the recovery team set out immediately. It took them 3 days to get to where his body lay still strapped into the seat. And 3 days to recover the body back to Tindall. That's the sort of tiger country we're talking about here, and most of our land mass is like that. In the 1960's we lost a Mirage about 50 miles from where I sit right now up around the Barrington area. No trace has ever been found of that bird, so as well as vast desert we also have thick forest. Not exactly the types of country where you can really rely on one engine.

Anyway, just some thoughts to think about.

Cheers,

Ross.

[GreyGhost]

The same way they justified it with the F-15 and F-16.

Regards,

Murph

The F-35 will be more of a bomb truck as the F-22 will be flying CAP missions ...

Gregg

[Capricorn]

Hi Mike,

To all those who are posting things political, let's remember that this thread has already been locked down once and it was only due to Mike's efforts that it was reopened.

To our overseas readers this is ultimately a matter for us aussies to sort out for ourselves, and if the politicians and Their Airships make the wrong decision we will let them know in about 18 months time. I have learned not offer an opinion about other countries' problems or issues facing that country because I am not there and thus my opinion on the matter is irrelevant to situation at hand.

Cheers,

Ross.

I apologize for being intrusive. I fully understand that your Aussies will sort these thing for yourself, thats natural. On the other hand this is a global forum, highlightning how "local" international changes are. Too give you a few example, contraction of military forces is a topic in all western countries, securtity problems facing the world is more international than national and the rising cost of technology is facing all military forces more or less evenly.

Here in Europe we have been through a layered reduction in fighters for the last 10 years. Some my end up with force levels of 30% of their former glory. The original Australian decision to replace the structure (F-111, F/A-18) one by one are simply history in much of the world. "My own"airforce may end up with as little as 24 fighters in 10 years time, thats in a country bordering the former "empire of the evils"and with huge and contested oil and gas resources. So I think we are all gaining in being a little intrusive and learning from each other.

From the political side: Both of your current figthers are products of hugely contested political processes. The F-111 from McNamaras innovations in systems managment, standarisation and program budgeting. The F-18 stems from he uproar of the "fighter mafia" inside the USAF, leading to the lightweigth concept, adopted as the high low mix and finally taken up by the USN as the F/A-18 and exported to Australia.

So "politics" is an organic part of all technology and political desicions are taken at all levels, by scientist, by generals, in staffs and in red tape infested buracracies. Not only by politicians, as I guess you are tired of. Its in fact a complex and interactive web affecting everything from doctrines, roles and missions, cost, radars, engines, turn rates down too the paint scheme and camoflage. So REAL AIRCRAFT without it is UNREAL AIRCRAFTS.

I see no reason why these topics can not be blended into this forums where's natural, without risking shutting down. Contrary I think it will enrich ARC as a serious forum.

Edited January 7, 2006 by Capricorn

[ross blackford]

;) So what people seem to be saying is that we were to replace 110 fighters and bombers with what are basically 100 bombers (probably now only 50). Ahm, excuse me but where does our air defence component come in? What do we do for that? I doooon't think so. I'm afraid all the overseas armchair "experts" have yet to convince us that this is the way to go on this score, and most of you know my thoughts on experts et al. For those who don't, the old old adage goes "An expert is a drip under pressure."

Yes Capricorn, I know only too well how much politics gets in the road of a good product. In the mid 1980's the RAAF was scouting around for a new trainer to replace the CT-4. The spec was set out and design proposals called. At the time the government of the day wanted an Australian aircraft and it was indeed an Aussie type that was chosen. This bird was named the Wamira. It progressed to mock up stage and the prototype was under construction, then the RAAF jibbed at the cost. They thought they could get it a couple of hundred thousand dollars per unit cheaper if someone designed a crash proof conventional seat for it. In those days such things were only being thought about. So on and on the argument went between the RAAF and the AAC (the designers). It had everything else the RAAF wanted, side by side seating, good rollover protection, turbine power, good climb rate and a phenomenal turn radius, a good turn of speed, local manufacture and ease of maintenace built in right from the start. Unfortunately as this argument went on and AAC tried to give Their Airships what they wanted they wasted over $6M of taxpayers money doing so, more than the cost of ejection seats for the whole fleet.

In the end the Defence Minister stepped in and canned the whole program. I can't to this day understand why he just didn't tell Their Airships to pull their heads in, you'll bloody well get a Wamira with ejection seats whether you like it or not. The resulting PC-9 program has been successful to a point but the RAAF didn't get side by side seating. Let's hope that when it comes time to replace the PC-9s far more common sense will rule the day.

Cheers,

Ross.

[Jim Barr]

So what people seem to be saying is that we were to replace 110 fighters and bombers with what are basically 100 bombers (probably now only 50). Ahm, excuse me but where does our air defence component come in? What do we do for that?

Ross

You seem to equate the F-35 with bomber, when it is a multi-role aircraft where the "F" does apply, unlike say the F-111 or F-117, the same as your current F/A-18s which is handling your air defense at this time. One of the specs laid out for the JSF is for it to be just as agile as an F-16. To debate if the F-35 will handle your deep strike role I can see, to debate if 50 aircraft will meet your requirements is also valid, but to say that the F-35 will not have the capacities to cover your air defense role as well as your F/A-18s is not in question IMHO.

Regards

Jim Barr

Edited January 8, 2006 by Jim Barr

[ross blackford]

Hi Jim,

Yes, I see what you mean. Perhaps I didn't express it so well. I think I have a concern about combat aircraft that are designed from the outset as multi role types and I often wonder if we have really come that far. That's the doubt in my mind. The F/A 18 was originally designed as a light weight interceptor, but like many other types before it, it has developed into a true multi-role type. A few examples of aircraft that were designed originally as multi-rolers and were total flops would be the Fairey Barracuda, Messerschmitt Me 210/410 series. I know there were also a number of jets on both sides of the fence during the cold war that came into this category but I can't think of any of them right now.

Cheers,

Ross.

[changa]

:D Hi everyone,

In the 1960's we lost a Mirage about 50 miles from where I sit right now up around the Barrington area. No trace has ever been found of that bird, so as well as vast desert we also have thick forest. Not exactly the types of country where you can really rely on one engine.

Anyway, just some thoughts to think about.

Cheers,

Ross.

Ross,

That Mirage (A3-52, flown by Marty Susans) was found 12-18 months after the crash, a farmer came across it after a fire had gone through the area

Changa

[phantom works]

Well, now hold the phone here. There are some things that the Viper is better at and better suited for than the Eagle and vice versa. That's what you do with your equipment - play on their strengths and that's why the High/Low mix concept has worked so well for the Air Force and the Navy (first with the F-14/F-18 and now the SuperBug/Bug mix). There's no reason to expect that concept to go away anytime soon. And don't go dogging the Hi/Low mix concept too much - there are quite a few Boeing products in there!

I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and maybe Murph or Waco can either confirm or correct me; the F-35 will be running to the end zone while the F-22 is playing defensive tackle. Kinda like how the F-15/16 mix is doing it these days. Now, some targets will be better defended than others and if the F-22 is more survivable against those, then that's what will be used (kinda like how the F-117 is used right now). If the X-45C is better suited for some targets, then that'll be used.

All this talk of UCAVs replacing manned fighters right now sounds a lot like the arguments in the late 50s/early 60s that missles had replaced the gun. Yeah, that idea turned out real keen...

the orginal idea of a "high/low mix" was to pay mucho bucko's for a "high end" fighter like the F-15 and the F-14 and then pay less money for more of a "low end" fighter like the F-16 and F-18. It was more of an economical thing that anything else......and the original F-16 and F-18 were very austere compared to what the weapons systems has evolved into with the advanced "and up" models that are being built today. When the F-15E came along, it was definitely quite "higher" on the mix than the F-16. In the first gulf war, the F-16 was restricted to multiple refuelings and dumb bomb or cluster bomb attacks without any PGM, while the F-15E was the deep strike PGM platform (along with the 117 and 111) The original F-16 had no BVR, and no PGM capability, fairly short range, no internal ECS.....etc, etc, etc. So it definitely was a "low" part of the "high/low mix"........for a time, it could be generalized that an F-15E cost twice as much as an F-16, but gave the customer twice the capabilities, range, PGM, bombload, etc, etc............after LM began to really update the F-16 up to the latest versions for UAE, Greece, and Israel....one can no longer generalize the F-15 vs F-16 cost vs capabilities...........the F-16 "and up's" range, bombload, PGM, internal ECS, etc, etc make it probably 2/3rds as capable as today's F-15 "and ups"....this certainly might explain why the F-16 has beat the F-15 in UAE, second Israeli, greece, etc.......

The original F-18 was fairly well forced onto the navy, and was never the aircraft they really wanted or needed, which, along with the demise of the A-12 was the reason for the E/F model. The early F-18's never had the range, bombload or bringback capability that the Navy required. The navy story isn't as much of a "high/low mix" story as it is an "oh wow, we've screwed around for a decade and lost our deep stealth striker and consequently given our mission up to the air force.......and oh by the way our airframes are all used up and what are we going to do now" kind of story....

Now, to say the F-22 and F-35 meet any kind of "high/low mix" philosophy is a true stretch.........for the money, the F-35 is more than half as capable as the F-22 and for a true "high low mix" don't you think in today's world the high end of the mix should at least carry more A/G weapons than the low end? (in stealthy configuration)........if you're going to pay a high cost for something shouldn't it be worth the money compared to the low end of the mix? And of course the way things seem to be headed, before too long the mix is going to be more like a "high/almost as high mix" in terms of cost.

Edited January 9, 2006 by phantom works

[Rapier01]

So you're saying that you can predict the future and say definitively that the A/G mission will take precendence? What about IADS? The Raptor is far superior in dealing with that threat with it speeds/altitude/stealth capabilities. Launching SDBs from 60 000ft and Mach 1.9 surely has some value to you?

[phantom works]

no, I'm saying the idea of the F-22 and F-35 being a "high-low mix" in the traditional sense of the word is pure fantasy........

[ross blackford]

Hi Changa,

Firstly, your nick name rings a bell. It may well be that I stand corrected on that score, as I was still in school at that time. One of my cousins is married to an ex-sumpy from Gloucester and she herself grew up at Marshdale, just out of Dungog and I remember him telling me about it, but that may have been during that 12-18 month period. In later years I don't recall him ever mentioning it again, even though we were at 486 together for a while in the mid -70's.

Changa is a name I heard around the traps a bit during my time, but I can't put a face to the name. However, even if the wreckage was found I still think it validates my point, that inhospitable country like that is no place to be tooling around in the tree tops when you only have one donk. Once at Willytown I saw an older group captain (Canberra staff type) out one day for a low level navex in that area. When he returned he was in shock. He looked like he had seen a ghost and when I told him so his reply was "Yes, I did, me." He was apparently looking down at his chart and when he looked up there was a hill right in front of him. He didn't know how he avoided it but somehow managed to.

Anyway this whole thread will most likely become academic if the Brits pull out. I should say that will be the end of the whole shooting match, well for Australia at least.

Cheers,

Ross.

Edited January 10, 2006 by ross blackford

[Jim Barr]

...if the Brits pull out. I should say that will be the end of the whole shooting match.

I really don't think they will pull out as it is over the amount of technology transfer and not capabilities etc, although I am sure they like everybody else is keeping an eye of the cost issue; so IMHO in the end it will be resolved, not to everyone’s complete satisfaction but a compromise will be reached. However if they did actually pull out I am sure there are some people who would say (under their breath) “Alrightâ€, not because they would want to see them go but it would for sure kill the STOVL variant and that is the big drag on the program, has been from the very beginning, and as they probably would not get any of the money back that they have already invested they would have helped pay for the development up to that point. The big loser would be the Marines who are really married to the STOVL.

Regards

Jim Barr

Edited January 10, 2006 by Jim Barr

[ross blackford]

:D Hi Jim,

I have edited my post to better reflect what I meant to say earlier.

Changa,

I have now remembered. If I'm not mistaken you recently co-authored a book on the Miarge in RAAF service with motty. Am I not correct on that point? If i'm not then I stand corrected on that issue as well.

Cheers,

Ross.

[hatchet]

{...}In the first gulf war, the F-16 was restricted to multiple refuelings and dumb bomb or cluster bomb attacks without any PGM, while the F-15E was the deep strike PGM platform (along with the 117 and 111) The original F-16 had no BVR, and no PGM capability, {...}

As I understand it, the lack of PGMs on the Vipers in DS was mainly due to insufficient targeting pods in theatre. I can't comment on your other points.

So, what are other nations considering? Well, here in Denmark, the Gripen is being looked into. So is the Typhoon apparently, but I'll believe THAT when I see it! I guess the Rafale is being looked at too, but I doubt that'll go anywhere.

For Australia, in my opinion as a layman, the Strike Eagle is the best option. It's a capable, multi-role platform, that I believe would be suited to do both A2A and A2G missions. Yank off the pods, and for all intents and purposes you have a FAST-pack equipped F-15D, but with more capable avionics. I suppose the fact that the backseater is more than a passenger lowers the workload too.

For multi-role ac, with one exception that i can think of, it appears that planes designed for air superiority are often good multi-role platforms, but tactical bombers don't make very good air superiority machines. The Phantom was designed as a stand-off missile carrier for the US Navy, but it dropped a lot of iron in Vietnam, the Eagle, designed for air superiority, is good at moving mud in the E version and the Viper, designed as a cheap day fighter, outscored everything else in the first (IIRC) NATO tactical bombing competition it attended. The F-111 hasn't done too well in the air superiority arena.

Oh, the possible exception would be the Tornado :)

:)

[changa]

;) Hi Jim,

I have edited my post to better reflect what I meant to say earlier.

Changa,

I have now remembered. If I'm not mistaken you recently co-authored a book on the Miarge in RAAF service with motty. Am I not correct on that point? If i'm not then I stand corrected on that issue as well.

Cheers,

Ross.

yep, that is me, Paul "Changa" Mason, author (with Motty) of the RAAF Mirage book, authorised Mirage nut, although I work on Hornets.

Point taken about the dense scrub up around the Barrigton tops/Bulahdelah area, as I said it took a bush fire to burn back the dense growth before they found that Mirage, Marty Susans was lucky he landed in one of the very few open areas so he could be picked up

changa

[ross blackford]

<_< It's been interesting to read what various prople think about this aircraft but I think that Asutralia could and should do better for our money. If we are never going to come into conflict with the USA why should we waste our time and money on something we don't need, just to have the prestige of being able to say we have the best (yet to be proven, Im afraid). Most of the arguments I have read above have been purely academic and not tested in the real world of air combat. As someone above has said you can bet the Russians aren't sitting on their hands. No nation has an unlimited amount of money to spend on defence and as I've said before with our vast area and tiny population we need something cheaper and far more than 50 or even 100 of them.

I am well aware that defence budgets around the world are shrinking and we are no exception. When I joined the RAAF in 1972 there were about 33,000 of us in the service and we couldn't do the job properly then. I wouldn't like to be in the service now at it's current approximate 13,000 strength. The poor boys and girls don't have a snow flakes chance in hades of doing the job properly because there just aren't enough of them or equipment. That's not to detract from their professionalism at all; and the same goes for the Army and Navy.

I agree with madmike on this one, let's ditch this bird now before it becomes any more of a millstone around Australia's neck.

Cheers,

Ross.

[Aggressor Supporter]

Saw this news and offered as such, war of the words not intentional: According to this article, Australia will not only buy 100 F-35s, but other weapons as well that will make them a very strong military force in the region.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/forces...7119007860.html

My only complaint is that they're quoting each F-35 as $160 million each. That's shouldn't be correct. Currently, they're $45 million each for the F-35 "A" model in U.S. dollars which should equate to about $59.5 million Aussie dollars each.

[BadCop]

My only complaint is that they're quoting each F-35 as $160 million each. That's shouldn't be correct. Currently, they're $45 million each for the F-35 "A" model in U.S. dollars which should equate to about $59.5 million Aussie dollars each.

Maybe that price includes support equipment, training, upgrade of airfield facilities, and participation in planned upgrade programs?

[Aggressor Supporter]

Maybe that price includes support equipment, training, upgrade of airfield facilities, and participation in planned upgrade programs?

If that is so, then the author of that article needs to clarify that as such. The way it is written is misleading.

[ross blackford]

:D Hi Raptor Supporter,

It may be misleading to you but we Aussies are used to seeing such quotes for defence equipment. I have seen quotes as high as A$200M per unit. That's the main reason I don't support the F-35; nor am I a Raptor Supporter for the same reason. :)

Cheers,

Ross.

[Trigger]

warning

I don't mean to go off on a rant here, but, given that Mr. Walker uses the terms "shopping slurge" (v : To spend extravagantly or wastefully.) in the headline, "spending splurge" and "spending spree" (n : a brief period of extravagant spending) in the text and twice states the F-35 will cost $160M per unit, much less $200M per unit ( :huh: Not even the F-22 is as expensive as either of those numbers); oh and still thinks MDD builds the C-17... Not only has he not bothered to do research 101, he's obviously slanted in his writing - he has an opinion on the matter, and he wants you to share it too. He doesn't see any foreign threats to Australia's national security so he doesn't understand why the new equipment has to be so expensive. He's really sloppy at it. He's found the absolute highest number possible from his "sources" (other articles from other writers) and he's run with that. I don't mind something that's critical of defense spending as long as it is based on actual fact instead of the "it's expensive" argument. <_<

Am I hostile towards reporters? You better believe it. After repeated firsthand experiences with the press, I see them for the jackels they are. You would be amazed at how much they alter people's statements and, yes, even make stuff up just to paint the picture they want. So regardless of the content of the article, I'm always skeptical of it and look to read between the lines as well as read other sources and do my own research.

And I don't mean to knock the Australian press, we have the same types of press here. They'll question why everything costs so much, but when a Black Hawk crashes in Iraq, they'll turn around and wonder aloud if our soldiers don't have the newest and best equipment (as what happened on ABC last week).

[ross blackford]

Hi Trigger 74,

Any new military equipment these days always seems to suffer from cost overruns and blow outs of one kind or another. Taking the lower of the figures quoted, that would be the estimated cost in real terms in today's Australian dollars, including spares, training and all the other infrastructure improvements that woould be necessary to support the F-35. What if there is for some reason a recession occurs here and our dollar slides again. With various pieces of legislation having been passed here (and for the sake of harmony in the forum I won't go into them) I can see that occurring somewhere not too far down the track.

What do we do then? We then have fewer dollars to spend on anything imported, let alone a very expensive military item which has suddenly become even more expensive. The current estimate for a Su-30 (let's for argument sake call it the Su-30MKA [Australia]) is A$50M per unit with all the extras included.

That gives us 3 times as many and some change to spend on civilian infrastructure, which Lord knows we badly need in this country, like major upgrades to our major highways and main railway lines, health and policing. There are hospitals within a couple of hundred miles of here that have no heating for winter and no cooling for summer. Even our local major hospital is not airconditioned throughout, although the admin block and library are, many of the wards are not and don't have opening windows. During the recent heat wave temperatures in some wards there got to 45-46 deg. C with no relief and a bush fire burning right up to the external wall of the hospital.

So you see there is a body of opinion rising in Australia that we cannot afford these things and for this next generation of fighters we might have to make do with something less expensive but still very capable. As I have said before the capabilities of the F-35 vis a vis the Su-30 have yet to be proven so the argument is really all academic until they are tested one against the other. In all the discussions I have read here and in other forums about the F-35 and F/A-22 it has begun to sound like the old argument between two young boys. My toy is better than yours. It cost a lot more so it must be. In other words to me it's starting to sound like a status thing. Sorry, but status doesn't interest me. Tactical capabilities, and now do interest me.

Cheers,

Ross.

[Trigger]

Ross

I don't know how funds are distributed in Australia, so I'll bow to your better knowledge. You've got a perfectly good reason for questioning what your Defense Department is spending your tax dollars on, and the reporter should have made an attempt to learn and report more about the capabilities of all those systems to go in his article. There's another old argument: a new piece of equipment is really just "an expensive new toy" and it's just as much of a cliche as the "keeping up with the joneses" argument you referenced. Your wanting to know tactical capabilities is a great thing - it sounds like you know the difference between "value" and "price." The writer of the article wasn't giving you that credit; he only told you one side of the story, and that's the beef I have.

All the negative press I've read on the Raptor has focused on the cost. All the positive press I've read has focused on it's capabilities. I'm saying this as an example, not as a method to persude you. If when the facts come out about the F-35, and you think that the F-15E, F/A-18E, Typhoon or Grippen will do the job you need - then fine (I'll be real surprised if y'all go with the SU-30).

I totally foresee some nations dropping out of the JSF program (I won't say who they are) - it's costs have increased and the first one hasn't flown yet. We won't know it's capability soon enough however and that puts a lot of pressure on both those that seek and those that approve funding. Australia's got to look out for herself.

[ross blackford]

:D Hi trigger 74,

I agree mate, I agree.

Cheers,

Ross.