Forum: Program and politics

Keeping the sting in our skies
July 8, 2012 / Sydney Morning Herald

"Years behind schedule and way over-budget, will the Joint Strike Fighter turn out to be a disaster for Australia?"

Not much new news, but a credible summation of what is at stake:

"One of Australia's best-informed JSF watchers, Australian Strategic Policy Institute analyst Andrew Davies, accepts there is no viable alternative to the JSF, but says the fact the strategic locus has shifted from the Middle East towards the Pacific makes the JSF even less attractive than previously.

The F-35 has a significantly shorter range than Australia's previous tactical strike jet, the now-retired F-111. Australia's F-111 variant had a combat radius - the range within which a plane can effectively fly, engage a target, and then return to base - of 2140 kilometers. The JSF Australia will buy has a range of just 1080 kilometres. While the shorter range may work in the Middle East, when flying the shorter distances between base and target, operations in the Pacific will inevitably involve greater distances.

In response, Defence said the F-35 is capable of mid-air refuelling, which extends its range, but the F-111 is similarly capable, meaning the JSF is still a shorter range jet than its predecessor.

And while countries such as Israel and South Korea - both of which have expressed an interest in the jet - may need its ''stealthy strike'' capability, it is unlikely Australia will.

Defence maintains the JSF's other capabilities will ensure Australia is not only capable of exerting its middle power status in the region, but will provide the best defence money can buy for the Australian people. Of course, Defence would say that.

As Andrew Davies said in a 2011 assessment of the F-35 program: ''The government [needs] to take a hardheaded look at the situation. And it shouldn't rely on Defence for dispassionate advice - their answer will remain 'F-35', pretty much independent of the question.''"

http://www.smh.com.au/national/keeping- ... z1zxjwwHVb

F-16.net Sponsor

So... they're not getting the F-22 and the F-111s have been buried. Does Dylan Welch have an alternative in mind, or is he just complaining?

With all due respect the F-111 is a bomber not a fighter even though it has an "F" designation. Also, while the F-111 may have a great operational range, the notion that the bomber will always get thru went out the window in WWII.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_bomber_will_always_get_through

The question to ask is, why is range needed but not stealth? If striking targets somewhere else isn't a requirement than the F-111's range performance wouldn't be needed either...

I thought the F-35 was to replace RAAF's F-18 fleet? What's the combat range of the F/A-18? So why all the focus in this opinion piece on the F-111 then? Yet, if the Super Hornet was the wrong interim replacement for the F-111, one should debate the Super?

I personally thought that RAAF should have selected an F-15SG-type over the SH to replace the F-111, if the F-111 was definitely going to be retired. Better speed and range. So I don't think the real issue is not whether the F-35 is more capable than the F/A-18, but rather if it's the most cost-effective and most reliable next-gen RAAF platform.

Whether or not he has an alternative in mind, a valid complaint is a valid complaint. Even if no plane that's really quite ideal for Australia's purposes is or ever will be available, that wouldn't make any of the existing options better than they are.

Pacific flights bring another issue to mind for me, in addition to range: weapon types and total payload. Anything Australia finds out it needs to do in that region is likely to involve ships, and anti-ship weapons tend to be big & heavy, which makes them trouble for fighters to carry. But when you want more range & payload than most fighters have, you're looking at something more like a bomber, not necessarily a fighter anymore.

If I were in a position to make any difference, I'd tell them to make the USA an offer for some of the B-1s it's not using, get the "B-1R" engine & radar, and follow up for their eventual replacement by either getting permission to buy NGBs or going straight to Boeing (which now owns what was once Rockwell) for development of a new export version/derivative of B-1: smaller, with no external hardpoints and about two thirds of the internal payload (that's still 50000 pounds!), with fixed swept wings and whatever radar signature improvements can be made.

delvo wrote:

If I were in a position to make any difference, I'd tell them to make the USA an offer for some of the B-1s it's not using, get the "B-1R" engine & radar, and follow up for their eventual replacement by either getting permission to buy NGBs or going straight to Boeing (which now owns what was once Rockwell) for development of a new export version/derivative of B-1: smaller, with no external hardpoints and about two thirds of the internal payload (that's still 50000 pounds!), with fixed swept wings and whatever radar signature improvements can be made.

At the risk of re-opening the old can of worms, that is essentially what the original APA proposal with re-lifed F-111s was about, except of course with F-111s instead of B-1s. We already had the skill base and the experience with the aircraft to do much of the work and there were plenty of spares still at AMARC which could be had for a song.

The Australian Government decided "all the way with JSF" instead.

Scorpion82 wrote:

The question to ask is, why is range needed but not stealth? If striking targets somewhere else isn't a requirement than the F-111's range performance wouldn't be needed either...

Indeed, this is why the USAF retired the B-52s.

jeffb wrote:

Indeed, this is why the USAF retired the B-52s.

???

Going for irony, missed by a country mile apparently.

Scorpion asked the question "why is range needed and not stealth?" the implication being that range without stealth isn't going to do you much good. My reply goes to the fact that not all your aircraft need to be stealthy and that the need for stealth varies across the range of missions an aircraft might perform. Also that low cost, high payload, long range/persistence aircraft are far more cost effective for pounding on the bad guys once you cleared away enemy air defences.

jeffb wrote:

Indeed, this is why the USAF retired the B-52s.

The B-52Gs were retired due to START treaty, but the B-52Hs remain in service.

The B-52H aircraft are upgraded to drop a large number of precision bombs onto a target. A strike fighter doesn't carry nearly the bomb load of a B-52

Dylan Welch is just complaining. Even if the F111 did not retire in 2010, its survability as Oz's primary strike platform against reasonably well equiped foes in the Pacific in the 2020s is questionable, even with a Package Q style strike package. Perhaps Mr Welch thinks we should be buying J20s intead (if they work) :p. To be fair, Oz MOD should invest in good cruise missiles, anti ship missiles and a submarine force that does not spend half its time in port. Air Sea battle is where it is going to be at in the Pacific.

If range is a big issue for Australia, what about tankers?

geogen wrote:

I thought the F-35 was to replace RAAF's F-18 fleet? What's the combat range of the F/A-18? So why all the focus in this opinion piece on the F-111 then? Yet, if the Super Hornet was the wrong interim replacement for the F-111, one should debate the Super?

RAAF's intent with F-35A is to buy enough to equip 3 Sqn, 75 Sqn, 77 Sqn, 2nd Operational Conversion Unit (2 OCU) and have a maintenance pool of jets and developmental jets to be allocated to AOSG in the initial stages. These units currently fly F/A-18A/B Hornets. The required number of jets to do this is 72 aircraft.

Later on they are looking at F-35A as the most likely replacement for 1 and 6 Sqn's Super Hornets, though this requirement is not set in stone. The Super Hornets may remain, may be replaced by F-35A or may be replaced by some other platform (UCAV's for instance).

The indicative RAAF preference at the current time, remains F-35A for this role and the numbers talked about are up to 28 (which is where our figure of 100 JSF's comes from, though it's really "up to" 100). As this requirement is beyond the initial 72 aircraft order, many things will undoubtedly come to pass before this eventuates, so F-35A may not remain the F-111 replacement choice.

The Super Hornets have replaced the F-111's already, so if one wants to discuss the merits of F-111 replacements, then one should consider the Super Hornet rather than the F-35A. F-35A may replace the Super Hornets, but as explained, they may not either. It's too far out from that decision to try to guess what it might be. I would suggest that the current "phasing out" date of 2023 for the Super Hornets will be pushed back at an absolute minimum, given the proclivity (or lack thereof) of our current and likely future Governments to invest in defence.

Quote:

I personally thought that RAAF should have selected an F-15SG-type over the SH to replace the F-111, if the F-111 was definitely going to be retired. Better speed and range. So I don't think the real issue is not whether the F-35 is more capable than the F/A-18, but rather if it's the most cost-effective and most reliable next-gen RAAF platform.

It was looked at. But it was $30m per plane dearer to acquire, required far greater investment in training and support and overall only gave us a relatively minor enhancement of capability for what was only ever intended as a "bridging" fighter.

Besides, the Super Hornet Block 2 is a great strike aircraft, with a strong maritime strike capability (with Harpoon II and JSOW C1 next year or so) and that's primarily their job. The Strike Eagle was seen as less capable in that role, plus Super Hornet offers an obvious pathway to Growler capability which our Airforce is very keen on and seems to be moving forward.

As the cost for Super Hornet was $6.6 billion for 13 years, looking at $7.5b plus for an evolved F-15E variant, which couldn't be delivered in the timeframe we wanted anyway (USN gave us some of their programmed aircraft from their existing build to enable us to stand up our capability quicker), was never going to be a starter.

On top of which, we seem to prefer working with the US Navy rather than the USAF for some reason...

count_to_10 wrote:

If range is a big issue for Australia, what about tankers?

We've got 5 KC-30A MRTT's (A330 based) tankers on order, our Super Hornets have the normal buddy refueling capability and our Government is considering expanding the number of tankers we are operating.

We're also moving heavily towards longer range standoff munitions with Phase 1 programs already acquired AGM-158 JASSM and AGM-154C/C1 JSOW. Further phases are looking to acquire the -ER variants of those weapons as they become available.

With Super Hornet, refuelling capability and JSOW we actually have a longer strike range than we did with F-111 operating unrefuelled in the air (as we had no boom capable refuellers) but don't mention that to those still wistfully looking back at F-111.

They get terribly upset when current air power professionals dare to suggest our airpower is actually significantly enhanced today, compared to the heady days of when 1 and 6 Sqn between them were able to generate a whopping 7 combat coded F-111's (not all of which were Pavetack, Havenap or LGB capable) for the defence of Australia and her interests on a day to day basis...

The F-111 has a longer range but what good is that if it lights up like a Christmas tree on radar in the era of double-digit SAMs? That's not to mention it's rather rudimentary air-to-air capability.

Forum: Program and politics

Australian opinion piece on JSF