Forum: Program and politics

Last edited by 1st503rdsgt on Jul 08, 2012 - 09:13 PM; edited 1 time in total

icemaverick wrote:

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.

On the US side of things, this is where the truncated development of the F-22 has left us, with no viable replacement for the F-15E or F-111. Dead end; the entirety of our heavy, long-range penetration capability rests in 20 B-2s.

F-16.net Sponsor

icemaverick wrote:

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.

Avoiding SAMs really isn't the issue for the defense of the Island of Australia. So if that defense is their priority, then that's a moot point. Now if expeditionary roles supporting other allies is what they intend to use the planes for, that's another story.

As I see it, the defense of their home is likely the biggest priority in 21st century. India, China, and Indonesia all have huge populations and limited land and natural resources. Australia is just the opposite, making it a potential target in the future. Therefore, the F-18/F with its world class maritime patrolling capability and ruggedness (which is useful for landing on clandestine outback airfields) is a logical choice. Two engines is certainly better than one in this environment as well.

Delvo mentioned B-1Bs. If the USAF decides (or is forced) to retire a number of these in the next decade or so, a dozen B-1s, modernized with the best AESA suite available and the best stand-off anti-ship weapons would be a hell of a deterrent for the Aussies for the next 50 years or so. The B-1B's ability to penetrate highly defended airspace may be dissipating, but its ability to loiter for hours over the ocean (or even deep within the protection of the continent) with a huge volume of JSOW C-1 or similar anti-ship weapons is going to be viable for a long long time. A few such B-1s, supported by UAVs, satellites, and manned reconnaissance aircraft could effectively make Australia invasion proof for the foreseeable future. A lot of bang for the buck considering what they could potentially pick them up for.

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?

The F-111 is yesterdays jet. There is another term for an 'evolved' long-range strike fighter. It's called the F-14D Tomcat. It was more expensive than the F-111 to maintain because the USN didn't have the bone yard parts the F-14 to the same extent of the F-111, when in later RAAF service.

geogen wrote:

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.

The F/A-18F is one of the easiest jets to transition to, for a legacy hornet pilot. Even though the RAAF went F-111 to Super Hornet air wings, it has been under the same operational command "Air Combat Group" as the F/A-18A/Bs.

The problem with the F-15SE is that its a 1970s aircraft with upgrades. Its not revolutionary in terms of maintenance requirements or stealth performance. If they removed the add-on stealth weapons bays, keep the RCS changes, and RAM coatings, they'd still have a RCS worse than a F/A-18F.

The problem for the Pentagon and Boeing is that the 6th Gen NGB and NGAD jets air nowhere near a signed EMD contract. They do not want to loose to Lockheed again by taking their eye off the prize for 6th Gen.

I personally think that an evolved Super Hornet is the better way forward. Re-designed center barrel with internal weapons and a stretch-out to include more internal fuel. There have been concept designs for this but no firm EMD contract. If Boeing were smart, they'd do an internally funded project with minimal DoD buy-in.
This would open them up to a F-5G type scenario, but there really isn't a F-35 alternative on the market, and there sure isn't a F-22 class fighter on the market.

The PAK-FA has a RCS higher than a clean F/A-18F so its definitely not a F-22 class jet. A Rafale or a Eurofighter doesn't beat a clean F/A-18F in RCS either. This leaves a huge dent in the market for a true evolved Super Hornet.

Boeing have to decide how much they want a Block III sensor fused F/A-18F aircraft, with EODAS integrated. IMO the F/A-18(F)BR could be a 4.75th gen jet if Boeing & Brazil want it to be. A friend now with Boeing said a current Block II F/A-18F could be physically avionics upgraded to a sensor fused cockpit with EODAS for MLU upgrade without huge expense.

The RAAF can claim that the F/A-18F is a stop-gap fighter, but I believe that when the jets are back at AMARC for storage.

neurotech -

Per your claims, one might be curious as to what exactly is the frontal RCS of a SH armed with 4x AMRAAM (either by adding under-wing pylon or via some next-gen LO weapon pod), vs an F-15SG++ with standard fuselage-mounted 4x AMRAAM, in addition to the LO blockers and leading-edge LO materials?

As far as a more appropriate and overall equivalent strategic replacement for the F-111, I'd debate anyone on another thread of the merits of an F-15SG+ type solution over the Super Hornet solution any day. No contest.

As to what should replace the F/A-18 fleet... a la F-35... coming to the eventual rescue? Please come?? That's for another discussion thread too.

icemaverick wrote:

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.

That's the ironic thing. The "experts" tell us that our operational environment is so deadly, what with all the S-300, 400, 500 style SAM systems and advanced Flanker derivatives and therefore obviously the ONLY strike aircraft that can survive in such an environment is a 50 year old designed aircraft with a few off the shelf systems bolted onto it and a bit of "sheet metal bashing."

A "bit of sheet metal bashing" is the term these "experts" use to describe how easy it would have been to integrate GE F110 engines onto the F-111 platform and to design and manufacture new wings in Australia...

(Because contrary to popular opinion, we had already pilfered all the best wings available from AMARC. This little fact has always been side-stepped by the F-111 "experts".)

The truth of things is just a little too inconvenient for some.

geogen wrote:

neurotech -

Per your claims, one might be curious as to what exactly is the frontal RCS of a SH armed with 4x AMRAAM (either by adding under-wing pylon or via some next-gen LO weapon pod), vs an F-15SG++ with standard fuselage-mounted 4x AMRAAM, in addition to the LO blockers and leading-edge LO materials?

As far as a more appropriate and overall equivalent strategic replacement for the F-111, I'd debate anyone on another thread of the merits of an F-15SG+ type solution over the Super Hornet solution any day. No contest.

As to what should replace the F/A-18 fleet... a la F-35... coming to the eventual rescue? Please come?? That's for another discussion thread too.

That's just it. You are debating the wrong issue. The Super Hornet for RAAF is a bridging air combat aircraft, not a permanent solution. It is intended to supplement our aging Hornets (which with JASSM are the real F-111 strike replacement) until the permanent strike replacement solution is identified and acquired. It might be F-35, it might not as explained earlier.

Because it was an interim capability, there was one requirement that no F-15 variant could have met, regardless of how many + signs you choose to put after it's name.

That being that the chosen aircraft had to provide IOC capability by December 2010, after being ordered in May 2007. IOC being (for this aircraft) RAAF's ability to generate 12 aircraft, all systems fully functional, supporting logistics in place, training assets up and running, all weapons cleared and an approved level of warstock in place and a number of tactical exercises successfully conducted to confirm the capability meets our requirements.

The Super Hornet was the only aircraft in production able to provide new-build airframes and meet that requirement in that timeframe, as well as provide an increase in capability over our existing legacy Hornets.

GE F110 engines?

Why not F100-229 engines and save the sheet metal bashing? That would have enabled some HUGE super-cruising capability... especially with a 'cranked-delta-type' re-winged F-111 good for added 25 yr game-changing service extension! Cheers

Conan wrote:

geogen wrote:

neurotech -

Per your claims, one might be curious as to what exactly is the frontal RCS of a SH armed with 4x AMRAAM (either by adding under-wing pylon or via some next-gen LO weapon pod), vs an F-15SG++ with standard fuselage-mounted 4x AMRAAM, in addition to the LO blockers and leading-edge LO materials?

As far as a more appropriate and overall equivalent strategic replacement for the F-111, I'd debate anyone on another thread of the merits of an F-15SG+ type solution over the Super Hornet solution any day. No contest.

As to what should replace the F/A-18 fleet... a la F-35... coming to the eventual rescue? Please come?? That's for another discussion thread too.

That's just it. You are debating the wrong issue. The Super Hornet for RAAF is a bridging air combat aircraft, not a permanent solution. It is intended to supplement our aging Hornets (which with JASSM are the real F-111 strike replacement) until the permanent strike replacement solution is identified and acquired. It might be F-35, it might not as explained earlier.

Because it was an interim capability, there was one requirement that no F-15 variant could have met, regardless of how many + signs you choose to put after it's name.

The Super Hornet was the only aircraft in production able to provide new-build airframes and meet that requirement in that timeframe, as well as provide an increase in capability over our existing legacy Hornets.

Why not let IOC slip a year? A proper 'seamless transition' (Italian style) could have probably had the initial F-15AU delivered 1 year after the initial SH were delivered?

And I'd counter your argument that a SH + JASSM would equal an F-111 + Stand off munition in 2015 requirements...

It might be the equivalent capability back in say 2000, but probably not as a 2015 requirement.

Therefore, an F-15AU + JASSM would arguably better equate as a more feasible modernized F-111 replacement?

JASSM-ER and F-18F/JSF are all very good if what you're trying to do is fly to a point/target and drop a 1000lb class weapon on it. There are a whole raft of pre-conditions that have to be met to enable that scenario to work effectively, of which timing of arrival and subsequent movement/tracking of the target post launch are merely the most obvious.

The solution as presented, JASSM-ER launched from F-18F/JSF doesn't really address the other capabilities that having a manned platform capable of the same sorts of ranges provides; like the ability to talk to ground forces once you get there, reconnoiter nearby areas, loiter till the target sticks his head up then dispatch multiple weapons, loiter a bit longer, or do something completely different. It's an issue which gets glossed over quite frequently in the rush to embrace the new JSF and "interim" hornet/f-111 replacement technology but which doesn't seem to get much coverage from Defence (dept of).

geogen wrote:

GE F110 engines?

Why not F100-229 engines and save the sheet metal bashing? That would have enabled some HUGE super-cruising capability... especially with a 'cranked-delta-type' re-winged F-111 good for added 25 yr game-changing service extension! Cheers

Ask "them", they proposed the idea, based on back of the napkin style dimensions only that GE F110 engines could fit where TF-30's had previously been...

I'd suggest you ask someone like TEG about how "trivial" an exercise like re-engining a jet is, with an engine completely different from the one being replaced, before throwing up all sorts of ideas about the subject. RAAF and Tasman Engineering were aghast at the scale of the idea and how dismissive the proponents of such an idea were at those who attempted to introduce a little reality into the debate surrounding such pie in the sky ideas.

Suffice to say, the proponents had none of the qualifications, experience nor indeed demonstrated project management skills for a program of this size, let alone the engineering capability to do it (which was why their proposal relied wholly upon "sub-contrators" like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Gumman...) and their flippant attitude of "it's just a bit of sheet metal bashing" demonstrates the quality of thought behind the idea.

As for "cranked delta wing design". Ah sure, whatever. Have you ever heard the story of the old axe with 3 new handles and 2 new heads? Same old axe right?

If all you are proposing is new engines, new fuselage to accomodate them, new air intakes to provide adequate airflow, new wings and mating joints, new radar, new avionics, new targeting pod, new EW, new weapons, what's left of the F-111? The landing gear?

Combined these two ideas are effectively producing a new aircraft. Across an indicative fleet of 24 aircraft, that's going to be a rather large cost and a schedule I shudder to think about. It would make the F-35 program schedule seem like a sprint race...

geogen wrote:

neurotech -

Per your claims, one might be curious as to what exactly is the frontal RCS of a SH armed with 4x AMRAAM (either by adding under-wing pylon or via some next-gen LO weapon pod), vs an F-15SG++ with standard fuselage-mounted 4x AMRAAM, in addition to the LO blockers and leading-edge LO materials?

As far as a more appropriate and overall equivalent strategic replacement for the F-111, I'd debate anyone on another thread of the merits of an F-15SG+ type solution over the Super Hornet solution any day. No contest.

As to what should replace the F/A-18 fleet... a la F-35... coming to the eventual rescue? Please come?? That's for another discussion thread too.

Do you mean F-15SE, or something Singapore specific F-15 upgrade (F-15SG++)?

I don't know what the RCS figures are for the SE exactly, just that its higher than the SH. Putting 4x AMRAAMs onto pylons directly will increase RCS and interactions play a roll. The F-15SE doesn't have the RCS reducing ducted intakes of the SH and radar blockers aren't as effective as proper ducting at reducing RCS in the intakes.

As for merits. I was referring primary to costs. A F-15SE cost is around $110m fly away isn't it? The CPFH is about double a SH as well.

Which forum section should we continue the F-111 vs F-15SE vs F/A-18F++ debate?

geogen wrote:

Conan wrote:

geogen wrote:

neurotech -

Per your claims, one might be curious as to what exactly is the frontal RCS of a SH armed with 4x AMRAAM (either by adding under-wing pylon or via some next-gen LO weapon pod), vs an F-15SG++ with standard fuselage-mounted 4x AMRAAM, in addition to the LO blockers and leading-edge LO materials?

As far as a more appropriate and overall equivalent strategic replacement for the F-111, I'd debate anyone on another thread of the merits of an F-15SG+ type solution over the Super Hornet solution any day. No contest.

As to what should replace the F/A-18 fleet... a la F-35... coming to the eventual rescue? Please come?? That's for another discussion thread too.

That's just it. You are debating the wrong issue. The Super Hornet for RAAF is a bridging air combat aircraft, not a permanent solution. It is intended to supplement our aging Hornets (which with JASSM are the real F-111 strike replacement) until the permanent strike replacement solution is identified and acquired. It might be F-35, it might not as explained earlier.

Because it was an interim capability, there was one requirement that no F-15 variant could have met, regardless of how many + signs you choose to put after it's name.

The Super Hornet was the only aircraft in production able to provide new-build airframes and meet that requirement in that timeframe, as well as provide an increase in capability over our existing legacy Hornets.

Why not let IOC slip a year? A proper 'seamless transition' (Italian style) could have probably had the initial F-15AU delivered 1 year after the initial SH were delivered?

And I'd counter your argument that a SH + JASSM would equal an F-111 + Stand off munition in 2015 requirements...

It might be the equivalent capability back in say 2000, but probably not as a 2015 requirement.

Therefore, an F-15AU + JASSM would arguably better equate as a more feasible modernized F-111 replacement?

I'd counter your argument with reality and just how obsolete the F-111 really was. In 2000, F-111 was mired in "development hell" trying desperately to introduce the "off the shelf" AGM-142 HAVENAP SOW.

That project took 8 years and $600m to integrate that one weapon system onto F-111.

The reality also was that by 2010 the avionics update on F-111 was itself 15 years old and in need of replacement. As were the non-upgraded cockpit elements, the radar, EO/IR targetting capability, EW system and the other weapons used by F-111 (Paveway II/III would need upgrade to GPS/INS dual mode targeting or adoption of JDAM).

Even if such had been decided in 2002, there is no way Australian Industry would have had all that ready by 2015. Look at the Hornet upgrade for an example. Pretty much the same scale of work, yet it won't be complete until early 2014 and it started in 1998...

If all that had been done, the cost would habe been in the billions and we'd be seeing upgraded aircraft coming into service later than 2015, all for an aircraft that STILL needs to be escorted by fighters into any high threat environment.

Yeah that aircraft would have unrefuelled range and loiter time when there was no air or surface threats, but that's the issue isn't it?

We're constantly told ad nauseum that nothing besides a 5th Gen all-aspect LO supercruiser flying at 60K can survive in that environment.

Except a non-LO, non-supercruising 3rd gen airframe with a hodgepodge of non-integrated 4th gen systems tacked onto it, apparently...

The F-14A's had their TF30s replaced back in the late 80's with GE F110-400s.

Upgrading aircraft with newer kit is certainly nothing new, I'd suggest that it was simply the size/depth of the upgrade proposed that gave industry pause. Seen in the light of the other defence managed project disasters that were taking place at the time, another of which defence needed like a hole in the head, it's hardly surprising that Defence simply shook their heads and said "it can't be done".

jeffb wrote:

The F-14A's had their TF30s replaced back in the late 80's with GE F110-400s.

Upgrading aircraft with newer kit is certainly nothing new, I'd suggest that it was simply the size/depth of the upgrade proposed that gave industry pause. Seen in the light of the other defence managed project disasters that were taking place at the time, another of which defence needed like a hole in the head, it's hardly surprising that Defence simply shook their heads and said "it can't be done".

If they wanted an upgraded F-111 they should have hired Elon Musk(remember SpaceX?) and given him access to any production parts within scope. Its the bureaucracy that makes projects the slow disasters they are. They could have gone with a F/A-18E/F avionics, and then added a APG-82 radar(APG-79 derived) and they'd have an airframe worth keeping.

jeffb wrote:

The F-14A's had their TF30s replaced back in the late 80's with GE F110-400s.

Upgrading aircraft with newer kit is certainly nothing new, I'd suggest that it was simply the size/depth of the upgrade proposed that gave industry pause. Seen in the light of the other defence managed project disasters that were taking place at the time, another of which defence needed like a hole in the head, it's hardly surprising that Defence simply shook their heads and said "it can't be done".

The size, depth, difficulties that would-be contractors (who had never attempted anything like this) hadn't even contemplated, cost, the extended timeframe that would have seen our strategic strike capability reduced to virtually nothing for a decade or more while the re-build was on-going.

On top of which we had the issues with the plethora of similarly massive upgrade projects going on in ADF at that time, most or all of which were facing significant difficulties, schedule delays and cost blow-outs that these contractors "promised" wouldn't occur to F-111 because they were "essentially off the shelf".

Just like the ESSM/Mk 41 and "off the shelf" radar upgrades on our Adelaide frigates. Like the "off the shelf" AP-3C Orion upgrade. Like the "off the shelf" M113 upgrade and so on.

Defence were right. It couldn't be done. Not in the way it was proposed, not for the cost and estimated time it would take and there was no way the cost could be amortised across the fleet we were and would have operated. We would likely have ended up spending far in excess of $100m per aircraft for this upgrade, for an aircraft that still needed something else to do all the "heavy lifting" first and constant fighter escort when it could be deployed. Something RAAF finds fairly difficult as an airforce authorised to run a maximum of 72 combat coded aircraft...

Furthermore we could get no help on the issues from a "parent" airforce as we could with the Hornet upgrade (USN) if anything went significantly wrong.

Forum: Program and politics

Australian opinion piece on JSF