Australian lawmakers confident in F-35's future

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23315
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post03 Dec 2015, 01:07

:twisted: Yes but NO but - YES but.... We know the only way to brief is to say it three times. First time youse tell 'em what youse going to tell 'em. Then youse tell THEM. Then... you TELL THEM wot you TOLD THEM! And there is always new information to refute the new scuttlebutts. :roll:
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23315
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post04 Dec 2015, 07:24

Joint Strike Fighter [GO! Youse YOOsual Suspects - APA I'm lookin' at YOO!]

"On 2 December 2015, the Senate referred the following matter to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 May 2016.

The planned acquisition of the F-35 Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter).

The closing date for submissions is 19 February 2016...."

TERMS of REVERENCE:
Inquiry in to the planned acquisition of the F-35 Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter), with particular reference to:
a. the future air defence needs that the aircraft is intended to fulfill;
b. the cost and benefits of the program to Australia, including industrial costs and benefits received and forecast;
c. changes in the acquisition timeline;
d. the performance of the aircraft in testing;
e. potential alternatives to the Joint Strike Fighter; and
f. any other related matters.

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus ... _Reference



Source: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus ... nt_fighter
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 988
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post04 Dec 2015, 07:59

although any individual or group can, I think F-16.net should put in a joint submission.
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus ... submission
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23315
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post04 Dec 2015, 19:24

An oldie but a goldie summary of the 2001-2002 FedParliament conniptions 'bout the F-35 purchase - also attached from:

Defence participation in the F-35 project Review of the Defence Annual Report 2001-2002

http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_bus ... apter5.pdf (83Kb)
Attachments
http___www.aphref.aph.gov.au_house_committee_jfadt_defence_report2001-2002_d_annualreport_chapter5.pdf
(82.36 KiB) Downloaded 193 times
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23315
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post09 Dec 2015, 04:31

Note in this otherwise 'irrelevant to the topic article' that the (I presume) US dollar amount - today - is specified in the FrightGlobe article. Otherwise when story about Oz written by Ozians IF otherwise not noted then any dorrar amount is in Oz deneiro.
Australia signs training contract with Lockheed-led consortium
09 Dec 2015 Ellis Taylor

"A consortium led by Lockheed Martin has been formally awarded a A$1.2 billion ($870 million) contract to train Australian Defence Force (ADF) pilots using Pilatus PC-21 aircraft....

...Included in the deal is the acquisition of 49 PC-21 trainer aircraft, seven flight simulators and updated courseware for an initial seven-year term from 2019.

Defence minister Marise Payne says that this will ensure that undergraduate pilots across the Royal Australian Air Force, Royal Australian Navy and Australian Army will be better equipped to transition to advanced military aircraft, such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and MRH-90 helicopter.

“For the first time in Australia, pilot training will include simulators in undergraduate training. This will become the new benchmark for training and preparing military pilots for fourth and fifth generation platforms,” she adds.

The Department of Defence says that the new arrangements will also allow the ADF to increase the number of graduate pilots from 77 to 105 per year.
...

...The ADF will continue to provide the instructors for the programme, which will see basic training delivered at RAAF Base East Sale in Victoria. Advanced flying training will continue to take place at RAAF Base Pearce in Western Australia...."

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ed-419859/
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1360
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post04 Jan 2016, 18:31

spazsinbad wrote:The 72 [2+12+58] aircraft are expected to be fully operational by 2023, Abbott said today. Australia is retaining the option of purchasing a further squadron of 18 [+72=90] Joint Strike Fighters, he said...."

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... e-fighters


Spaz,

I've been thinking about structure lately and came to the view that a good way to provide scale capacity to RAAF squadrons would be to drop from 24 to 18 aircraft per squadron.

And now it seems that may be what's planned, i.e.

18 / 72 = 4
18 / 90 = 5

So it appears the further option of another 18, as a squadron, would in fact be a 5th squadron.

If you have to expand the force, you could then scale size of the force via attaching 6 more aircraft to three squadrons (obviously not the active one, or one{s} ) until you could form a 6th squadron.

Rinse 'n repeat as required.

I understand it would be lead time in years for builds, but we've leased F-4s when the F-111 was late but needed interim capability so it could be done that way if it had to be. But what do you think of the idea of that approach to scaling expansion of capability if things began to look grim?

Personally I'd like to see the force decentralize geographically to make it harder to act against a few concentrations, but that's hard to do if your squadrons are 24 jets within a <100 F-35 force. Which is what got me thinking about an 18 aircraft squadron to both disperse and expand with.

Now to take this a step further (just another example of the possibilities here):

Of course if you structured with 12 aircraft squadrons (like the Growlers may be) for the F-35s you get:

72 / 12 = 6 squadrons

In which case you would only have to add 3 more F-35A to four of those 6 squadrons, to from a 7th squadron.

Which would be both more manageable and less disruptive for the 12 in the core squadron.

So to form that seventh squadron you could take 3 experienced pilots from each of the 4 established squadrons, to form a 7th, and the three new pilots in each of the four, then replace them.
Rinse repeat.

With 12 aircraft per squadron you could still launch 2 flights of four, with a total internal load for instance of 64 x SDBII, and 16 x AIM-120.

Still a pretty punchy small attack capacity, per squadron, no?
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23315
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post04 Jan 2016, 20:20

Somewhere on the web there is likely an explanation for RAAF F-35A Squadrons - I await the White Paper - now 2016 - to understand why there is no RAAF F-35B future squadron (part of the last tranche). Personally I have no clue why the RAAF do anything except what they may have published in the last few years. I'm ex-Royal Australian Navy Fleet Air Arm. Total Navy time 9.5 years with seven years in the FAA if my one year RAAF basic/advanced flying training time included, flying A4G Skyhawk eventually via Winjeel, Vampire, Sea Venom & later Macchis. RAN time from beginning 1966 to mid 1975. Do you know what we did and why? Today RANFAA becomes a highly capable ASW Helo force to be reckoned with - it seems.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23315
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post04 Jan 2016, 23:43

A Spanith Hairier circuit/base/VL on the LHD - piece of cake - but NO GLOVES, sad. Great camera view of a VL on LHD. :mrgreen: :twisted: COME ON RAAF CRABS - GET WITH THE PROGRAM! :devil: You know you want to. :doh: :roll:
LHD Juan Carlos I, in-cockpit Harrier landing
Published on Jan 4, 2016 ON THE ROGER

"Vid by Armada Espanola pilot.
Read more at http://ontheroger.proboards.com

A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1360
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post05 Jan 2016, 00:34

Oh yaaa!

(my worst canuck impression ... damn you fargo!)

Very nice. OTR as well. :)
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1360
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post05 Jan 2016, 01:14

spazsinbad wrote:I await the White Paper - now 2016 - to understand why there is no RAAF F-35B future squadron (part of the last tranche). Do you know what we did and why? Today RANFAA becomes a highly capable ASW Helo force to be reckoned with - it seems.



I suspect this will be part of it:

2016 B model price = $187,385,555 (propulsion is 3 times more $ as well)
2016 A model price = $130,010,681

F-35B
Thrust: 26,000 lbs; Thrust with afterburner: 38,000 lbs; Vertical: 40,500 lbs
Weight Empty: 32,000 lb
Fuel Capacity: Internal: 13,500 lbs

Drop Tanks:
(weight calc Jet1A density, sans pylon lb)
2 x 426 US Gal (5,717 lb)
2 x 480 gal (6,442 lb)
2 x 600 gal (8,052 lb)

To get good range you'd need tanks (unless using LRASM, JSM, JASSM, such) 13,500 lb internal may be a bit limiting in opening, you'd have to get closer without tanks, so 5th gen mode more limited. And in 4th gen mode you're more limited in available payload.

Why the C model has ~19,750 lb (plus tanking) in my feeble view.

May end up with more A before B is my guess.

--

re rest, nope, love the romeos, finally got that right (grrrr).
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline
User avatar

Dragon029

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1349
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

Unread post05 Jan 2016, 01:29

element1loop; in regards to the proposal, the RAAF prefers to keep it as is in order to be more efficient. Every time you add another squadron, you add another squadron HQ, with it's own CO, admin officers, etc. As a squadron of 24, you have your mix of newbies, mid-experienced and well experienced pilots; by having that mix, you allow a greater transfer of knowledge.

In addition, if you had (eg) 6 squadrons of 12 planes, if a few guys get sick, there goes a big chunk of your fighting capability for a squadron, meaning you either have to pass the tasking to another squadron, or send up two half-squadrons that perhaps don't know each other very well. Fast jet pilots are generally quite professional on the job, but that extra bit of cohesion can be the difference between life and death.

Overall, 24 per squadron is a decent size; not too small that you run into the above issues, not that big that you lose unit cohesion, etc.

As for the F-35Bs, it's my opinion that there's too much cost involved for a capability that generally won't be needed.

Personally, I think we'd be best off having the USMC operate off our LHDs. A deal could be struck so that if the RAN spends the money required to make the LHDs capable of routine F-35B operations, the USMC could use it as another staging base, and simultaneously allow us to fly some of their F-35Bs from our LHDs on a semi-permanent rotation. They get to spend less money training pilots, we all get better integration with our forces and we don't have to worry about buying V-22s and ferrying them out to our LHDs when certain spares are required.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23315
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post05 Jan 2016, 01:45

'element1loop' the topic of Oz F-35Bs on Oz LHDs has been done to death here but I raise it because an explanation has not been forthcoming - apparently in White Paper now 2016. This very long thread has a tonne of discussion amongst other shorter threads about the topic - so go here - just for the beer. Read backwards or jump in as the mood takes:

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=12631&start=1065 Possibility small STOVL carrier USN/USMC

Meanwhile this idea sounds very useful from 'theDRAGON'.
"...Personally, I think we'd be best off having the USMC operate off our LHDs. A deal could be struck so that if the RAN spends the money required to make the LHDs capable of routine F-35B operations, the USMC could use it as another staging base, and simultaneously allow us to fly some of their F-35Bs from our LHDs on a semi-permanent rotation. They get to spend less money training pilots, we all get better integration with our forces and we don't have to worry about buying V-22s and ferrying them out to our LHDs when certain spares are required."
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1360
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post05 Jan 2016, 02:02

Dragon029 wrote:Every time you add another squadron, you add another squadron HQ, ...


Thanks dragon, I figured the cost and convenience is a big factor in why it is, as it is, just the defensive implications bother me, re subs. We may know they're there, but will we do anything? No. They'd be able to operate in close, and in grim moments we'd have nothing to realistically respond to if fired on with LAMs. I've heard people say fighters with A2A weapons would deal with those. Yeah right ... maybe an Aegis ashore system could with a bunch of ESSM BlockII. But at the moment the bases seem to geographically concentrated. Dispersing assets to avoid that sort of grim day news would require smaller squadrons.

So what do you make of the Abbott comment stating the option of a squadron of 18 more? Why say squadron if it was not meant? (yeah I know, nit picking, but still, it look indicative to me.)

Interesting idea re Marines co-operating LHD, I like it. Only issue is role preoccupied with the actual raison-detre of amphibious capability and helicopters. I'm sure the Army regard the spaces as their turf - rightly so too. 5th gen, but joint first.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23315
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post05 Jan 2016, 03:17

Only two submissions so far to the Greens/Labor voted Senate inquiry soonish into purchase of Oz F-35As (I'm waiting for the Oz F-35B inquiry :mrgreen: ) Go here for the two submissions from NaySayers Mills & Price - both from REPSIM.

I have no expertise in their simulations but wonder about them for example when PRICE says this at the end of his submission:
Joint Strike Fighter - Submission 2
13 Dec 2015 Michael Price

"...There are superior solutions to meet the needs of Australia, not the needs of the RAAF, and they are also affordable. Defence cannot claim they were unaware of this, however my personal experience of the vast majority of military officers is that they are educated but not intelligent and this applies to other countries as well. When faced with unpalatable information they rely on the five commandments encapsulated as I SAID which stands for Ignorance, Stupidity, Arrogance, Incompetence and Denial. They cannot concurrently hold two or three conflicting propositions in their minds and progress an effort to resolve the matter. Ambiguity is incompatible with their work mindset. They simply choose an outcome and do all in their power to achieve it. It does not matter if it is right or wrong – they will get posted in two or three years and nobody ever gets held accountable – they protect their own, as was demonstrated in the Defence Abuse Inquiry. It is in the nature of their culture.

Australia is already saddled with one non-effective combat lemon in the F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet aircraft which are two of only a few aircraft in the world that are inferior to the JSF. They cannot carry an effective strike load of heavy bombs – like the GBU-28 which is required to destroy some major targets and they cannot fly fast enough or high enough to out run or out manoeuvre potential adversaries like the Su-30. Air to ground missiles that the Super Hornet can launch are ineffective against hardened ground targets as was learnt from the Second Gulf War strike analysis conducted by the Allies. The AGM-142 was acceptable as a two tap capability but due to the stupid RAAF proposition, agreed to by a stupid government, to trash the F-111 capability Australia has lost its only effective airborne strike capability.

I reiterate that the simulation approach and outcomes are not merely a critical component of any sane contract on the JSF but, if it is flawed then not only will the treasure and good lives of people of many countries be squandered when reality bites against the first peer competitor to the JSF but the ―domino‖ effect of proven air combat inferiority will impact not only on the losers but it will hearten the victor and possibly embolden them and similar adversaries to be confident that they can gain air superiority over a large chunk of NATO as well as other lemmings, Australia included.

In summary, the projected air to air combat outcome of the JSF against any peer competitor with modern aircraft and weapons can be succinctly encapsulated into the simple phrase ―a coffin looking for a grave.

The questions that now arise in the minds of any reasonable people will be where is the boundary of incompetence, stupidity, fraud and corruption? Who profited from this misfeasance? And more importantly, what will now be done to those people responsible? And where does Australia now stand?"

Source: http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash ... bId=407329 (PDF 0.5Mb)

Interesting slant on history from Chris Mills (a couple of years older but on my RAAF basic / advanced flying course - all of 1968 - fresh out of the RAAF Academy).
THE PLANNED ACQUISITION OF THE F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
07 Dec 2015 Chris Mills, AM, MSc, BSc Wing Commander (Retd)

"...The Royal Australian Air Force Surrenders Regional Air Superiority to the Royal Malaysian Air Force – RMAF Butterworth 1975
History informs us that we have been deficient in maintaining superior air combat capabilities in the past. The bombing of Darwin on 19 February 1942 exposed a RAAF woefully ill-equipped and unprepared. In Korea, the RAAF’s obsolete P-51 Mustangs and outclassed Gloucester Meteors saw them relegated to the ground attack role due to the presence of the superior MiG-15. There was no thought of deploying the Mirage over North Vietnam where the highly effective North Vietnam Integrated Air Defence System could bring SAMs, AAA and advanced MiGs to the fight. The USAF and USN struggled with high air combat losses and at the end of the war the USAF had one Ace, where the NVAF had 15.

My personal experience of loss of air superiority occurred in 1975. I was flying an air combat mission in a Mirage near Butterworth, Malaya at the moment this happened. The RMAF had re-equipped 12 Squadron with the F-5E Tiger, and invited RAAF’s 3 Squadron to a four versus four (mock) air combat engagement. Our lead was the Squadron’s Operations Officer, and I was his wingman. As we merged, it quickly became apparent that we were inferior: the F-5E could out-turn and the Mirage, they had much more modern air-to-air missiles and a better gunsight. We could out-climb and out-run them, advantages useful for escaping, but not for killing the enemy. The F-5E had a very small cross-section, and was difficult to spot on radar or visually.

I was the only person in that fight to record an F-5E kill, and while I would like to say it was because I was a superior pilot in a superior aircraft, it was not true. I was ‘spat out’ of the intensive turning fight and managed to record gun-camera film on the RMAF Section Leader as he was concentrating on ‘hosing’ my Leader from a range of 300 metres.

One of the fallacies of air combat is that a good pilot will compensate for a bad aircraft. In this case, my Flight Lead had about 2,000 hours on type and was considered to be one of our Mirage ‘Aces’. The RMAF pilots had about 50 hours on type.

Another fallacy is that we will receive adequate ‘warning time’ to respond to the introduction of a new air combat aircraft in the region...."

Source: http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash ... bId=407251 (PDF 2.8Mb)

OOPS - needed a space between URL and info about PDF - scusi
Last edited by spazsinbad on 05 Jan 2016, 05:28, edited 2 times in total.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1360
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post05 Jan 2016, 03:37

Henny-Penny and Carlo have a love-child? :D

Public media 'debates' and submissions on 'air power' ... :doh:

btw, 500 Internal Server Error on your last link.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests