Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Ozair
Topic Author
Posts: 5385
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Thu Feb 25, 2016 1:25 am

The Australian 2016 Defence White Paper has just been released.

As expected Australia has recommitted to 72 F-35A aircraft to begin operational service in Australia in 2020 and a decision on the Super Hornets will be made in the early 2020s for replacement by the late 2020s. Growler is expected in service in 2018 and will be periodically upgraded to maintain commonality with US Growler aircraft.

Quote:
72 F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters will begin to enter operational service from 2020 to replace the Classic Hornets. Options to replace the Super Hornets in the late 2020s will be considered in the early 2020s in light of developments in technology and the strategic environment and will be informed by our experience in operating the Joint Strike Fighters.
http://www.defence.gov.au/WhitePaper/

No real surprises for the future RAAF fighter fleet. F-35 was always the choice going forward and the Super Hornets were always viewed as an interim capability.

One of the more interesting changes is the decision to replace the Tiger Helicopter.

Quote:
The Government will replace the 22 Tiger Armed Reconnaissance helicopters with a new armed reconnaissance capability from the mid-2020s.

Every chance that Apache will finally enter Australian Service which should have been chosen over Tiger in 2001.

Interesting separate aviation reporting
- Potential/intended acquisition of two additional KC-30 AAR aircraft to bring the total to 9. This would be two additional above the two conversions that will be occurring over the next couple of years. No info on whether these will be new builds or conversions.
- Total P-8 fleet is expected to be 15 with a second tranche purchased and in service by the late 2020s supported by 7 MQ-4C Triton UAVs.
- Australian Army to receive an armed medium altitude UAV in the early 2020s.
- New short range air defence systems, replacement for RBS-70, in the early 2020s and medium range air defence by the mid to late 2020s.

Interesting non aviation white paper info
- Australia to acquire land based anti-ship cruise missiles.
- Commitment to 12 submarines.
- Future Frigate brought forward.
 
Gemuser
Posts: 5092
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Fri Feb 26, 2016 12:29 pm

Quoting Ozair (Thread starter):
Interesting separate aviation reporting

You forgot two additional C-17s, according to todays SMH.

Gemuser
DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 13097
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Fri Feb 26, 2016 1:23 pm

Quoting gemuser (Reply 1):

You forgot two additional C-17s, according to todays SMH.

I believe those two are the two they ordered last year.
 
Ozair
Topic Author
Posts: 5385
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Fri Feb 26, 2016 8:38 pm

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 2):
I believe those two are the two they ordered last year.

Correct, given all other C-17s have been accounted for and the production line is now shutting down the only airframes left to acquire would be surplus USAF.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24852
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Sat Feb 27, 2016 12:25 am

Quoting Ozair (Reply 3):
the production line is now shutting down

Actually has shut down. The last frame has "left the building".
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Buckeyetech
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2013 1:11 am

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Sat Feb 27, 2016 1:44 am

Quoting Ozair (Reply 3):
Correct, given all other C-17s have been accounted for and the production line is now shutting down the only airframes left to acquire would be surplus USAF.

Nope. They're being transferred to a reserve and national guard unit, respectively.

http://triblive.com/mobile/9945683-96/911-base-funding

http://www.fayobserver.com/military/...b-6b1d-5cbf-8229-7ba0bb4191b6.html
B-52H, C-141C, C-5A, C-17A
 
User avatar
Groover158
Posts: 122
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 12:43 pm

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Sat Feb 27, 2016 10:24 am

Quoting gemuser (Reply 1):
You forgot two additional C-17s, according to todays SMH.
Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 2):
I believe those two are the two they ordered last year.
Quoting Ozair (Reply 3):
Correct, given all other C-17s have been accounted for and the production line is now shutting down the only airframes left to acquire would be surplus USAF.

Actually, the White Paper mentions additional heavy-lift aircraft to be considered in the future.

"The ADF’s air lift capability will be increased to comprise 8 heavy lift C-17A Globemasters with additional heavy lift aircraft to be considered in the longer term..."

Given that the two ordered last year brings our total C-17 fleet to 8, and I can't see anything else new on the horizon, perhaps A400M?
 
angad84
Posts: 2087
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:04 pm

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Sat Feb 27, 2016 11:55 am

Quoting Groover158 (Reply 6):
Given that the two ordered last year brings our total C-17 fleet to 8, and I can't see anything else new on the horizon, perhaps A400M?

Can't see anything else other than EDA C-17s from USAF.

Cheers
A
 
Ozair
Topic Author
Posts: 5385
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Sat Feb 27, 2016 9:35 pm

Quoting Groover158 (Reply 6):
Actually, the White Paper mentions additional heavy-lift aircraft to be considered in the future.

"The ADF’s air lift capability will be increased to comprise 8 heavy lift C-17A Globemasters with additional heavy lift aircraft to be considered in the longer term..."

Given that the two ordered last year brings our total C-17 fleet to 8, and I can't see anything else new on the horizon, perhaps A400M?

It is a very curious reference. Unless the RAAF are planning on replacing the C-130J in the short term I doubt the A400 will be in production by the time the RAAF would be ready to order. I doubt there is a need to introduce a third tactical air-lifter.

Just a thought but could they be intending to acquire several commercial heavy lift aircraft such as a 747-8F? They could be used to pre-position supplies to a staging area before C-17s fly into theater. From a disaster relief perspective the RAAF could have used commercial aircraft instead of C-17s for much of the palletized cargo in several recent events.
 
User avatar
Groover158
Posts: 122
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 12:43 pm

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Sun Feb 28, 2016 12:08 am

Quoting Ozair (Reply 8):
Just a thought but could they be intending to acquire several commercial heavy lift aircraft such as a 747-8F? They could be used to pre-position supplies to a staging area before C-17s fly into theater. From a disaster relief perspective the RAAF could have used commercial aircraft instead of C-17s for much of the palletized cargo in several recent events.

Here's a thought; A330-200F  
 
Ozair
Topic Author
Posts: 5385
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Sun Feb 28, 2016 2:16 am

Quoting Groover158 (Reply 9):
Here's a thought; A330-200F

Agree, makes a lot more sense from a commonality point of view than the 747-8F. Would you call that a heavy lift aircraft though as per the White paper?
 
vheca
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 9:20 pm

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Tue Mar 01, 2016 2:18 am

I had also read something about long range Gulfstream jets? Not sure who for and what capability.

Anyone?

Cheers

VHECA
PAX on- 300, 312, 320, 380, 722, 732, 733, 73H, 73W, 739, 742, 743, 74C, 752, 753, 762, 789, AB4, CR7, D1C, D28, DHT, F27, L11
 
Legs
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 3:37 pm

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Tue Mar 01, 2016 3:01 am

Quoting vheca (Reply 11):
long range Gulfstream jets?

Fairly certain this is the Gulfstream acquisition that the White Paper references.
 
vheca
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 9:20 pm

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Wed Mar 02, 2016 1:14 am

Quoting legs (Reply 12):
Fairly certain this is the Gulfstream acquisition that the White Paper references.

Is this in compliment to the Wedgetail aircraft? Proposed mission vs that of the Wedgetail? More curious than critical....

Cheers

VHECA
PAX on- 300, 312, 320, 380, 722, 732, 733, 73H, 73W, 739, 742, 743, 74C, 752, 753, 762, 789, AB4, CR7, D1C, D28, DHT, F27, L11
 
Ozair
Topic Author
Posts: 5385
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Wed Mar 02, 2016 1:52 am

Quoting vheca (Reply 13):
Is this in compliment to the Wedgetail aircraft? Proposed mission vs that of the Wedgetail? More curious than critical....

Cheers

VHECA

I don't think so. The Wedgetail really is an airspace/battle management tool while the Gulfstreams appear more to be purely intelligence collectors. Its not clear whether they have a Link 16 fit but I would expect them to collect and then post mission process than on the fly contribute to the battle. P-3s and subsequently P-8s more likely compliment the Wedgetail.
 
LPSHobby
Posts: 454
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 9:14 pm

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Wed Mar 02, 2016 10:54 am

Quoting Ozair (Reply 8):

Quoting Groover158 (Reply 6):
Actually, the White Paper mentions additional heavy-lift aircraft to be considered in the future.

"The ADF’s air lift capability will be increased to comprise 8 heavy lift C-17A Globemasters with additional heavy lift aircraft to be considered in the longer term..."

Given that the two ordered last year brings our total C-17 fleet to 8, and I can't see anything else new on the horizon, perhaps A400M?

It is a very curious reference. Unless the RAAF are planning on replacing the C-130J in the short term I doubt the A400 will be in production by the time the RAAF would be ready to order. I doubt there is a need to introduce a third tactical air-lifter.

Just a thought but could they be intending to acquire several commercial heavy lift aircraft such as a 747-8F? They could be used to pre-position supplies to a staging area before C-17s fly into theater. From a disaster relief perspective the RAAF could have used commercial aircraft instead of C-17s for much of the palletized cargo in several recent events.

why not KC-390s?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15316
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Wed Mar 02, 2016 2:53 pm

Quoting vheca (Reply 13):
Is this in compliment to the Wedgetail aircraft? Proposed mission vs that of the Wedgetail? More curious than critical....

They are to augment/replace the AP-C3 in a signal intelligence gathering role. AP-3Cs have been rotated through the Indian ocean (Cocos Island/Diego Garcia), south china sea/south east asia (Singapore/Malaysia), and middle east in that role without much publicity for decades.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Ozair
Topic Author
Posts: 5385
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Wed Mar 02, 2016 11:25 pm

Quoting LPSHobby (Reply 15):
why not KC-390s?

The White Paper states additional heavy lift but the KC-390 is simply not a heavy lifter. The payload is too close to the C-130J.
 
vheca
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 9:20 pm

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Wed Mar 02, 2016 11:36 pm

I had guessed it would have been the Israeli mod of the Gulfstream but was unsure of the role...

Quoting zeke (Reply 16):
They are to augment/replace the AP-C3 in a signal intelligence gathering role. AP-3Cs have been rotated through the Indian ocean (Cocos Island/Diego Garcia), south china sea/south east asia (Singapore/Malaysia), and middle east in that role without much publicity for decades.

Thank you for that further information. Interesting mix, indeed.

Cheers

VHECA
PAX on- 300, 312, 320, 380, 722, 732, 733, 73H, 73W, 739, 742, 743, 74C, 752, 753, 762, 789, AB4, CR7, D1C, D28, DHT, F27, L11
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3524
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Wed Mar 02, 2016 11:58 pm

Quoting Ozair (Reply 17):
The White Paper states additional heavy lift but the KC-390 is simply not a heavy lifter. The payload is too close to the C-130J.

Or Kawasaki C-2? It's roughly equivalent to the A400M in terms of size and payload, and if the Australians do decide on buying Japanese submarines, might as well go even further in defence ties with Japan.
 
Ozair
Topic Author
Posts: 5385
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Thu Mar 03, 2016 2:16 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 19):
Or Kawasaki C-2? It's roughly equivalent to the A400M in terms of size and payload, and if the Australians do decide on buying Japanese submarines, might as well go even further in defence ties with Japan.

I think the C-2 is again too small to be classified as heavy lift as it will carry approximately half the payload of a C-17. The RAAF already operates eight C-17, twelve C-130J-30 and will have ten C-27J. Given the geography of Australia and distance from the rest of the world additional C-17 sized aircraft are what would be sought if the White Papaer is correct in stating "Heavy Lift".
 
pusserchef
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 9:25 am

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Thu Mar 03, 2016 7:04 am


Here is a What If that a mate of mine made of a RAAF A400....
Regards
James Smith

Flown in A300B4, A310, A320, A321, A332, A346, B717, B722, B733, B734, B737, B738, B743, B744, B762, B763, B77W, B788, F27, F70, F100, S360, B212, AS-350B, S-61, C152, C172, A22LS.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15316
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Thu Mar 03, 2016 7:45 am

Quoting Ozair (Reply 20):
Given the geography of Australia and distance from the rest of the world additional C-17 sized aircraft are what would be sought if the White Paper is correct in stating "Heavy Lift".

The A400 should be able to carry any of the Army Aviation helicopters, ALAV, APC, and bushmaster.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Ozair
Topic Author
Posts: 5385
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Thu Mar 03, 2016 9:38 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 22):

The A400 should be able to carry any of the Army Aviation helicopters, ALAV, APC, and bushmaster.

Sure, never said it couldn't. What it may not be able to carry is the winner of Phase 3 of LAND400, of which some of the contenders are the CV-90 (up armored is approx 33 ton, capable of one in a A400 but two in a C-17), Puma (with full side armor is 43 tons so too heavy for A400) or even the Namer at 60 tons.

The A400 is essentially a large tactical airlifter, not heavy lift as described in the white paper. The British categorize it as such,

Quote:
Although the RAF will employ the A400M's strategic reach and impressive payload capacity by initially operating it in the strategic airtransport role, Atlas is primarily a tactical airlifter.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafbrizenorton/equipment/a400matlas.cfm

It also carries half the payload of a C-17.

If the A400 was still in production 10-15 years from now it may be a viable replacement for the C-130J-30 in RAAF service, but not right now nor in the next few years.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15316
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Thu Mar 03, 2016 4:00 pm

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
The A400 is essentially a large tactical airlifter, not heavy lift as described in the white paper. The British categorize it as such,

I agree with that depending on your perspective and the strategic roles the RAAF perform.

The majority of strategic tasking performed by the RAAF in my view are in response to humanitarian missions. The A400 would perform the role very well and with the A330 tanker would have the same range as the C17 at a higher transit speed compared to the C130. I would see it mainly in the role of disaster relief being able to carry heavy equipment such as cranes, pumps, food, and water in support of relief efforts which almost seem to occur on a yearly basis these days.

I have never seen Australia send any the heavy army ground equipment by air, maybe you know better. The RAAF seem to be a little more risk adverse with their loading as they don't have spare assets in case there is a loading issue.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Ozair
Topic Author
Posts: 5385
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Thu Mar 03, 2016 11:36 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 24):
The majority of strategic tasking performed by the RAAF in my view are in response to humanitarian missions.

Agree.

Quoting zeke (Reply 24):
The A400 would perform the role very well and with the A330 tanker would have the same range as the C17 at a higher transit speed compared to the C130. I would see it mainly in the role of disaster relief being able to carry heavy equipment such as cranes, pumps, food, and water in support of relief efforts which almost seem to occur on a yearly basis these days.

Agree but with half the payload. If you are expecting/requiring the A400 to fly the distance using the KC30 then you expect both to land at a suitable airfield. In that case why use the A400 in the first place? Why not fly a C-17/commercial freighter to the same location?

Quoting zeke (Reply 24):
I have never seen Australia send any the heavy army ground equipment by air, maybe you know better. The RAAF seem to be a little more risk adverse with their loading as they don't have spare assets in case there is a loading issue.

Nothing local except the C-17 Abrams tank test. The C-17 was used extensively to move vehicles into Afghanistan though.

Realistically if the ADF need to move vehicles regionally they are going to use the LHDs, HMAS Choules or commercial sealift but maintaining the ability to fly any of the LAND 400 vehicles near/into a threat zone has to be a factor. That requirement may be why additional heavy lift is an option.
 
LPSHobby
Posts: 454
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 9:14 pm

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Fri Mar 04, 2016 9:51 am

Quoting pusserchef (Reply 21):



Here is a What If that a mate of mine made of a RAAF A400....

very beAUtifull, congratulations!!!
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 5005
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:43 am

Quoting Ozair (Reply 25):
If you are expecting/requiring the A400 to fly the distance using the KC30 then you expect both to land at a suitable airfield. In that case why use the A400 in the first place? Why not fly a C-17/commercial freighter to the same location?

The KC-30 doesn't have to land at the same airfield as the A400 - it doesn't even have to land in the same country. For example (completely made up, don't read too much into it except for the sake of an example), the A400M mission could be to Syria, with the KC-30 operating either from an airfield elsewhere in Africa, or positioned from Cyprus, Greece or Turkey.

The A400M could still get into a rough airfield where a commercial cargo carrier could not.

And the talk here is around *additional* lift, where C-17s may not be available (you can't buy them new, so you will be convincing the USAF to sell some), which is why the discussion is around the A400M.
 
neutronstar73
Posts: 796
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:57 pm

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Fri Mar 04, 2016 3:12 pm

It is about time the ADF replaced that troublesome Tiger helicopter. I hope for the Viper but I'm pretty sure they will opt for the Apache, since the US, UK, Japan, Netherlands, Singapore, Israel, Taiwan, Korea, (and many more) all operate or will operate some version of the Apache.
 
Ozair
Topic Author
Posts: 5385
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:17 pm

Quoting moo (Reply 27):

The KC-30 doesn't have to land at the same airfield as the A400 - it doesn't even have to land in the same country.

Zeke's specific example was about regional disaster relief and the A400 flying the same distance fully loaded as the C-17 by using the KC30 to mid air refuel.

Quoting moo (Reply 27):

And the talk here is around *additional* lift, where C-17s may not be available (you can't buy them new, so you will be convincing the USAF to sell some), which is why the discussion is around the A400M.

Groover's quote is straight from the white paper

Quoting Groover158 (Reply 6):

"The ADF’s air lift capability will be increased to comprise 8 heavy lift C-17A Globemasters with additional heavy lift aircraft to be considered in the longer term..."

The reference is pretty clear, eight C-17 aircraft and then additional heavy lift considered in the future. In that context I do not see how the A400 could be considered heavy lift nor in the same category as the C-17. I'm not claiming the RAAF will acquire more C-17, only that they want something, in the longer term, with the payload capabilities of a C-17.
 
Ozair
Topic Author
Posts: 5385
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:31 pm

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 28):
It is about time the ADF replaced that troublesome Tiger helicopter. I hope for the Viper but I'm pretty sure they will opt for the Apache, since the US, UK, Japan, Netherlands, Singapore, Israel, Taiwan, Korea, (and many more) all operate or will operate some version of the Apache.

Agree. The Apache had been the original choice of AIR 87 but was over ruled by the minister of the day in favour of the European option. The ADF could easily acquire surplus US AH-64s remanufactured to AH-64E standard.

Quote:
The AH-64E Remanufacture Program calls for a total of 639 helicopters to be rebuilt through FY 2025. The first full rate production AH-64E remanufacture helicopter was delivered in March 2014. In FY 2015, the unit cost of a remanufactured AH-64E Block IIIA is $24.77 million (flyaway cost).
http://www.bga-aeroweb.com/Defense/AH-64-Apache-Longbow.html

Given the issues the ADF has had with both the Tiger and MRH-90 I doubt a European option or new system in development will be considered.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15316
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Sat Mar 05, 2016 10:16 am

Quoting Ozair (Reply 29):
Zeke's specific example was about regional disaster relief and the A400 flying the same distance fully loaded as the C-17 by using the KC30 to mid air refuel.

Correct, and even if you were to send a A330MRTT and A400M you would carry more equipment and people than you could with a single C17. I am pretty sure if you use the seats in the C-17 you are down to 9 413 pallets, which is what the A400M carriers plus 56 people. The A330MRTT/A400M combo would carry 17 463 pallets and around 250 people.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 30):
Given the issues the ADF has had with both the Tiger and MRH-90 I doubt a European option or new system in development will be considered.

I dont think that can be a forgone conclusion. Almost every new project Australia has procured entered with some difficulties, that did not exclude them from further purchases. The C130J is a classic example of that, it had a lot of avionics problems. Pilots who have flown both the blackhawk and MRH-90 appreciate the better capability of the MRH-90. The MRH-90 has a higher upfront cost, however lower maintenance costs. A number of the MRH-90 issues are more an issue of the ADF/prime contractor than the aircraft itself. The manufacturer has solutions, it is up to the ADF to accept them and the contractor to implement it, what happens is a blame game to pass the cost off to the other party.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Ozair
Topic Author
Posts: 5385
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Sun Mar 06, 2016 9:34 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 31):
Correct, and even if you were to send a A330MRTT and A400M you would carry more equipment and people than you could with a single C17. I am pretty sure if you use the seats in the C-17 you are down to 9 413 pallets, which is what the A400M carriers plus 56 people. The A330MRTT/A400M combo would carry 17 463 pallets and around 250 people.

There are a million scenarios that you could conjure up that support a combined A400/KC30 mix just as I could come up with a million more than support a C-17 only mission.

The reality is that the Aus Govt in the White Paper clearly stated an interest in additional heavy lift in the longer term. The A400 is not additional heavy lift, it is simply not in that weight class.

Quoting zeke (Reply 31):

I dont think that can be a forgone conclusion. Almost every new project Australia has procured entered with some difficulties, that did not exclude them from further purchases.

Disagree, the off the shelf purchases Australia made of C-17, SH, Abrams have performed well. Conversely, the ADF has had a terrible time with any system that required development, including KC-30, MRH-90, Tiger, AWD, Wedgetail.

Quoting zeke (Reply 31):
Pilots who have flown both the blackhawk and MRH-90 appreciate the better capability of the MRH-90. The MRH-90 has a higher upfront cost, however lower maintenance costs.

While the pilots may enjoy flying the MRH-90 the ANAO found the maintenance costs have exceeded the projections, and will continue to do so, while the airframe is approximately 5 years late.

Quoting zeke (Reply 31):
The manufacturer has solutions, it is up to the ADF to accept them and the contractor to implement it, what happens is a blame game to pass the cost off to the other party.

The ANAO audit of the MRH-90 is pretty clear.

Quote:
During the audit, the MRH90 Program was dealing with a range of challenges related to immaturity in the MRH90 system design and the support system. The challenges include:

- resolving MRH90 cabin and role equipment design issues so that operational test and evaluation validates the MRH90 aircraft’s ability to satisfy Operational Capability Milestones set by Army and Navy;
- the continuing need to conduct a wide range of verification and validation activities on problematic or deficient aircraft systems;
- increasing the reliability, maintainability and flying rate of effort of the MRH90 aircraft;
- embedding revised sustainment arrangements directed toward improving the value for money of these arrangements;
- establishing a revised Australian industry activities plan, including performance metrics;
- funding and managing the extended concurrent operation of the Army S‑70A‑9 Black Hawk and MRH90 aircraft fleets; and
- managing a Navy capability gap following the retirement of the RAN Sea King aircraft in December 2011.
http://www.anao.gov.au/Publications/...e-Helicopter-Program/Audit-summary

As with the Tiger purchase, the MRH-90 was chosen against the wishes of the ADF.

Quote:
This led to a Defence recommendation to the Minister for Defence in June 2004 that the S‑70M Black Hawk be selected as the preferred aircraft for Phases 2 and 4.

Unfortunately the ADF is stuck with the MRH-90, but consider where the Australian Army could be today if the S-70M and the Apache had been chosen as recommended by the Australian Department of Defence. Both would more than likely have been delivered on time and on budget, shared a common engine and would have had continued commonality with the Australian Navy SH-60R fleet, that was subsequently purchased because the Navy had no faith in the NH-90.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 13097
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Sun Mar 06, 2016 12:59 pm

Quoting Ozair (Reply 32):
The reality is that the Aus Govt in the White Paper clearly stated an interest in additional heavy lift in the longer term. The A400 is not additional heavy lift, it is simply not in that weight class

So what are they going to buy, there is nothing on the market and I doubt the US is going to sell C17's.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15316
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Sun Mar 06, 2016 6:05 pm

Quoting Ozair (Reply 32):
There are a million scenarios that you could conjure up that support a combined A400/KC30 mix just as I could come up with a million more than support a C-17 only mission.

That is just not true. When responding to a humanitarian mission, the C17 is either good at taking oversize heavy cargo, or people, when taking a mixed load it is far from optimum. The C17 was designed as as an oversize strategic transporter. When responding to a humanitarian mission such as cyclone relief, the relief is loaded on pallets which will fit on any sort of freighter, it does not need a C17.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 32):
Disagree, the off the shelf purchases Australia made of C-17, SH, Abrams have performed well. Conversely, the ADF has had a terrible time with any system that required development, including KC-30, MRH-90, Tiger, AWD, Wedgetail.

If you purchase equipment after the end of the development cycle, there will be nothing to develop. The A330 MRTT, MRH-90, Tiger, Wedgetail have been very cheap acquisitions that were poorly managed (but not be USA standards such as the Common Vertical Lift Support Platform program), however they have been very smart moves. The A330MRTT was problematic for a while, however today it is a excellent platform which has won numerous international campaigns since. Jindalee is another project which struggled at the start, but today it is world class. Off the shelf does not suit Australia all the time.

I personally think the SH idea was wrong, IMHO they should have put the F15K engine in the F111 with a new fuel tanks and wing and digital avionics. The SH does not have the range or penetration without refueling that the F111 had. Australia lost its strike capability, and also lost its long distance anti-ship capabilities.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 32):
The ANAO audit of the MRH-90 is pretty clear.

My comments were entirely consistent with that report. I would draw your attention to points 23 & 25.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 32):
As with the Tiger purchase, the MRH-90 was chosen against the wishes of the ADF.

It is not like the S‑70M has been without issue, is was nothing more than a paper airplane back in 2002.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 32):
Unfortunately the ADF is stuck with the MRH-90, but consider where the Australian Army could be today if the S-70M and the Apache had been chosen as recommended by the Australian Department of Defence.

Sounds like you are making this up with the benefit of hindsight. Tiger was purchased as a Kiowa replacement and does that role very well. The Apache is not a Kiowa replacement, not in terms of cost or capability. The US Army replacement for the Kiowa was the ARH-70 Arapaho (not Apache) which was a basket case that never got operational.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
angad84
Posts: 2087
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:04 pm

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Sun Mar 06, 2016 6:09 pm

Quoting Ozair (Reply 29):
only that they want something, in the longer term, with the payload capabilities of a C-17.
Quoting kiwirob (Reply 33):
So what are they going to buy, there is nothing on the market and I doubt the US is going to sell C17's.

Exactly. They either beg the USAF for a couple of C-17s or lump it with the A400M, because there's simply no other option.

Cheers
A
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27315
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Sun Mar 06, 2016 7:20 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 34):
When responding to a humanitarian mission such as cyclone relief, the relief is loaded on pallets which will fit on any sort of freighter, it does not need a C17.

I would expect it does not need an A400M, either.

In such scenarios, as you noted, the KC-30A would be the optimum choice. If they cannot forward deploy to the direct location, they can stockpile the nearest suitable airfield and then the C-130J fleet could move the men and materials to the direct location.
 
Ozair
Topic Author
Posts: 5385
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Sun Mar 06, 2016 10:23 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 34):
That is just not true. When responding to a humanitarian mission, the C17 is either good at taking oversize heavy cargo, or people, when taking a mixed load it is far from optimum. The C17 was designed as as an oversize strategic transporter. When responding to a humanitarian mission such as cyclone relief, the relief is loaded on pallets which will fit on any sort of freighter, it does not need a C17.

So... if we are back again to any sort of freighter then why do we need the A400? Given I was the first to suggest that option earlier

Quoting Ozair (Reply 8):
Just a thought but could they be intending to acquire several commercial heavy lift aircraft such as a 747-8F?

Two posts later I agreed a A330F makes more sense from fleet commonality. I don't care about the platform, what I want is the ADF to choose the right aircraft for the job.

Quoting zeke (Reply 34):
The A330 MRTT, MRH-90, Tiger, Wedgetail have been very cheap acquisitions that were poorly managed

I'm not sure why you refer to any of those as cheap. As you yourself intimated the MRH-90 was the more expensive option but supposedly with lower sustainment costs than the other option, which as per ANAO is now not the case. Tiger was not cheap especially when you consider that the ADF has to integrate Hellfire onto the helicopter, was the first to do it when the alternative already had Hellfire integrated. Wedgetail was not cheap, again especially in light of the fact it did not and will not meet the radar specification requirement.

Quote:
…the radar will not meet its full contracted capability. There are about 10,000 requirements on this aircraft. That some standards are not met is probably rational given that there are 10,000 specifications. However, this area of radar performance is important to us. We engaged the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to look at this issue for us. Their conclusions were very similar to ours, which is that there will be this shortfall in this aspect of the radar performance. We are now doing studies to determine operationally what that means. It is one thing to have a technical limitation, but what does it mean operationally in reality?
The conclusion is that there is no technically viable solution for that element of performance to date, so we have to recognise that. Part of our negotiations with Boeing at the moment is to determine a settlement for the delivery of the aircraft in relation to the lateness of the delivery and this performance shortfall and what plan we will put in place to incrementally improve that performance when the technology to solve that becomes available
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_...t_2007_2008/report/chapter%203.htm

As for KC-30, it was really the only choice dictated by the geography of Australia. That is had issues is not surprising but then the only alternative, the KC-767, had a terrible run as well.

Quoting zeke (Reply 34):
My comments were entirely consistent with that report. I would draw your attention to points 23 & 25.

And yet paragraph 27 highlights the real issues,

Quote:
The decision by the then Australian Government in 2004 to approve the acquisition of the MRH90 aircraft, instead of the initial Defence recommendation that the S-70M Black Hawk aircraft be acquired for Phases 2 and 4, has had significant implications as a consequence of: unforseen immaturity in the MRH90 system design and the support system; the continuing need to modify some design elements to meet multi-role capability requirements; and the high cost of sustaining the aircraft.

The reality is the grand plan for rationalizing the ADF helicopter fleet has failed, primarily because the wrong types were chosen. Navy has now gone with SH-60R, the Tiger is being replaced and MRH-90 is costlier to sustain than first expected.

Quoting zeke (Reply 34):
It is not like the S-70M has been without issue, is was nothing more than a paper airplane back in 2002.

Ha, any S-70M problems, please find them for me, pale in comparison to what has occurred with the MRH-90 and NH-90 airframes around the globe. To deny that is foolish.

Quoting zeke (Reply 34):
Sounds like you are making this up with the benefit of hindsight. Tiger was purchased as a Kiowa replacement and does that role very well. The Apache is not a Kiowa replacement, not in terms of cost or capability. The US Army replacement for the Kiowa was the ARH-70 Arapaho (not Apache) which was a basket case that never got operational.

Sorry, wrong again. They were not seeking a direct replacement for the Kiowa, they were seeking an armed reconnaissance helicopter with a list of requirements that the AH-64 best met. That is a fact.

Quoting zeke (Reply 34):
I personally think the SH idea was wrong, IMHO they should have put the F15K engine in the F111 with a new fuel tanks and wing and digital avionics.

Really... I didn't take you for someone that would fall for the Kopp/Goon ridiculous idea of a converted F-111. There are so many things wrong with the idea that I can't believe you are even suggesting it. I cannot think of a single example where this type of massive redesign of an in service aircraft has succeeded, especially in this instance where the RAAF was and would have remained the sole operator of a type withdrawn from service by the original operator over 10 years previous.

Looking at how much it cost and the time required to integrate the AGM-142 onto the F-111 clearly identifies how much additional cost, risk and time an F-111 modification program would have sunk, with absolutely no guarantee that it would ever have been successful. Making a case for maintaining an Australian long range strike capability and then proposing that type of modification to the F-111 is absurd.

Quoting zeke (Reply 34):
The SH does not have the range or penetration without refueling that the F111 had. Australia lost its strike capability, and also lost its long distance anti-ship capabilities.

Rubbish. The world moved on from low level penetration that was demonstrated in GW1 to be unsustainable. The SH choice was made because the F-111 was unsustainable going forward and not survivable within the modern battlespace.

The SH is an adequate replacement for the F-111 in the anti-ship role, especially given it can conduct self-escort strike and also launch Harpoon while the realistic bulk of long range anti-shipping duties continues with P-3s and soon P-8s which also have Harpoon capability.

Quoting angad84 (Reply 35):
Exactly. They either beg the USAF for a couple of C-17s or lump it with the A400M, because there's simply no other option.

Given the White Paper stated "in the longer term" and costed everything out to approx 2030 we are not talking about acquiring additional lift in the next five or probably even ten years. Does anyone honestly think that the A400 will be in production ten years from now?

The current A400 backlog and production rate will see the entire order book delivered within the next 6 years. They would realistically have to extend production another four years at a minimum to accommodate what would likely be a small RAAF order, probably less than 12 and more likely 8 if the C-130 fleet is replaced.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15316
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Mon Mar 07, 2016 11:30 am

Quoting Ozair (Reply 37):
So... if we are back again to any sort of freighter then why do we need the A400? Given I was the first to suggest that option earlier

Because they cannot carry a crane, trucks, fuel bladders etc.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 37):
As you yourself intimated the MRH-90 was the more expensive option but supposedly with lower sustainment costs than the other option, which as per ANAO is now not the case.

New technology normally does cost more upfront.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 37):
Tiger was not cheap especially when you consider that the ADF has to integrate Hellfire onto the helicopter

Not sure what you mean by that, the French Tigers are have been armed with 8 hellfires since 2003.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 37):
As for KC-30, it was really the only choice dictated by the geography of Australia.

Not the only choice, but a smart choice.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 37):
They were not seeking a direct replacement for the Kiowa, they were seeking an armed reconnaissance helicopter with a list of requirements that the AH-64 best met.

The AH-64 is an attach helicopter. The ADF has operated the Kiowa in an armed recon role before in war.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 37):
There are so many things wrong with the idea that I can't believe you are even suggesting it.

Please go ahead.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 37):
I cannot think of a single example where this type of massive redesign of an in service aircraft has succeeded

Lots of examples, look at the F-16/F-111/KC-135.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 37):
The world moved on from low level penetration that was demonstrated in GW1 to be unsustainable.

Not low level, range and speed with a good payload was what the F111 was good at.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 37):
The SH choice was made because the F-111 was unsustainable going forward and not survivable within the modern battlespace.

There was nothing stopping the super hornet avionics suite being installed on the F111.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 37):
The SH is an adequate replacement for the F-111 in the anti-ship role, especially given it can conduct self-escort strike and also launch Harpoon while the realistic bulk of long range anti-shipping duties continues with P-3s and soon P-8s which also have Harpoon capability.

It is not a land based strike weapon, it has been designed as a carrier based weapon.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
WIederling
Posts: 9465
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Mon Mar 07, 2016 1:42 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 38):
Because they cannot carry a crane, trucks, fuel bladders etc.

he?
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15316
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Mon Mar 07, 2016 3:07 pm

Quoting WIederling (Reply 39):

In response to humanitarian missions such as a cyclones or earthquakes, heavy machinery such as cranes/trucks are flown in to assist, these are too oversize for a conventional civil freighter. Fuel supplies can also be unavailable due to the underground storage and distribution fuel network being damaged, so large temporary bladders of fuel are flown in, they need the ramp access as found on military transports to offload the fuel.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Ozair
Topic Author
Posts: 5385
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Mon Mar 07, 2016 10:29 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 38):
Because they cannot carry a crane, trucks, fuel bladders etc.

I get it. So when you said this

Quoting zeke (Reply 34):
The C17 was designed as as an oversize strategic transporter. When responding to a humanitarian mission such as cyclone relief, the relief is loaded on pallets which will fit on any sort of freighter, it does not need a C17.

you didn't actually mean it given it is almost completely opposite to what you stated earlier. Relief load now doesn't need a pallet loader it needs an oversize transporter. I think we have run around the horse enough and you have confused yourself enough we don't need to bother with this anymore...

Quoting zeke (Reply 38):
New technology normally does cost more upfront.

You claimed that the MRH-90 while having a higher initial cost was going to cost less than the S-70M to maintain

Quoting zeke (Reply 31):
The MRH-90 has a higher upfront cost, however lower maintenance costs.

In this case we know that is not true.

Quoting zeke (Reply 38):
Not sure what you mean by that, the French Tigers are have been armed with 8 hellfires since 2003.

Zeke, you know you can look this stuff up.

Quote:
The Government of France has selected Lockheed Martin's Hellfire II missile system to equip its Hélicoptère d'Appui Destruction (HAD) Tiger attack helicopter fleet. The precision-strike missiles will be purchased under a foreign military sale for the French Army, which is fielding 40 HAD Tiger helicopters. The fielding is expected to be completed by 2012.

“Hellfire is one of the premier air-to-ground missile systems in use today, and we're looking forward to adding the Hellfire capability to the French HAD Tiger, in addition to Australia,” said Terrell.

Eurocopter, under contract with the multi-national European Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation, has already begun integration of Hellfire II on the HAD Tiger at its facility in Marignane, France, with Lockheed Martin's support. Ground tests are scheduled for October 2007, with flight tests beginning in March 2008.
http://www.defencetalk.com/france-se...-equip-had-tiger-helicopter-11979/

Quote:
HELLFIRE II is already successfully integrated and qualified on the Australian Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter (ARH) Tiger helicopter. In a comprehensive flight test program at Woomera Testing Range in South Australia, from May to December 2005, HELLFIRE was 7-for-7 over a wide spectrum of engagement scenarios. In August 2006, France's Delegation Generale pour l'Armement (DGA) launched HELLFIRE from an Australian Tiger at the Woomera Range. The first-time gunner, a French pilot, employing a lock-on-before- launch technique, scored a direct hit with the HELLFIRE II missile on a target six kilometers away.
HAD.htm" target="_blank">http://defense-update.com/products/h/hellfire_HAD.htm

Quoting zeke (Reply 38):
The AH-64 is an attach helicopter. The ADF has operated the Kiowa in an armed recon role before in war.

And yet the US has also decided to, in light of the failure of the ARH-70, replace the Kiowas in service with the AH-64.

Quote:
The 82nd Airborne Division-led mission to deploy anywhere in the world on little to no notice has relied on the OH-58 Kiowa Warrior to be the GRF's eyes and ears for years.
On training exercises, the smaller Kiowa is often on one of the first aircraft to land after paratroopers descend and seize an enemy airfield.
But the age of the Kiowa is nearing an end.
And while the 82nd Airborne will have the last remaining Kiowas in the Army, Gilbert is preparing for life without them.
That means having the Apache ready to fill the Kiowa on the GRF's aviation task force, which is currently led by the 2nd Aviation Assault Battalion.

Apaches are already part of the GRF, but their new role will see them deployed much faster than before.
Gilbert and other 82nd leaders see the attack helicopter as an improvement over its smaller cousin.
The Apache, flown on Fort Bragg by the 1st Attack Reconnaissance Battalion, is more heavily armed than a Kiowa -- carrying a 30 mm machine gun, Hellfire missiles and Hydra rocket pods.
It can spot enemies and attack from further distances, and has more protection in the form of thicker armor plating.
"I mean, it's an anti-tank capability," Gilbert said as he watched his soldiers work in the drizzling, cold rain. "That's huge."
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...e-kiowas-rapid-reaction-force.html

Again, the ARH program in Australia was not seeking a direct replacement for the Kiowa, it specifically sought capabilities that the Kiowa did not have. The result of that evaluation was that the AH-64 was the most suitable candidate and fulfilled all requirements. Stupidly, the Minister of the day mandated a European option against the recommendation of the Australian DoD.

Quoting zeke (Reply 38):
Lots of examples, look at the F-16/F-111/KC-135.

Sorry, none of those are valid examples at all. F-111 nor F-16 were ever integrated with a different engine post build. F-16s when upgraded are taken to an original manufacturer upgraded standard while RAAF F-111 upgrades were always heavily reliant on previous USAF upgrade programs and already developed subsystems. The KC-135 is a tanker aircraft that has no attack radar and flies benign flight profiles compared to attack or fighter jets.

Quoting zeke (Reply 38):
Not low level, range and speed with a good payload was what the F111 was good at.

Neither of which by the mid 2000s could provide adequate protection for the jet in a modern threat environment. The reason the RAAF spent so much money on the AGM-142 was they identified that the F-111 could no longer be guaranteed to safely penetrate adversary airspace and deliver its weapons.

Quoting zeke (Reply 38):
There was nothing stopping the super hornet avionics suite being installed on the F111.

Except money, time, risk and incentive. A 50 year old airframe tarted up is still a 50 year old airframe and the experience integrating the AGM-142 onto the F-111 clearly shows how difficult this process actually is.

Quoting zeke (Reply 38):
It is not a land based strike weapon, it has been designed as a carrier based weapon.

The original development requirements for the system have no bearing as long as it fulfils the requirements for which it was acquired.

In the case of the RAAF, being able to launch 15 or even 20 SH to conduct an anti-ship missile strike is far superior to the 2, 4 or on a very good day 6 F-111s that could have been launched, let alone what would happen on day two when all the F-111s were still down for maintenance while those SH all launched again...
 
GDB
Posts: 13833
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Tue Mar 08, 2016 7:06 pm

Here's the RAAF's long range anti ship capability coming soon.....

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/raaf-kc-30-to-begin-p-8a-refuelling-trials-in-early-422870/
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3524
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Wed Mar 09, 2016 6:49 am

Quoting Ozair (Reply 41):
Except money, time, risk and incentive. A 50 year old airframe tarted up is still a 50 year old airframe and the experience integrating the AGM-142 onto the F-111 clearly shows how difficult this process actually is.

Correct. Repeating myself on DMSMS, but here's some tidbits in regards to why one shouldn't keep old aircraft kicking around:

US Bomber Contract Awarded Oct 27th (by metalinyoni Oct 26 2015 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 59):
The aircraft itself may be perfectly fine, but the vendors that supply components that go into the aircraft don't make the components anymore, or no longer exist. This is a big issue in defence procurement as the usable lifetime of an system may far exceed the availability of the components used to produce that system. Depots and boneyards can only do so much before the maintenance and overhaul costs will exceed the cost to just buy a brand new system that doesn't have DMSMS issues from the start.

There are a number of obvious signs that you have DMSMS issues:
1. A vendor notifies you that a part they are producing is about to go out of production;
2. A particular system uses a certain unique part that can only be produced by a single manufacturer;
3. Parts for a system are dwindling, but no clear replacement for that system over time;
4. A system doesn't have easy up-gradable sub components that one can quickly upgrade and replace as parts become obsolete;
5. A system goes into production with sub components already totally obsolete and near EOL

Military hardware is especially susceptible to DMSMS because of the low volume of production, and the fact that the systems are intended for use for a long period of time. This means that over time, vendors will move on to newer technologies and products, and they will discontinue older components because of a lack of profitability.

Also, the F-111 has some unique and specific depot requirements... an explanation:

Back when the F-111 was being introduced, the aircraft was having a devil of an issue with the wing pivot system. Specifically, the wing pivot system used forged D6AC ultra-high strength steel. The steel was extremely strong, but small cracks could grow very fast and result in failures. It could be described as "brittle", since it behaved something like glass - very strong, but intolerant of cracks.

This lead to a loss of a F-111A in December 1969, where a wing of a F-111A failed catastrophically. The F-111 was immediately grounded after that incident, and a USAF committee investigating the accident recommended the use of fracture mechanics, already in use with the USAF's missile systems to study the problem of the F-111's wing pivot system. Coupled with how inaccessible some areas of the F-111's wing pivot system was, a new structural integrity test, called the Cold Proof Test which was meant to address the issues with the F-111's high strength steel construction.

The Cold Proof Test extensively used fracture mechanics theory. Fracture mechanics has the capability to predict the sizes of flaws necessary to cause component failure when exposed to a given level of stress. As stress increases, the flaw size that would cause failure (called the critical size) will decrease.

The proof test philosophy, then, is to apply a high as stress as possible, without creating other problems such as yielding or secondary structural damage, which, if the structure survives, will allow quite a reliable determination of the largest sizes of flaws that could exist. When these "proof test" flaw sizes are less than the critical sizes required to cause failure during normal operational loads, then the fracture mechanics analysis procedures can predict a period of safe operations before another inspection, or proof test, will be required. Also, for steel material, the critical flaw size will decrease as the temperature decreases. The material essentially becomes more brittle: or more technically, the cold temperature reduces its fracture toughness.

As such, with the F-111, the aircraft was placed in a large structural steel test fixture, to hold the aircraft firmly and react the test loads which are applied to the aircraft through hydraulic rams. This structure was placed in a highly insulated test facility (more on why later). The hydraulic load system is computer controlled and incorporates sophisticated control and safety systems to prevent overload of the airframe during failures or system malfunctions. The system has the ability to "dump" up to 130,000 psi of force almost instantaneously as a failure is detected by a load cell feed back loop.

To achieve the cold part of the test, they used about 6000 gallons of liquid nitrogen per test that is vaporized to form gaseous nitrogen after being poured into the test chamber plenium ducts. Fans are used to circulate the cold nitrogen around the airframe, cooling the surrounding air to negative 65°F. Using thermocouples attached deep within the critical components of the airframe, the chamber and structure temperatures are eventually stabilised at between minus 43°F and minus 47°F.

Once the temperature has been stabilised, loads are applied to the structure at four different pivot settings using the computer controlled hydraulic load system, while being monitored by computers and test personnel. Loading takes about 2 to 3 hours, and the total proof test procedure can be carried out in a single day.

After the test is complete, the acoustic emission data is analysed to determine if any significant sounds were generated during the test. If any sounds are considered to be indicative of system or structural failures, the position of the sound source are identified by the computer, with an inspection carried out in that area by maintenance personnel. The test fixtures and other test equipment is then disassembled and removed, while the aircraft is returned to the maintenance facility for continued preparations and procedures required prior to return to the operating squadron.

In all, ever since the cold proof test was implemented with the F-111 fleet, there hasn't been a single crash related to in-flight structural failures of the wing pivot system, and only 11 failure events between the USAF and RAAF were ever identified throughout the entire service life of the F-111 fleet.
 
Legs
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 3:37 pm

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Wed Mar 09, 2016 8:06 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 38):
super hornet avionics suite being installed on the F111.
Quoting Ozair (Reply 41):
Except money, time, risk and incentive

I'd add to that list capability. The industry didnt have enough capacity and expertise in the engineering space to get the job done (do we even have a suitable wind tunnel to do the necessary redesign of the intakes?)

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 43):
unique and specific depot requirements
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 43):
cold proof test

A facility which has since been mothballed, and like the F-111 itself, was pretty much obsolete at the end. The computers that controlled the systems ran on tape drives, and I can remember at least two proof tests that had to be redone due to failures in the facility, not the aircraft itself.

Still, cold proof was a very interesting process, if a little fiddly and finicky beforehand to place the sensors and set up the airframe to match the hydraulic jigs. If memory serves, the load applied to the airframe roughly equated out to +4.5/-1G.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3524
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Wed Mar 09, 2016 9:07 am

Quoting Legs (Reply 44):
If memory serves, the load applied to the airframe roughly equated out to 4.5/-1G.

From what I've read, the tests were conducted at 4 wing sweep settings and load conditions:
56 degrees -2.4 g
56 degrees 7.33 g
26 degrees -3.0 g
26 degrees 7.33 g

The RAAF F-111C's had a cold proof test interval of 2,000 hours. There's been only 3 cold stress test failures in the RAAF's fleet, all due to fatigue cracks being missed during depot inspection. The USAF has had 8 failures in their F-111 fleet. These failures, had they been missed during the cold proof test, would have lead to a mishap and the loss of an aircraft and its crew.

Quoting Legs (Reply 44):
Still, cold proof was a very interesting process, if a little fiddly and finicky beforehand to place the sensors and set up the airframe to match the hydraulic jigs.

It very much caused the USAF to embrace fracture mechanics over fatigue as their go to structural durability technology. Practically every USAF aircraft since then has been tested using fracture mechanics. The USN is still old school and uses fatigue criteria.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15316
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Thu Mar 10, 2016 3:02 am

Quoting Ozair (Reply 41):
Relief load now doesn't need a pallet loader it needs an oversize transporter. I think we have run around the horse enough and you have confused yourself enough we don't need to bother with this anymore...

Read what I posted, relief is things like food, water, tents, blankets.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 41):
You claimed that the MRH-90 while having a higher initial cost was going to cost less than the S-70M to maintain

Correct

Quoting Ozair (Reply 41):
And yet the US has also decided to, in light of the failure of the ARH-70, replace the Kiowas in service with the AH-64.

What works in the USA does not translate to what works in Australia. The US already had a large fleet of AH-64s. Australia did not want an ant-tank helicopter.

"Army officials have stressed that it is not looking to replace its Bell 206B-1 Kiowas with an anti-tank helicopter, but wants rather an armed machine equipped with all-weather day and night sensors. DCC approval also covers the acquisition of "air-to-ground precision-guided missiles"."

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...gears-up-for-air-87-contest-29173/

Quoting Ozair (Reply 41):
Again, the ARH program in Australia was not seeking a direct replacement for the Kiowa, it specifically sought capabilities that the Kiowa did not have

It was to replace the Kiowa and Iroquois, a job the Tiger is good at.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 41):
Sorry, none of those are valid examples at all. F-111 nor F-16 were ever integrated with a different engine post build.

You are wrong, add the F-15 into the mix as well. The F-111 had a number of different engines fitted.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 41):

Neither of which by the mid 2000s could provide adequate protection for the jet in a modern threat environment. The reason the RAAF spent so much money on the AGM-142 was they identified that the F-111 could no longer be guaranteed to safely penetrate adversary airspace and deliver its weapons.

It is just a matter of installing avionics, the RAAF had flown ECM pods on the F-111. I was talking about installing a new modular avionics kit on the airframe, not keeping the analog/digital past.
Quoting Ozair (Reply 41):
Except money, time, risk and incentive. A 50 year old airframe tarted up is still a 50 year old airframe and the experience integrating the AGM-142 onto the F-111 clearly shows how difficult this process actually is.


True, but is nowhere near as old as the B-52. The F-111 had capabilities that superhornet cannot fill. Its a political decision to see if the money is worth spending on it. Since the retirement of the F-111 there has been a large increase in the number of Chinese "coast guard" and "fishing trawlers" in Australian waters. The Chinese also took over part of the Australian territory in Antarctica and built a base on it. It is the south china sea all over again, except they will start sending their aircraft carriers.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 41):
In the case of the RAAF, being able to launch 15 or even 20 SH to conduct an anti-ship missile strike is far superior to the 2, 4 or on a very good day 6 F-111s that could have been launched, let alone what would happen on day two when all the F-111s were still down for maintenance while those SH all launched again...

No, the superhornet is not a strike weapon, nor is it a long range aircraft.

What I was talking about is much better explained with this http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-F-111-Supercruise-2001.html

Quoting GDB (Reply 42):
Here's the RAAF's long range anti ship capability coming soon.....

Shortly I suspect you will see an announcement for the USAF to base B-1 squadron in Northern Australia to provide long range strike capability.

Quoting Legs (Reply 44):
I'd add to that list capability. The industry didnt have enough capacity and expertise in the engineering space to get the job done (do we even have a suitable wind tunnel to do the necessary redesign of the intakes?)

Even Boeing and Airbus these rely on specialist facilities like QinetiQ for wind tunnel development work. What I had envisaged was by no means a trivial task, it involves a re-manufacture of the airframe like you have seen done in the US with other airframes.

But that is all academic now, it looks like the solution to the capability gap is for B-1s to be based in Australia.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 43):
Also, the F-111 has some unique and specific depot requirements... an explanation:

Also had asbestos, beryllium, and other issues with the fuel tank reseal. This could have been all sorted out with an upgrade. The F111 suffered in the early days as it was on the cutting edge of materials technology at the time. A composite wing/wing box would have sorted those problems out.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3524
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Thu Mar 10, 2016 5:17 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 46):
You are wrong, add the F-15 into the mix as well.

Realistically, the F-15 for the longest time has had the PW F100 series engine as the main engine. Ditto the F-16. It was by fortune that there was an alternative engine design available; GE had developed the F101 for the B-1 Lancer and was able to modify the design to become the F110 engine.

Quoting zeke (Reply 46):
The F-111 had a number of different engines fitted.

The F-111 all used variants of the Pratt TF30 engine. There was a proposal for an enlarged F-111 to be built with GE F101 engines, but that never left the drawing board.

Quoting zeke (Reply 46):
It is just a matter of installing avionics, the RAAF had flown ECM pods on the F-111. I was talking about installing a new modular avionics kit on the airframe, not keeping the analog/digital past.

There's also the matter of certifying and validating any new avionics packages; not a easy or cheap option. And for a very small fleet, its totally not worth it.

Quoting zeke (Reply 46):
True, but is nowhere near as old as the B-52

There has been 700+ B-52's built, with 76 remaining in active service. These aircraft have received avionics upgrades during their service.

There has only been 28 F-111C's in RAAF service backed up by 15 ex-USAF F-111G's. That's a substantially smaller fleet.

Quoting zeke (Reply 46):
What I was talking about is much better explained with this http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-F-111-....html

Really? APA? Carlo Kopp and Peter Goon? You do realize that they don't have any qualifications to speak of to make their assertions? Furthermore, they have no experience as defence contractors; unless you count the AP-3C bomb bay cargo nets that they developed, which was in reality a piece of junk...

Their primary motivation was to get the RAAF to pay them vast sums of money to adopt their F-111 upgrade proposal while they farm the work out to someone else more qualified. The other motivation, which is related to the first one is to take credit for 'proposing' the F-22A to the Australian Government to satisfy the AIR-6000 future fighter project.

They (again) intended to 'sub-contract' to Lockheed Martin to supply the F-22A to 'them' and thence to RAAF (in reality, they'd be directly delivered to the RAAF) but they would hold the 'intellectual property rights' for proposing F-22A and if anyone else (including LM) dared propose the F-22A, they would claim that they had the exclusive right to do so, so lawyer up... unfortunately, their understanding of intellectual property law and politics wasn't much better than their understanding of aerospace engineering, which was completely non-existent.

Otherwise both Carlo Kopp and Peter Goon are considered Persona Non Grata in Australian military circles. I've actually heard a fairly reliable rumour that the Australian military actually has gotten a Apprehended Violence Order placed against Peter Goon preventing him from ever approaching RAAF facilities without permission or harassing RAAF and Department of Defence personnel (which I heard was a result of him being too belligerent in promoting his 'upgrade' proposals on the F-111 and DHC-4 Caribou, along with him stalking RAAF personnel).

This incidentally would mean he would never get a security clearance in the future to work on any government or defence work, if he'd ever had one in the first place, so I doubt both of them have access to any reliable information about weapon systems.

Quoting zeke (Reply 46):
A composite wing/wing box would have sorted those problems out.

See my comments about APA above.
 
Ozair
Topic Author
Posts: 5385
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Thu Mar 10, 2016 5:17 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 46):
Correct

But the promise has not been fulfilled. The MRH-90 costs significantly more to sustain than expected.

Quoting zeke (Reply 46):
What works in the USA does not translate to what works in Australia. The US already had a large fleet of AH-64s. Australia did not want an ant-tank helicopter.

That was only in response to your claim that the AH-64 cannot replace the Kiowa.

I'm not sure what you don't get here but I will explain it again. After all the contenders submitted their proposals DMO determined that the AH-64 was the most suitable. The Minister, as with the MRH-90, decided to go against the DMO recommendation and acquire Tiger. Now 15 years later and only having declared fully operational in late 2012 the ADF has decided to replace Tiger with something else. Do you think the Minister, knowing what has happened since, would make the same decision again?

Funny thing is had the AH-64 been selected as recommended by DMO it would almost certainly have been in service on time and close to or on budget.

Most importantly it would have been available for service in Afghanistan right when the ADF needed it!

Quoting zeke (Reply 46):
You are wrong, add the F-15 into the mix as well. The F-111 had a number of different engines fitted.

Claiming I am wrong while continuing to not provide evidence does not help your case. Including the F-15 also does not help you whatsoever.

As for the F-111, would you please tell me what engine other than the TF30 was ever installed?

Quoting zeke (Reply 46):
True, but is nowhere near as old as the B-52. The F-111 had capabilities that superhornet cannot fill. Its a political decision to see if the money is worth spending on it.

The B-52 is another poor example. Upgrading the B-52s to the CONECT standard, which is far simpler than what is proposed by APA, cost US$36 million per aircraft.

As for the F-111 having capabilities the SH cannot fulfil, the same can be said of the SH having capabilities the F-111 cannot fulfil. There is no way to twist this, the F-111 was not survivable in a modern battlespace and it simply wasn’t worth the investment to attempt to correct this.

Quoting zeke (Reply 46):
Since the retirement of the F-111 there has been a large increase in the number of Chinese "coast guard" and "fishing trawlers" in Australian waters.

Just so we are clear, you are attempting to link an increase in Chinese coast guard and fishing vessels, which you have provided no evidence has actually happened, to the retirement of the F-111? That is truly absurd!

Quoting zeke (Reply 46):
The Chinese also took over part of the Australian territory in Antarctica and built a base on it. It is the south china sea all over again, except they will start sending their aircraft carriers.

So this can be seen for as crazy a claim as it is, you do realise that China has been in Antarctia and expanding in the Australian Antarctic zone long before the F-111 was retired.

Quote:
Since 1996 China has expanded its Zhongshan station near Australia’s Davis station.

hxxp://20yearplan.antarctica.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/146155/20-Year-Plan.pdf

This is of course before we consider why the presence of the F-111, which does not have the range to get to Antarctica and back anyway, is even a consideration in this discussion.

Seriously, what do Chinese fisherman and a research station in Antarctica have to do with this?

Quoting zeke (Reply 46):
What I was talking about is much better explained with this hxxp://www.ausairpower.net/TE-F-111-Supercruise-2001.html

That is not new to me. I have read it numerous times and each time I do I realise how crazy the idea is and how unlikely it would have been to work. The risk is simply enormous! It has the makings of an SH-2G debacle all over it.

Quoting zeke (Reply 46):
Shortly I suspect you will see an announcement for the USAF to base B-1 squadron in Northern Australia to provide long range strike capability.

Since Australia will never have command authority over these aircraft I don't see what your point is.


Edit: links replaced with xx due to site bug.
 
GDB
Posts: 13833
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Australia Defence White Paper 2016

Thu Mar 10, 2016 9:08 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 46):

Shortly I suspect you will see an announcement for the USAF to base B-1 squadron in Northern Australia to provide long range strike capability.

Oh dear, I'll break it down for you.
RAAF has A330MRTT's.
RAAF also has P-8's or order.
P-8's can carry AGM-84's, already RAAF have them on P-3's.
A330MRTT tests refuelling said P-8's, therefore once in service RAAF P-8's can extend their range and conduct anti ship sorties even further beyond this aircraft's long range
What this had to do with USAF B-1's, or your technically illiterate and historically inaccurate F-111 obsession escapes me.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos