Quoting Ozair (Reply 48): The MRH-90 costs significantly more to sustain than expected.

I am not aware of that.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 48): Do you think the Minister, knowing what has happened since, would make the same decision again?

You would hope so, but that does not translate to ordering the AH-64.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 48): As for the F-111, would you please tell me what engine other than the TF30 was ever installed?

The TF30 is not one engine, it is a family of engines, it is like saying the CFM56 or RB211. Several different engines in the TF30 family were fitted to the F-111, two different engines to the C models, and two engines to the G models.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 48): 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.

All F111s have had electronic self protection of some form, they came with AN62 radar warning receiver, AN28 chaff/flare dispenser, AN34 Infrared Tail Warning system, the C models also carried the AN94, G models the AN137 electronic countermeasures. Echidna was flown on the F111 in the lat 1990s, in 2004 the ELTA-8222 was added.

Outside 3AD with ALQ131 fitted

Quoting Ozair (Reply 48): 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?

And you have no evidence to show they don't. There is nothing from the RAAF on its AP-3C, coastwatch, JORN, or Pine Gap activities. The lack of public information is not evidence that something is not happening.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 48): Seriously, what do Chinese fisherman and a research station in Antarctica have to do with this?

Because they are not fisherman, and it is not a research station. Suppose you also believe the the statement China gave the Australian government last week during an official visit to say there was no militarization of the islands in the South China sea.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 48): Since Australia will never have command authority over these aircraft I don't see what your point is.

Nor does Australia have command over its airspace or waters at this time because of the capability gap.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 48): Since Australia will never have command authority over these aircraft I don't see what your point is.

That is true, however it is ignorant to suggest there is no common interest. That is the rational behind the basing of marines and now aircraft.

Quoting GDB (Reply 49): P-8's can carry AGM-84's, already RAAF have them on P-3's.

Correct me if I am wrong, the Chinese HQ-9 surface to air missile as installed on its ships has twice the range of the harpoon ?

Quoting zeke (Reply 50): I am not aware of that.

How can you not be aware of that, the ANAO report I linked early is very specific on that.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 37): and the high cost of sustaining the aircraft.

Quoting zeke (Reply 50): You would hope so, but that does not translate to ordering the AH-64.

What? How does the AH-64 was the recommended option by the Aus DoD not translate into it being ordered if the ADF had their time again. Would the Minister make another stupid decision and choose another immature platform?

Quoting zeke (Reply 50): The TF30 is not one engine, it is a family of engines, it is like saying the CFM56 or RB211. Several different engines in the TF30 family were fitted to the F-111, two different engines to the C models, and two engines to the G models.

Rubbish, absolute and utter rubbish...

They are not different engines just variants. The F-16/15 have a different engine option, which is an entirely different manufacturer GE, compared to P&W. That is a different engine and even then that completely invalidates your use of them as an example, given both aircraft only have the alternative engine option installed by the OEM at the time of manufacture. No in service F-15 or F-16 has had their engine changed from P&W to GE or vice versa.

Quoting zeke (Reply 50): All F111s have had electronic self protection of some form, they came with AN62 radar warning receiver, AN28 chaff/flare dispenser, AN34 Infrared Tail Warning system, the C models also carried the AN94, G models the AN137 electronic countermeasures. Echidna was flown on the F111 in the lat 1990s, in 2004 the ELTA-8222 was added. Outside 3AD with ALQ131 fitted

Again, the RAAF, the owner and operator of the jet, identified that the F-111 was not survivable in a modern battlespace.

Quoting zeke (Reply 50): And you have no evidence to show they don't. There is nothing from the RAAF on its AP-3C, coastwatch, JORN, or Pine Gap activities. The lack of public information is not evidence that something is not happening.

I don't need the evidence, I didn't make the claim.

So what you are saying is that the Chinese military leadership got together in a room and, after hearing that Australia has retired the F-111, felt it was now safe to send small fishing and coast guard vessels to the regional waters of Australia...

By the way, there is plenty of evidence about JORN and where it looks as well as what Coast Watch and Pine Gap do.
JORN
hxxp://www.airforce.gov.au/docs/JORN_Fact_Sheet.pdf
Coastwatch
hxxp://ajem.infoservices.com.au/downloads/AJEM-18-03-02
Pine Gap

Quote: Pine Gap, which is located 30km outside Alice Springs in the Northern Territory, is a joint Australia-United States intelligence collection facility that contributes to the national security of both nations by providing information on terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and military and weapons developments. Through Pine Gap, Australia also supports the United States in its ballistic missile early warning program by hosting a space-based infra-red system relay ground station.

hxxp://www.defence.gov.au/defencemagazine/issue/3/articles/17.html

Quoting zeke (Reply 50): Because they are not fisherman, and it is not a research station.

Evidence please Zeke, evidence. Again, none of this has any bearing on the retirement of the F-111.

Quoting zeke (Reply 50): Nor does Australia have command over its airspace or waters at this time because of the capability gap.

What are you talking about? How does the F-111 provide Australia with better command over it's airspace and waters? What capability gap is present that prevents Australia from patrolling the territorial and EEZ?

Quoting zeke (Reply 50): That is true, however it is ignorant to suggest there is no common interest. That is the rational behind the basing of marines and now aircraft.

Of course there is common interest, the White Paper specifically stated the US alliance remains Australia's most important and the US pivot to Asia is welcomed and endorsed by the Australian Government.

Quoting zeke (Reply 50): Correct me if I am wrong, the Chinese HQ-9 surface to air missile as installed on its ships has twice the range of the harpoon ?

Perhaps twice depending upon the Harpoon variant but quoting a max range is pretty irrelevant. The max range requires the radar of the vessel to see the target and given a HQ-9 may be out to 200nm that would mean the aircraft targeted is at an altitude of 26kft or higher. I used this radar horizon calculator

hxxp://www.ewdefence.co.uk/onlinetools.html

Clearly there are tactics and techniques that allow an aircraft to move within harpoon targeting range of a vessel while remaining below the radar horizon of the ship. For example, an aircraft flying at an altitude of 3000ft could get as close at 80nm to a vessel before being detected on radar, at 1500ft you can get 60nm from the vessel without being detected. A simple pop up, target and launch of harpoon and then descending back below the radar horizon would prevent the vessel from launching a SAM at the aircraft.

Edit: hate that site bug, xx replaced in links.

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.

Here you go.

http://www.defencetalk.com/us-in-tal...-range-bombers-in-australia-67024/

Quote: Washington is in talks to station its strike bombers in Australia, according to a US general, amid concern about China’s military expansion in the South China Sea. General Lori Robinson, commander of US Pacific Air Forces, said negotiations were under way to have American B-1 bombers and aerial tankers temporarily stationed in northern Australia. “We’re in the process of talking about rotational forces, bombers and tankers out of Australia and it gives us the opportunity to train with Australia,” she said according to national radio aired Wednesday. “It gives us the opportunity to strengthen the ties we already have with the Royal Australian Air Force and it gives the opportunity to train our pilots to understand the theatre and how important it is to strengthen our ties with our great allies, the RAAF.” The US has been pursuing a foreign policy “pivot” towards Asia, which has rattled China, and already stations Marines in Australia’s north. Beijing said it was “concerned” by reports of the US-Australia talks. “To seek peace, cooperation and development is an important trend in the region and what all people aspire for,” said Hong Lei, a spokesman from China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. “Relevant cooperation among countries should serve the purpose of safeguarding regional peace and stability. “Such cooperation should not target the interests of a third party”. Last May, Assistant Defense Secretary for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs David Shear raised the prospect of B-1 bombers in Australia when he appeared before the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee. But his comments were played down by Australia’s then prime minister Tony Abbott, who said Shear had “misspoken”. Current Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull would not be drawn on the specifics of the discussions when asked about the bombers. “Well, we have rotation of American military forces through Darwin and through Australia all the time,” he said Wednesday. “So we have a very, very close defence relationship with the US. “I’m not going to comment on a particular element of that, but I can just assure you that everything we do is in this area is very carefully determined to ensure that our respective military forces work together as closely as possible in our mutual national interests.” Beijing claims almost the whole of the South China Sea, through which a third of the world’s oil passes, and tensions have been rising as it asserts its territorial claims. A US official last month said Beijing had deployed surface-to-air missiles on Woody Island in the disputed Paracels chain. Reports also surfaced recently of probable radar installations on reefs in the nearby Spratly islands. Washington has in recent months sent warships to sail within 12 nautical miles — the usual territorial limit around natural land — of a disputed island and reef transformed into an artificial island. Robinson said the United States would continue to fly above and sail through the disputed waterway and encouraged “anybody in the region and around the world” to follow suit to assert freedom of navigation.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 51): They are not different engines just variants. The F-16/15 have a different engine option, which is an entirely different manufacturer GE, compared to P&W. That is a different engine and even then that completely invalidates your use of them as an example, given both aircraft only have the alternative engine option installed by the OEM at the time of manufacture. No in service F-15 or F-16 has had their engine changed from P&W to GE or vice versa.

Correct. In the case of the F-16, the F-16's engine bay was completely redesigned to accommodate the new common engine bay that would allow on the production line to install either the PW F100 series or GE F110 series engine. However, the F-16 required a new inlet for the GE F110 engine because the F110 required more air to reach its potential. F-16's that had the PW F100 engine used the smaller inlet because the F100 engine could not accommodate the extra air.

In the case of the F-15, only two users have elected to op for the alternative engine, South Korea with their initial batch of F-15K's, and Saudi Arabia with their F-15SA's. South Korea elected to get the PW F100 engine for their second batch, and only the Saudi's are going to do a modification to completely switch engine vendors. From what I've heard, the reasoning for South Korea switching back to the F100 engine was because there were issues with the augmentor no-lights at pretty much all points in the operational envelope with GE F110 as installed on the F-15K, and the South Koreans were pretty much on their own.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 53): In the case of the F-15, only two users have elected to op for the alternative engine

Singapore did as well:



Cheers
Angad

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 52): Here you go. http://www.defencetalk.com/us-in-tal...7024/

The difference is that the USAF is wanting to base long range bombers in the Asia-Pacific, but potentially out of range of Chinese IRBM's. Guam's a little too exposed for that. Australia is out of range for most Chinese IRBM's, and only in range of their ICBM's, which are all nuclear tipped (the Chinese don't want to start a nuclear war, even over something so key and dear to them like Taiwan). The B-1's are going to be completely under US control, and Australia doesn't have much in the way of say as to how they are operated if an agreement is reached.

Quoting angad84 (Reply 54): Singapore did as well:

Indeed they did. And funny thing to note is that Singapore is perhaps the least transparent with their F-15SG fleet; officially, they have 24, but some media reports are suggesting Singapore may have up to 32 or more. These reports note that a number of new F-15's showed up at Mountain Home AFB with serial numbers that suggest that Singapore has at least 32 F-15SG's (serials 05-0025, 05-0028, 05-0030, 05-0031, and 05-0032). Boeing's own financial filings support that they appear to have sold 8 new F-15's to an undisclosed customer, most likely Singapore.

Great discussion guys, thanks for sharing.

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. 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.

Actually, I have heard first hand from ADF pilots that they prefer the Blackhawk to fly over the Taipan, but that's just from a few pilots and I don't know how widespread that view is.

And now for an overlooked aspect of the White Paper ... the special forces' helicopter purchase: apparently the French are claiming that France and Australia may cooperate on developing a joint special forces/CSAR NH-90/Taipan! Wishful thinking? Or behind the scenes jostling? Every now and then whispers emerge about ADF interest in the Osprey. Is it too big for the role mentioned in the White Paper?

And as for all the 'other' talk above, I believe that the Apache and Blackhawk SHOULD have been ordered as the ADF requested way back when. I also believe that the future 'additional heavy lift' suggested in the White Paper would be second-hand USAF C-17s supplementing an order for A400Ms or the once proposed C-130J-XL (or whatever it was called) to replace the C-130Js in a decade or so. Perhaps more A330MRTTs, including one to be a truly dedicated Aussie AF1 and freeing up the two ex-QF A330s being converted in Spain to focus on pure military duties. I just can't see the RAAF ordering the KC-390 (although I believe it will be a great aircraft) but I can see a few more C-27Js being ordered to help extend the C-130Js' lifespan.

Re: the NH-90 being chosen over the Blackhawk ... it could've been worse: I'm old enough to remember the approach by Westland to re-equip the RAAF with WG-30s to replace the Iroquois... and Lynx for the RAN (argh! Still one of my favourite helicopters! I wish the Wildcat was somehow able to be squeezed into ADF requirements!)

As for the Gulfstreams, two have been firmly ordered with a total 'wishlist' for five. I think that they are G550 variants - is that correct? This would also suggest that the Gulfstream would have the inside running for an eventual re-equipment of the RAAF's VIP fleet, to replace the Challengers and supplement/replace the BBJs... curious that there was no mention of this in the White Paper.

All in all, a comprehensive White Paper, with good outline of where the ADF is now and where it will be short, medium and longer term (as it is supposed to do, I guess, lol)

Cheers,
Bunumuring.

Hey guys,
Is everything okay with the introduction of the C-27J Spartan into Aussie service?
And is the Osprey being considered for an Aussie role, perhaps COD/utility/humanitarian work with the HMAS Canberra/Adelaide dynamic duo and a SF role? Makes perfect sense to me.
Also, the lack of any mention of VIP requirements in the white paper? Too politically hot to handle in light of Bronwyn Bishop and now Barnaby Joyce? The leases on the BBJs and Challengers simply can't go on forever being renewed when the fleets are clearly falling behind in terms of operational requirements for communications etc.
Cheers,
Bunumuring.

Quoting bunumuring (Reply 58): introduction of the C-27J Spartan into Aussie service?

Officially, things are progressing well towards IOC. Unofficially, Im hearing on the grapevine that there are some logistics issues making it a bit tough to support even the two airframes in Australia.

Quoting bunumuring (Reply 58): Osprey being considered for an Aussie role

Havent even heard rumours surrounding the Osprey, and I dont see why we would need them. If there was a need for an embarked heavy lift they could use Chinooks, perhaps? Surely any SF role is far too small a niche (between Spartans and the current rotary wing fleet) to buy Ospreys, especially after the C-27Js get fully up to speed.