F-15E for RAAF?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,833
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Call me dumb but I'm a bit hard pressed to think of a scenario where the RAAF would be called upon to establish air superiority. If we were to be party to such it would merely be a bit part in the main game. In my original post I was navel gazing and thinking how would the poor old grunts source air support of the shooting, bombing sort if our regional brush fires we are currently engaged in get really out of control. And it could be argued a few others in the region dont look too good. As has been mooted there are no votes in defence but plenty in the welfare sector when it comes to allocation of funds. With the few capital assets the country has the military has been very careful in husbanding its resources in combat operations. It just cant afford to jump in and lose something the likes of an F-18. Think back to Vietnam. Had the RAAF had an aircraft capable of tripping to downtown Hanoi do you really think the government would commit a squadron to that role? As much as the drivers might have liked to participate the loss rate would have been intolerable. As it was the government would not permit Oz aviators to operate over Nth. Vietnam because of the political fall out that would ensue from a guy being captured alive.
Brian
What is a sound army support alternative to RAAF fighter bombers dropping weapons from altitudes out of harms way?
Helicopters? 95% of Western aviator casualties in post-Vietnam skirmishes have been helicopter crews. So if casualties make you squeemish, helicopter gunships are risky.
The old fashioned, Flying Leathernecks battelfield support role? Low level is where the Western air forces have suffered the highest proportion of fast jet losses post Vietnam. So if losing an expensive fighter makes government squeemish, this role should ( and has ) fast been relinquished.
Army support from the RAAF will probably mirror the Americans. Fighter bombers dropping accurate weapons out of the reach of small calibre weapons and SAM's.
Will a force of 30ish F18's at the end of the decade be sufficient for this and other roles- maritime, air defence, long range strike etc.
No. It's an absolute gamble. We need another squadron of fighter bombers minimun. And the Yanks should be doing a deal with us too.
What is a sound army support alternative to RAAF fighter bombers dropping weapons from altitudes out of harms way?
Helicopters? 95% of Western aviator casualties in post-Vietnam skirmishes have been helicopter crews. So if casualties make you squeemish, helicopter gunships are risky.
The old fashioned, Flying Leathernecks battelfield support role? Low level is where the Western air forces have suffered the highest proportion of fast jet losses post Vietnam. So if losing an expensive fighter makes government squeemish, this role should ( and has ) fast been relinquished.
Army support from the RAAF will probably mirror the Americans. Fighter bombers dropping accurate weapons out of the reach of small calibre weapons and SAM's.
Will a force of 30ish F18's at the end of the decade be sufficient for this and other roles- maritime, air defence, long range strike etc.
No. It's an absolute gamble. We need another squadron of fighter bombers minimun. And the Yanks should be doing a deal with us too.
Originally Posted by 18-Wheeler
Yep.
Go for the Su-37 Super Flanker. A metric ar*eload better than the F-15 and pretty much every other US fighter. Just get the Israeli's to retrofit US avionics so it's all compatible with the rest of our gear.
Go for the Su-37 Super Flanker. A metric ar*eload better than the F-15 and pretty much every other US fighter. Just get the Israeli's to retrofit US avionics so it's all compatible with the rest of our gear.
Either way, we're thinking along the same lines.
The Ruskies' designs and ability is completely underestimated by the West and has been since, oh, at least 1945? Not to mention we'd know a hell of a lot more of what we might be up against should we be "invaded" by the usual northern suspects. 
Wasnt there an article in one of the Sydney papers recently that said the F-22 Raptor was comming in cheaper than expected whilst the F-35 costs were blowing out dramatically to the point where they will be roughly the same price.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Footlights College, Oxbridge
Age: 48
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ozgrade3
Wasnt there an article in one of the Sydney papers recently that said the F-22 Raptor was comming in cheaper than expected whilst the F-35 costs were blowing out dramatically to the point where they will be roughly the same price.
Can't see the F-22 cost EVER coming down and anyway, the machine is so high-tech it has not been approved for sale despite Rubber Johnny establishing us as Number One Ar$e Lickers to the US - or should that be Bush Lickers???
Join Date: May 2001
Location: S 40°12'07" E 175°22'52"
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Led Zep
The Ruskies' designs and ability is completely underestimated by the West and has been since, oh, at least 1945?
The boffins in the west know what they're doing lads.
Choice bro'!!!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the few capital assets the country has, the military has been very careful in husbanding its resources in combat operations. It just can't afford to jump in and lose something the likes of an F-18. Think back to Vietnam. Had the RAAF had an aircraft capable of tripping to downtown Hanoi do you really think the government would commit a squadron to that role?
Led Zep, I may be wrong, but I don't think it is so easy to convert a Russian aircraft. I don't doubt that you are correct in asserting that they can be converted. What I doubt is the usefulness and cost of that conversion to make them "the most potent fighters in the world." (There's no doubt they are standout airshow performers, but in a fighting role...?) Russian aircraft are designed for Russian equipment. Even if you can convert them to handle western equipment, they'll have to be converted again and again at huge expense to handle the upgrades to remain competitive. I think you might be applying a civilian, commercial viewpoint to a military application in thinking that like civilian aircraft, military fighters have some vacant space behind the instrument panel and the specially designed nosecone, fuselage panels, trailing edges, etc., aren't used as aerials and other purposes specific to particular avionics and equipment.
Oldm8,
The PC9 just doesn't cut it, but it's cheap, and the RAAF loves cheap.
It appears the most persuasive responses to the original posting aren't whether the JSF is the preferred aircraft, but rather hinge around whether an interim fighter is needed or not.
In discussing the JSF and the F-22 (which appears to be losing the fight for political survival to the JSF), I think it is also interesting to note that not only are these aircraft making a radical change in air combat, they're also creating some interesting problems in human factors. They have enormous amounts of information presented to pilots and sorting through cockpit presentation and application issues is an interesting exercise for the relevant engineers.
Last edited by Lodown; 29th May 2006 at 14:49.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OH well, according to this bloke in another thread we have no hope of successfully procuring or doing anything right.
Originally Posted by RENURPP
CASA is a dysfunctional organisation populated with EX military egos who do not have a working knowledge of the real world let alone the real world of aviation.
Incapable of solving the smallest problems, they usually resort to creating them.
Like the scum sucking bottom dwellers they tend to be, once they have had enough of the public service life they usually through dubious means, find their way into various organisations around the country in some form of management roles in a final attempt to prove to the world once and for all, that they are competent, they rarely succee. They do not have the ability to listen or solve small problems.
It is difficult to be rid of them due to their ilk following them in the same vane.
Incapable of solving the smallest problems, they usually resort to creating them.
Like the scum sucking bottom dwellers they tend to be, once they have had enough of the public service life they usually through dubious means, find their way into various organisations around the country in some form of management roles in a final attempt to prove to the world once and for all, that they are competent, they rarely succee. They do not have the ability to listen or solve small problems.
It is difficult to be rid of them due to their ilk following them in the same vane.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As someone who has been invloved in the upgrading of western military aircraft with western avionics, to say you could simply upgrade Eastern aircraft with western avionics is extremely naive in the same vein as CK says a small "sheetmetal change" is all you need to make the F-111 capable of carrying a variety of Stand-off weapons.
People go on about how cheap Russian/Chinese aircraft are. There is a reason for this, the cost is still subsidised by the governments to try and attract foreign dollars and labour is extremely cheap. Whilst their airframes may be "Generation IV" their avionics are lacking somewhat and it is avionics that cause the cost of the aircraft to blow out not the airframe (unless it is overweight which invariably they usually are...). You might pay only a couple of $M for a Russian fighter, but the cost of the avionics, intergration of said avionics with aircraft and weapons system will mean that the cost of the fighter we end up with would undoubtably be at least as much as the JSF and we end up with a fighter that perhaps more importantly than anything else is unique in the world. Ie the cost of the upgrades cannot be amortised across numerous airframes and users and thus the individual cost to firstly aquire, then upgrade, then maintain ends up being much much more than an integrated product to start with.
As for F-15E's integral they would be very cool as they have two seats so I might get to go for a jolly. JSF only have one so no jolly's for anyone except pilots
Cheers
CB
People go on about how cheap Russian/Chinese aircraft are. There is a reason for this, the cost is still subsidised by the governments to try and attract foreign dollars and labour is extremely cheap. Whilst their airframes may be "Generation IV" their avionics are lacking somewhat and it is avionics that cause the cost of the aircraft to blow out not the airframe (unless it is overweight which invariably they usually are...). You might pay only a couple of $M for a Russian fighter, but the cost of the avionics, intergration of said avionics with aircraft and weapons system will mean that the cost of the fighter we end up with would undoubtably be at least as much as the JSF and we end up with a fighter that perhaps more importantly than anything else is unique in the world. Ie the cost of the upgrades cannot be amortised across numerous airframes and users and thus the individual cost to firstly aquire, then upgrade, then maintain ends up being much much more than an integrated product to start with.
As for F-15E's integral they would be very cool as they have two seats so I might get to go for a jolly. JSF only have one so no jolly's for anyone except pilots
Cheers
CB
Amazes me the amount of Russian gear I've noted over the years, laying about airfields all over the world- Yemen, Sudan, Cambodia etc - in an un-flyable state and generally just a few years off a production line. A Cold War legacy where the Russians would sell Migs cheap, but without a spares pool and support infrastrcture. This logistics line - critical when engine life ran in the hundreds of hours- was only maintained if political leanings to the 'dark side' kept up. Things have changed- but not Mig servicability rates.
If we ever had a need to protect a remote static facility 24/7, then think Russian SAM's. They are good and you can get their crews as mercenaries for less than you pay an ADF cook. Keep friendly fighters away; friend or foe may be as reliable as American Patriot!
If we ever had a need to protect a remote static facility 24/7, then think Russian SAM's. They are good and you can get their crews as mercenaries for less than you pay an ADF cook. Keep friendly fighters away; friend or foe may be as reliable as American Patriot!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Endor
Age: 83
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wot cloudbasher said. There is also no way, ever, that the Russians are ever going to get to see the stuff fitted to our aircraft, let alone how it is integrated.
I suspect that the even the F15 would require a huge amount of work to meet our "requirements".
Translation: Because of the multitude of "options" available, it appears that no two countries military airframes are ever the same - and they don't just bolt on either, as the poor old Seasprite demonstrates.
I suspect that the even the F15 would require a huge amount of work to meet our "requirements".
Translation: Because of the multitude of "options" available, it appears that no two countries military airframes are ever the same - and they don't just bolt on either, as the poor old Seasprite demonstrates.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,833
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fragnasty, thanks, I needed that, have been incredibly lucky too (being so dumb and lasting this long). 
Lodown, Steve Eather (RAAF historian) writing of the RAAF's 9 Sqdn Vietnam involvement "the unit deployed to the war zone with specific (and admittedly quite ridiculous) instructions from RAAF Headquarters in Canberra not to unduly risk its few aircraft which could only be replaced at high cost."
Not much chance there of tripping to downtown Hanoi with an aircraft that might cost a few dollars more than a Huey.
Gnadenburg, coms with people who have a bit of a grip on the subject suggest that the helo loss rate has a lot to do with the tactics employed and not the inherant vulnerabilities of the helo.
Lodown, Steve Eather (RAAF historian) writing of the RAAF's 9 Sqdn Vietnam involvement "the unit deployed to the war zone with specific (and admittedly quite ridiculous) instructions from RAAF Headquarters in Canberra not to unduly risk its few aircraft which could only be replaced at high cost."
Not much chance there of tripping to downtown Hanoi with an aircraft that might cost a few dollars more than a Huey.
Gnadenburg, coms with people who have a bit of a grip on the subject suggest that the helo loss rate has a lot to do with the tactics employed and not the inherant vulnerabilities of the helo.
Last edited by Brian Abraham; 31st May 2006 at 12:10.
