Going through the comments, it seems an alternate reality is the long-range strategy of the day.
"Our other choice is to go down the New Zealand route - it's pretty simple."
Simple thinking maybe. New Zealand isn't making the dumb decision to spend billions on an uncompetitive-to-the-threat air force.
He said Australia needed the JSF because by the mid-2020s the Super Hornet just wouldn't cut it against the planes our neighbours are considering buying.
If the Super Hornet won't cut it, the F-35, with so many faults and a weaker self-defense suite will fare worse.
And compare the following videos.
And, if we stick with the stealth fighter, quantity has a quality all its own.
70-100 defective aircraft are a quantity of waste.
"Capacity matters - and anything less than 100 JSFs severely limits the options available to government and only provides a boutique capability," Air Marshal Brown said.
"Boutique" implies that what one buys actually works. The Air Marshal has NO go-to-war example of the F-35 to look at and at this point is depending on a vivid imagination.
"You could buy more Super Hornets (instead of JSFs) but I'd argue (that) by 2025 or somewhere around that it becomes an uncompetitive fighter. You can be the best fighter pilot in the world but if the other guy has got some significant capability advantages over you you just don't fundamentally stand a chance."
Fundamentally, his logic doesn't stand a chance with the Just So Farcical.
"I'd argue the AGM-158 Joint Air To Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) equipped (classic) Hornets with the KC-30 (multi-role tanker) is a far superior strike capability than we ever possessed with the F-111," he said.
I'd argue that Defence was too intellectuality lazy to upgrade the F-111 with J-series weapons and SDB giving a deployed package of USAF F-22s and a joint operational team, lots of options.
And as for the JASSM, how many is Australia going to buy? 2000?, 3000 like the USAF? About 260. At $700,000 each. After those are fired, the war is over. Hopefully. Fusing issues with the JASSM still are not a done-deal. There will be a percentage that just don't hit the target or go "bang". The U.S. knows the rate of those weapons that just don't reach the target for any number of reasons. Cruise missiles (and evaluation of the BDA) wasn't so great in Desert Storm. Cruise missiles have improve some since then, but we have never fired them in a network/GPS denied environment. Also, unlike the short-range JDAM where time-of-flight and a tight INS don't matter with GPS jamming, the longer longer the weapon flys, the more you risk a chance of missing in a network/GPS denied environment.
Star-finder anyone?
Australia has only fired a handful of JASSMs on the test range. That was enough to take it off the project of concern list and declare IOC.
Also, we don't have enough tankers to feed the classic Hornets and it is unlikely we can protect those same tankers.
The above in anti-access environs and less of a factor against legacy threats.
The boss finishes with this:
Despite the government's recent decision to defer the purchase of the next 12 JSFs as part of the Defence cuts in the budget Air Marshal Brown says the fifth generation fighters are still affordable and could be in service with the RAAF before the end of the decade.
"We signed on for the JSF back in 2003 - about 10 years ago," he said. "We decided on a budget, an amount for the joint strike fighter. That hasn't changed. 100 JSFs are still affordable within that original budget range established in 2003."
Define "affordable". He is dreaming. Also, I wonder how he is going to scrounge up to 3 times the ops funds for a squadron to pay for the insane F-35 cost per flying hour?
I figure the budget can tolerate to own and operate less than half of the mistake jets. Assuming one wants to fly them.
You go to war with the RAAF you have; not necessarily the one you want, or hoped for.
-
F-35 electronic warfare capability affected by production quality
14 comments:
From the top.
You accuse the CAF of being faith-based. This beggars belief when of anyone in Australia, he would have access to more facts than anyone.
You allude to the F-35 having weaker self-protection than the F/A-18F. Amazing. For a start, the open source F-35 RCS data is markedly less than the F/A-18F. This means chaff and jamming are many times more effective. If it needed a towed-decoy, it would have one. Big claims like yours need to be supported by quantitative data and not estimates, guesses or hyperbole.
It's "Air Marshal" not "Air Marshall". Semantics, but if you're going take cheap punches at the media's "little reporting skill", make sure you look like you are familiar with what you're talking about.
The F-111 was never operated to maintain a unique strike capability for the USAF in a package where they would have to provide its escort. It was a RAAF asset to fill the role of strike for Australia. It could be upgraded with all the J-Weapons it could handle but that would not change the fundamental issue that it would need to be escorted. The only time an escort wouldn't be required would be in a permissive air environment. Much too high a support footprint required for little gain.
JASSM with its RCS and standoff is unquestionably more survivable than any F-111 could ever be. That we have "about 260" would mean the ADF could strike 260 defended targets with great standoff. For the ADF that's an unprecedented capability. Obviously those 260 shots are matched against appropriate targets.
What are your figures for a JASSMs INS alignment? What's the 'tightness' of its INS alignment vs the field of view for its IIR seeker? Again, if you're going to question the professionals, point out where they've got their equations wrong.
Not enough tankers for the Hornets? What kind of serviceability and sortie-generation rate would an entire fleet of 95 Hornets require to max out our arriving KC-30 fleet? We'll run out of fighter pilots first!
That'll do for now.
One more,
If you want a bomb truck for a permissive air environment, you may as well load up a 737 with JDAMs. More load carrying capacity, more loiter time and longer range at the same cruising speed.
And just as inefficient.
The Super Hornet bring way more to the fight for any joint operational commander than any F-35 can or will ever do (given all of the faults in the F-35 design along with the management failures).
The idea that the F-35 has uesful low observability is currently only a theory since as a complete weapons system it has nothing to show. There is no complete go to war example of the F-35...over 10 years after the start of development.
As for the F-22. If one wants to take on emerging threats, it is one of the only games in town.Any other aircraft will not do.
Interesting (as some of us knew) the risk of aircraft airframe life was not with the F-111 but the legacy Hornets which now are going to be even more of a flying question mark in the 2020s.
How many targets with JASSM? Doubtful anyone will plot 1-1 weapons to targets unless you want revisits. That is another problem with having a $700k gold-plated weapon.
Maybe the RAAF boss could start a church and be the padre and all the faithful could listen to his sermons on Sunday morning and pray for HIS divine guidance.
"If it needed a towed-decoy, it would have one"
It's not that easy. It's like saying, if the F-4 needed a gun, they'd make a variant with a gun!
It takes time and money -- something which might be too little too late in the future, whereas a decisive battle and combat operations (with a decided political resolution) could be over a period of days, not years.
You go to battle with what you have, not with what you actually needed. Then, it's over.
Remember, a late model F-15E+ will see an F-35 in passive mode far before and F-35 will see another F-35 in passive mode.
Missiles will inevitably have the ability to be launched and guided towards the initial block III F-35 in training exercises by the end of the decade. That is where redundant 'self-protection' comes in.
Other than that, I fully concur with Air Marshall that Australia is a wealthy country and can afford a capable and worthy Air Force. But within reason and budget that is. 100x F-35 will unfortunately NOT be anywhere as affordable as originally budgeted and advertised.
And for the cost of 10x late LRIP block III F-35 (needing to be retrofitted to block IV ASAP), RAAF could likely acquire 500x JASSM-ER!
Would it not be sensible to possibly maintain and further consolidate the current logistics by Leasing another 48x F-18E so that by around 2026-2030, RAAF could then finally implement a more strategically and financially prudent next-gen recapitalization plan. With the savings in the interim, RAAF could acquire as many fancy and game-changing Stand-off munitions as they could ever dream!
Some seem to presume that Australia has the capacity to project military power (so wrong), also ability to defend against armed attack (impossible) and must have capability to conduct strikes against near neighbours (why?).
DWP2009 has some very flawed pretexts, yet the Federal Government will not take IMMEDIATE action to generate a more realistic evaluation of Australia's strategic scenario and defence priorities. Why not? Because the politico-military push in cloistered Canberra environs prefer to defend to the death multiple bad decisions made or in train that have been mostly shaped by the influence of the powerful largely foreign-parented defence industry lobby. Immediate past and incumbent Service Chiefs function among their retired senior-ranking political and military mates lobbying for big defence spending. Consider the large number of industry rent-seekers supposedly affected by the ill-conceived F-35 project. Are that lot now going to seek government assistance to survive, like the motor vehicle industry?
A recent strategic assessment by Stratfor.com crystallizes Australia's propensity for getting involved in America's wars because the nation just cannot afford capabilities first mentioned. Stratfor logically opines that Australia should focus primarily on capabilities to DETER interference with trade corridors and develop an adequate capacity to react to situations that may develop in the near neighbourhood. Some military functions not materially contributing to those perceived priorities may need to be shed due to non-affordability. There is no point in having a pretend ADF where multiple units cannot be manned, equipped and funded to within say 5 percent of their combat capacity. But would the Service Chiefs give the Australian public an honest readout of the Order of Battle status quo? Not likely.
The plot generated by Howard and endorsed by Rudd for compounding increasing defence expenditure out to 2030 does not stand up to simple calculator analysis and it was based on unrealistic expectation of continuing huge appreciation in government revenue from mining. The reality is economic stagnation will inevitably affect the whole world for a decade or more and there are many other national spending priorities for Australia than some hugely costly unjustifiable military hardware acquisitions.
World economic stagnation, if not collapse, is the only eventuality like to force a complete rethink of Australia's defence related priorities. Bring it on I say!
"Remember, a late model F-15E+ will see an F-35 in passive mode far before and F-35 will see another F-35 in passive mode."
Source?
I disagree Bushranger71, that AUS should not have the capability to deter against a potential aggressor's attack, or not have the capability to defend herself accordingly.
Australia is a major World economy and a valid, important, credible component of the ever evolving (and unfortunately still highly uncertain) regional and yes, world method of operation.
As such, there is nothing provocative, or warmongering, or excessive with AUS Armed Forces having such a strategy and the prudent capabilities to deter, defend and the potential to counter-strike/retaliate, etc, either as part of a future coalition or yes, even as a stand-alone initial capability.
What is valid however, is that sustainable, strategic and prudent acquisition processes are decided and implemented to fit within fiscally responsible and manageable budgets. Not an excessive, flawed and unsustainable Military Industrial Complex driven acquisition strategy.
I also wonder how Geoff Brown is going to scrounge up to 3 times the ops funds for a squadron to pay for the insane F-35 cost per maintenance?
Which the F-35A will be spending 100 hours in the maintenance shop that can't fly very much.
Peter
To Flasheart:
The 'Source' is inferred in part from Lockheed Martin information, based on their superior large-aperture IRST performance in BVR conditions, over stand-alone passive FLIR performance (and Radar performance) vs VLO objects.
Also, LM claims it's next-generation enhanced resolution Sniper SE pod will have superior FLIR performance over current FLIR systems once it enters into service.
Thus, a late model F-15E+ would make a legit and potent escort for the F-35, as part of a package, given the ability to passively detect and target hostile targets farther away, which are themselves in passive mode (be they VLO or legacy targets)... At least until the F-35 block IV(?) could integrate and clear an external IRST pod and be retrofitted with a Sniper SE-derived next-gen EOTS enhancement.
Anon,
Inferences are invalid as sources.
What's the bandwidth and sensitivity of the IRST receiver? What's its resolution? What's its false alarm rate, performance in cloud, performance look-up vs look-down overland and over various sea conditions?
Once you have that, what's the measured signature of the F-35 in the bands to sensor is looking. What's the bandwidth of the EO energy emitted vs the bandwidth of the receiver and what's the result on the sensitivity of the receiver v the F-35? You'll probably want to find these signatures for both mil and max power, subsonic, transonic and supersonic at various aspects (most importantly within 60 of the nose as I would guess at the ranges you're suggesting, there is no chance to effect an intercept outside these aspects).
How does this performance change as atmospheric density (altitude) changes?
How does this compare vs measured APG-81 detection performance against a target of the RCS of an F-15E+ at comparable ranges?
r
Note I'm not saying you're wrong, but peculiar claims inherit the burden of proof.
Interesting Flasheart, you berate everyone, however have not provided one refernce regarding anything you have mentioned.
And why the problem with one aircraft, the F111?
Have you some sort of obsessive problem?
You have been not very accurate so far.
References?
My point anon2 is that speculation on capabilities such as detection and weapons is meaningless without real data. It therefore can never be used as evidence to discredit the professionals who live and breath real world application of Air Pinstead opposed to those who blog about it.
The problem with the F-111 is it keeps being brought up in this forum as a prime example of poor policy choice. From there it's just too easy to point out its lack of relevance.
Obsessive problem? Probably.
Flasheart, you are the only person to obsess with the F111, why.
The Post lists a dozen points, but you obsess with one point over and over.
Very odd.
And if you were honest you would agree that it was retired on a lie.
However, you are dishonest, are you not.
To Flasheart -
The claim was that an F-15E+ could detect an F-35 passively before and F-35 could detect another F-35 passively.
That is, the question was to compare first-see performance of an F-15E+ IRST vs F-35 (ie both jets in passive mode), to that of an F-35's EOTS detection performance vs another F-35.
As such, everything you note in regards to the technical performance of an enhanced large-aperture IRST + Sniper SE pod vs the EOTS however, given relative atmospheric conditions et al, points to a superior detection and targeting performance made by the F-15E+!
It's therefore a perfectly valid inference to make that an F-15E+ escorting a (Blue force) F-35, both in passive mode, could detect another F-35 (Red Force), itself in passive mode, before the Blue Force F-35 could detect the Red Force F-35 passively!
Post a Comment