Who told Defence that Wedgetail was ready for IOC and is it true?

Australian Defence has declared initial operating capability (IOC) with the Wedgetail aircraft, so says this this press release.

"The Airborne Early Warning & Control (AEW&C) Wedgetail aircraft has achieved Initial Operational Capability,..."

But is it true?

One of the anonymous Internet mind-guards who help to push the message of various tribal elements within the Entrenched Defence Bureaucracy isn't so sure:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon Branch
Did anyone else notice the that The E-7 Wedgetail has achieved Initial Operational Capability (IOC)?

Depends on how the Proj defined IOC. There is no standard definition and my understanding is that there is still a fair way to go.

Sometimes there is confusion because the Proj may meet "Interim" rarther than "Initial"

the former is a compromise used to get the platform up and about but still work towards meeting OC

All in all, I'm suggesting that the claim about meeting real world IOC may not be so as the press release claims

In fact I know its not so.

Is the Wedgetail ready for IOC? I don't know. I do know that it was delayed for years; and was looking at shooting for a 90 percent capability of the original expectation after experiencing technology problems.

The root cause of Wedgetail problems appeared where they do in many ill-conceived projects: in the beginning. Numerous identified risks were waved away by the program leadership as being workable. Later when those identified risks evolved into show-stopping problems, the Wedgetail became a project management object lesson.

So, either the Defence Minister's office, the DMO and RAAF are wrong and trying to push an alleged success story where none exists or the anonymous mind-guards are wrong.

This has the potential to be a worthy topic of interest at the next Senate Estimates get-together.

I am curious how the Minister's office will address this gross difference in communication?

Shallow audit held as valuable by some

The audits (here and here) of the RAAF fast jet running debacle are weak, shallow, and ignore some significant issues.

Noteworthy too is that the original purpose of the Super Hornet decision was to cover for F-35 delays. Nelson (who was PowerPointed into the con) stated as much. More on that here (including the weak justification for getting rid of the F-111).

The normalization of deviance approach to this issue is not useful.

More on the dangers of a normalization of deviance approach to risks--enhanced by group-think--can be seen here.

Following the F-35 path will cost Australia loss of regional air supremacy. What is interesting in the above mentioned audit is the meme of that will not die; the F-35 as a "fifth-generation fighter".

The audit goes into describing the specs of the F-35 and the Super Hornet but (and this is where the shallowness comes in full-bore) portrays no grasp of why the technical details are important beyond a few simplistic claims.

Here are a few things to consider; what the audit didn't tell the public:

History they don’t want you to know

Boeing official-Super Hornet-handles air-to-air with technology, not speed and acceleration

The Super Hornet Stores Story

More on the dud-jamming gear Defence wants to buy

The audit also labels the Super Hornet as "low observable" when such a claim shows a real weakness of understanding balanced defensive measures taken in the design of the aircraft. Those are some low-observable methods to lower signature but just as important: to establish a better known baseline of exposure risks of the aircraft to different threats so that the on-board defensive jamming system is much more efficient. Great, if one does not want to carry any significant weapons capability. Unlike real stealth aircraft, the Super Hornet carries its weapons (not counting the gun) externally. Not very "low observable".

In short, the audit doesn't do much to help the Australian public who are being taken for a ride of billions in wasteful spending for faulty aircraft that will not be competitive against growing Pacific Rim threats.

RAAF F-35 costs being ignored, spun, by leadership

Our old classic Hornets will have to go out to the years beyond 2020 because the Just So Failed is very late.

That is the best-case scenario reported by The Australian.

They report that our 71 old, classic F-18 Hornets cost $170M per year to sustain. That is about $2.39M per aircraft per year. Well, they are old, obsolete and should have been retired by now.

The following is what The Australian didn't report:

So what would each new F-35 cost per year to sustain according to estimates in the U.S.? Using American dollars, each F-35 is expected to cost $35,500 per flying hour. Throwing some numbers around, the cost (USD) to sustain one F-35 for one year could look like this depending on how much it was flown:

180 hours per year = $6.4M
200 hours per year = $7.1M
220 hours per year = $7.8M

An Australian government set of figures for cost per flying hour from last year showed our old classic Hornets as as: $11,770 per flying hour. That is based on a fleet of 71 totalling 13,000 flying hours for a year (183 hours per airframe per year) for $2.15M per airframe per year in sustainment.

The Australian Supers were shown as $23,000 per flying hour. One would hope that would come down as learning curve grows on a new type.

So, the F-35 is not only very expensive to acquire, but very expensive to own and operate. It has significant faults. There is still no finished go-to-war design to evaluate. It won't be able to stand up to emerging Pacific Rim threats.

Yet the government says, “buy”.

With budget troubles of all kinds, the RAAF is expected to live within its mean. I am sure the RAAF/DMO/Defence cabal will find a way to apply an interesting spin to all this.

They always do.

60 more Super Hornets for Australia?

Mr. Thomson of ASPI isn't stupid. He is just a bit misinformed on various things that have to do with tribal knowledge of military issues.

With that, he does have his sources. Even if he comes up with some really odd conclusions. There are things that he has to be informed on; or that someone "in the know" told him.

Take for example his opinion piece the other day, and this:

"Second, some of the remaining big-ticket items from the 2009 White Paper need to be discarded in favour of more modest alternatives. Think along the lines of an air force built around 60 F/A 18 Super Hornets rather than 100 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters..."

One does not need a tin-foil-hat to consider that it is possible that the number of 60 was not pulled out of thin air or part of Thomson's imagination.

I believe it is possible that you are looking at a fall-back plan by Defence when faced with limited future budgets, an unworkable F-35 program and the really bad idea of pushing old classic Hornets through the refurb mill (again) to make them last out to the 2020's. Whatever happens, Australia's most expensive flying club, must go on.

Status-quo is something hard to deal with. How would 60 fall into the current legacy Hornet RAAF squadron structure when 71-72 are needed?

It is still workable with some adjustment.

The F-35 may show up someday. However, it is unaffordable and ineffective for any non-anti-access scenario done better by the Super Hornet. Both are unsurvivable for emerging Pacific threats.

Ponder the finer details of squadron conversion amongst yourselves.

Giving away C-130s

Just a reminder of how your tax dollars are being wasted. Defence could have picked from multiple skilled vendors to upgrade these aircraft.

Instead, they are given away to a country who already isn't hurting in its ability to spend on transport aircraft.

Hey, they can even afford main battle tanks, even if it isn't always the best tank country for that weight class.

What the U.S. Senate was told about more F-35 trouble

The RAAF force structure cancer is a problem created by the Entrenched Defence Bureaucracy.

Gross over-optimism and hope will not fix that problem.

This read is what was told to the U.S. Senate recently. Unaffordable, unsupportable, unable to face emerging threats. That is the F-35.

And, the RAAF even wants another try at the bad idea of extending the airframe life on legacy Hornets. Here is the problem faced by the U.S. Navy.

The Navy intends that a SLEP would extend the life of select legacy F/A–18s from 8,600 to 10,000 flight hours. As yet, the Navy does not have sufficient data to predict the failure rate for aircraft being inducted into the SLEP program. Too high a failure rate could leave the Navy with too few aircraft that could benefit from the SLEP program, which would exacerbate the shortfall projections.

RAAF boss gets it almost all...wrong

Enjoy this faith-based trip by the RAAF boss on the faulty aircraft he wants for Australia. The media laps it up wholesale with little reporting skill.

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

RAAF AP-3C Orion crew finds and directs rescue of 49 lost at sea

Some really great work by the Orion community!!!

via Defence:

RAAF Orion provided crucial assistance in rescue of MV Solfish 001 passengers and crew

A Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) AP-3C Orion passing low overhead offered a new wave of hope for 49 Solomon Islanders stranded in life rafts with no sight of land last Saturday afternoon.

The Orion and its crew had been tasked to support a search and rescue mission in the area on Friday after the 27-metre, island trader MV Solfish 001 failed to arrive at its designated port of Lata earlier in the week.

Chief of Joint Operations Lieutenant General Ash Power said the Australian Maritime Safety Authority’s, Rescue Coordination Centre – Australia, sought Australian Defence Force assistance in searching a 6,000 square kilometre area to the East South –East of Honiara on Friday.

“With a search area that large, the AP-3C’s unique capabilities, particularly the data captured from sonobuoys, allowed specialists at the Rescue Coordination Centre – Australia to refine the zone, ultimately leading to the successful recovery,” Lieutenant General Power said.

“The aircrew spent hours patiently working through the search zone and coordinating with other aircraft and vessels to firstly find the debris field and then confirm a possible sighting of life rafts – it was a great effort by all involved.”

The crew of the AP3-C identified a debris field on the second day of the effort which allowed further refinement of the search area.

“About two hours after finding the debris, a civilian aircraft reported possible life rafts that were quickly confirmed through a low pass by the RAAF aircrew.

“The confirmation allowed surface vessels to be directed to the five life rafts and recover the 49 Solomon Islanders.”

The RAAF AP-3C returned to the search area on the evening of 26 May, 2012 to coordinate the rescue effort and advise the ship’s master of the life rafts exact location.

Recovery efforts were complete early in the morning of Sunday 27 May, 2012.

The efforts of the RAAF aircrew, personnel at the respective Australian and Solomon Islands Rescue Coordination Centres and aircrew and masters of other aircraft and vessels involved resulted in the safe recovery of 49 people including 10 women and six children.

The Australian Defence Force regularly responds to request for assistance from the Australian Maritime Safety Authority.


Media contact:

Defence Media Operations 02 6127 1999

Defence has some really nice Orion photos here.

RAAF boss practices deception; or just doesn't know

The top RAAF boss makes some statements that lack credibility.

He states that the Growler upgrade for 12 of our 24 Super Hornets is a good idea, when in fact, such an effort will be a waste of money.

He states this about the F-35:

Air Marshal Brown said the fifth-generation JSF would meet Australia's needs for many decades, providing control of the air across the entire spectrum of conflict.

No evidence. The fifth-generation meme is just valueless. Worse, Brown tries to imply that just because an F-22 will clear the table of all threats, that the same can be done with the F-35.

The F-35 is not just a smaller F-22.

The F-35--by defects in its design--will not be combat effective for Australia's (or anyone else's) needs.

In an effort to save money for the ADF, I can think of one star-ranked officer that isn't up for the job and needs to find a different line of work. A star-ranked officer spreading disinformation, or just being badly informed (pick one) doesn't add any value to the defence of the nation.


Additional reading (PDF files):

Review of the Defence Annual Report 2010-2011

--Submission 2--“CHECKING THE DATA & THE FACTS;. . . .THEN TESTING THE EVIDENCE” a.k.a. TRUTH DERIVED FROM DATA & FACTS VS A TOTAL INDIFFERENCE TO WHAT IS REAL

--Submission 3--THE EVOLVING THREAT ENVIRONMENT Reference Threat Capabilities versus the Joint Strike Fighter (Materialised Predictions from APA Founders’ Threat Assessments dating back to Circa 1998)

--Submission 5--F-35 JSF Air Combat Capability Information for Defence Sub-Committee Members

--Submission 6--From Mr. Erik Peacock, To the secretariat, Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Review of the Defence Annual Report 2010-2011

--Submission 7--Answers to the 07 February 2012 Defence Sub-Committee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Simulation assumptions, issues and visualisation, REPSIM Pty Ltd

--Submission 9--There is Nothing Normal nor Usual let alone Standard about the JSF . . .

--Submission 10--RE: APA Submission No 4 to the JSCFADT Hearings into the JSF - Thana Marketing, KPIs and the JSF Program

--Submission 11--ASSESSING THE EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY AVM KYM OSLEY, NEW AIR COMBAT CAPABILITY PROJECT MANAGER

--Submission 12--COMPLAINT REGARDING THE PRESENTATION BY AVM KYM OSLEY,DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE AND LOCKHEED MARTIN REGARDING REPSIM PTY LTD

--Submission 13--Are Unsupported Assertions Data or Facts, let alone Evidence, upon which to Rely?

--Submission 14--THE AUSTRALIAN DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE: A CULTURE OF INCONGRUENCE BETWEEN POLICY AND PERFORMANCE

--Submission 15--ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON COMPLAINT REGARDING THE PRESENTATION BY LOCKHEED MARTIN REGARDING REPSIM PTY LTD

Real Defence White Paper Security

There is a lot of heat-up in the Spratlys lately. You would have to be asleep not to notice.

This Australian Defence exercise is routine.

However, if Australia had real air power leaders in Defence, that exercise; at this time; would be a show of real regional security with RAAF F-22s and F-111s.

The definition of contributing to regional security.

By example.

By using deterrence.

Victory for a second-tier strike fighter solution

RAAF Super Hornets (good AESA radar foot-prints) and the Wedgetail (at whatever capability delivered) on deployment.

via Defence:

Super Hornets and Wedgetail arrive in Guam for
Exercise COPE NORTH

The Royal Australian Air Force’s (RAAF) newest capabilities have soared over the coastline of Guam on their first overseas mission together for 2012 during Exercise COPE NORTH.

This is the first time the RAAF has participated in Exercise COPE NORTH, a bi‑annual exercise historically for the United States Air Force (USAF) and the Japanese Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) that started in 1978.

The Super Hornets and Airborne Early Warning and Control Wedgetail aircraft, along with 300 Air Force personnel, have commenced the tri-lateral air defence exercise that allows the aircrew to enhance their tactical skills and joint operational capability alongside military aircraft from the USAF and Japanese Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF).

Six of the ‘Rhinos’ from Amberley’s Number 1 Squadron and a Wedgetail from Williamtown’s Number 2 Squadron have touched down at Anderson Air Force Base, Guam, to participate in their first overseas deployment with the JASDF. It is the second overseas deployment for both the Super Hornet and Wedgetail since they were delivered to the Air Force.

Commander of the Australian contingent for the exercise, Group Captain Geoffrey Harland, said the exercise will provide excellent opportunities for RAAF personnel to integrate with a joint task force to learn how other countries operate.

“The training will be invaluable and there will be many important lessons learnt from our participation in this exercise,” Group Captain Harland said.

“Exercise COPE NORTH will allow the aircrew to develop an appreciation of the capabilities and strengths of the different aircraft types which is valuable training for air combat and Surveillance and Response Group personnel who may be required to operate in a coalition environment in the future.”

The international aircraft comprises the USAF’s F-16s, B-52s, F-15Cs, F-16CJs and KC-135, and JASDF’s F-15Js, F2s and E2Cs. More than 1,000 military personnel from around the world are expected to participate.

During Exercise COPE NORTH, Number 37 Squadron’s C-130 will also participate in a separate exercise on humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.

The exercise will run from the 13 to 24 February.

RAAF boss courageously misleading or uninformed

More spin about the F-35 in Australia from this article with someone trying to infer that it is a "fifth-generation" fighter just like the F-22.

"I have had the misfortune to fly a 4.5 generation fighter against a fifth-generation fighter and there was an extreme capability gap. Australia needs a fifth-generation fighter."

Before this, I have never heard of a F-15D (or C) described as a "4.5 generation" fighter. Because,well, it is not.

Something else that flags the BS meter is someone trying to mislead by inferring that the only troubles that face the F-35 are fiscal because of a crisis. This is nonsense. The aircraft is in trouble because the program management is faulty. The F-35 program didn't breach Nunn-McCurdy twice because it was properly managed. It did not have its milestone-B stripped for being properly managed. It did not have the DAB pushed back because it was properly managed.

I wonder if the RAAF boss could explain this, this or this?

Over 10 years ago the Super Hornet was a "non-starter" for the RAAF

Times change. Not always for the better.

Years ago, Australia was being setup to buy the F-22. Back then, the Super Hornets that Nelson fell for in 2006 and that are now in service was considered a "non-starter".

(click image for large view)

The Lone Gunman or Kung-Fu Master? "Fifth-generation" fighter desktop study

Still preparing the battlefield for my efforts on carving up the silly "So what?" F-35 brief by DMO/NACC.

Today we will look at a briefing by a shadow aero-engineer that doesn't want to show himself. Either he is shy or still employed somewhere. Or could it be he is even a lower profile geek like the publishers of The Lone Gunman from the X-Files (episode; "Unusual Suspects") ?

In any event, he uses the language of aero-engineering. He uses a soft kung-fu that only shows the basic initial desk study of numbers. Even that is hard enough without the proper background. This is about all most people have a hope of understanding anyway.

In looking at the kinds of high end aircraft that will be important to Pacific Rim power, maybe words from Bruce Lee will help.

Question: What are your thoughts when facing an opponent?
Bruce: There is no opponent.
Question: Why is that?
Bruce: Because the word ''l'' does not exist.
A good fight should be like a small play...but played seriously. When the opponent expands, l contract. When he contracts, l expand. And when there is an opportunity... l do not hit...it hits all by itself (shows his fist).
Any technique, however worthy and desirable, becomes a disease when the mind is obsessed with it.

The F-35 is the wrong aircraft for the RAAF. The growing threats in the Pacific Rim over its alleged lifetime will out class this pretend "5th generation fighter".

Badly.

(click image to make it larger)

RAAF boss is committed, or should be

Abraham Lincoln said, "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."

Yes, it connects to the F-35 program because everyone that wants the jet is ready to call the jet something it will never be; affordable, sustainable, lethal, and survivable.

You may add the boss of the RAAF, chief air marshal Brown to the F-35's propaganda Ponzi scheme. He is happy to put forward misleading statements because any other course would risk his career. Or, maybe he just believes.

When it comes to faulty weapons systems, few Australian flag rank officers will stick their neck out by telling the truth to the public. Which really means by default, he is not on our side.

Brown states that the plan is to have an all F-35 fleet by 2020. If so that would mean that we are only going to get 72 F-35s as the other 28 have now been kicked down the road.

Take a look at this memorandum of agreement from 2007 signed off on by Australia and the U.S.

(click image to make it larger)


And this one from 2010.

(click image to make it larger)

Brown also overlooks more than a few problems.

"JSF has had a pretty good year as far hitting its test milestones are concerned and it is tracking pretty much to plan at the moment,"

The plan which since the beginning of the program has been also, kicked down the road a few times.

Brown may also be a man of faith.

He said Admiral Venlet had created a very realistic delivery schedule which allowed for it to remain on track even if something did go wrong.

"I have got a lot more confidence in the schedule than I had ... before it was baselined," he said.

"I am still comfortable with where we are sitting at the moment."

Interesting story, but the review of the program has been delayed also. DOD may have recertified the aircraft after its second Nunn-McCurdy breach, but that still leaves the DAB. Delayed again. We are told not to worry; which means; worry. This from Defense News.

"A Defense Acquisitions Board (DAB) review that would have established a new cost baseline for the triservice F-35 Lightning II has been postponed until the fall, the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program's top official said June 15."

Emphasis mine.

The reporter(s) on this piece like many before them, misreport the facts.

"Australia has so far contracted to buy an initial 14 aircraft."

This is untrue. No money has been handed over for these 14 aircraft; nor should it given the unstable design and slow progress.

Brown states this:

"I think we will see the costs continue to drive down as we get more aircraft on that production line."

If only there was a stable design. Which is needed for a production learning curve. Then the reporters show some redemption with this:

Considerable development still remains, particularly in the difficult area of integrating all the various electronic systems.

And dropping weapons; and using it as a weapon of war; if we can afford it. Even if the tail is not a leg.

.

How can the RAAF fast-mover community avoid being an overly expensive flying club?

Charting out any kind of an air power roadmap for Australia has to go with the idea that anything is possible if you are willing to lower your expectations.

There was a very good plan submitted to government with the F-111 and F-22. That opportunity is now over. And, with that, so too goes the possibility of fielding anything other than a second-tier air arm that will still need F-22s deployed by the U.S. to deter any large threats.

What kind of fighter aircraft do we have today? What kind are available for the future?

First, we need to bring something close to long-range strike back into our ability. The replacement for this won’t have quite the range of the F-111 that was retired prematurely.

Along with that, our plan for air-launched stand-off weapons needs to be re-evaluated.

And then there is the attitude of how we do long-range strike. First, any ship or submarine will always be a sub-standard solution for using long-range strike as a deterrent. Any aircraft can drop a stand-off weapon within hours and return to base for more; rinse and repeat. A submarine or ship cannot do this on a strategically useful scale.

Defence made the decision to get the JASSM cruise missile. This system has some problems in a number of areas yet we may just have to accept it as a “good enough” solution. The goal of the JASSM was to be an “affordable” weapon around $400K U.S. per war-shot. What happened for the U.S. is that (not counting research and development) it has ended up being a weapon over $1 million U.S. each.

So if the targeting and fusing issues with this weapon get solved, that is what Australia is looking at for an air-launched cruise missile. A huge problem here is that Defence wants to drop this weapon from the short-legged Hornet family. There has to be another way.

Australia should consider getting a squadron of 24 F-15E strike eagles. This aircraft as sold to Korea and Singapore (convenient allies to joint exercise with) has a lot of range and capability. Here is a look at the specifications for the Korean F-15. It could carry the JASSM a long way. It could also carry the HARM and SLAM-ER a long way. The HARM and SLAM-ER are currently not in the Australian inventory but would make a nice compliment in strike capability. HARM, while not used by the USAF F-15s, is cleared on this aircraft. There are even menu setups in the USAF aircraft; just that the HARM mission is not on their training schedule.

How would we pay for a squadron of F-15s and their associated weapons and support? Easy. First ; by using money slated for the F-35. The F-35 has no tactical relevance for Australia. The F-15 would replace F-18s in one of the current squadrons. This would also allow the RAAF to retire its worst (in age and sustainment problems) legacy F-18s.

The idea that the RAAF needs only one kind of fighter sounds nice, but given that the F-35 plan causes more problems than it attempts to solve, a proper fix means this is just not going to happen.

What other air power assets does Australia need today? Predator/Reaper class UAVs. This would be to have a better surveillance over our waters to the North. This would allow us to have a better tactical picture of illegal boat traffic near Christmas Island and other locales. It would also give extra eyes to our P-3s and other patrol assets.

Next, Australia needs to get involved in performing a study to stand up a squadron of Avenger UCAVs and if possible, the UCAS-N class of UCAVs planned by the U.S Navy. These can also be given strike instructions from aircraft like the F-15 and Wedgetail-or even the Super Slow Hornet. A warning about UAV; they still have a higher mishap rate than manned aircraft. A balance has to be reached in this respect.

The above layer of UAVs would provide excellent IRS for not only Australia but a coalition effort. With good sound thinking, this can be not only affordable but practical.

Any sensible decision maker has inherited a mess with the fast-mover RAAF road map that is for sure. Working our way out of that mess and becoming something other than a very expensive flying club will be the challenge.

The ‘great believer' depends on faith to see the F-35 into the RAAF

As AVM Houston leaves his job as the top uniform leader for Defence, what is his opinion about the F-35 for Australia? He is still a “great believer”. Yet, faith will not give Australia the ability to control it’s airspace of interest to the North; or anywhere else.

Here are a few erroneous claims Houston makes.

He claims we need the F-35 because it is a “generation five” kind of aircraft. This claim is in dispute.

He is happy with the Super Hornet purchase which was brought in under false colours as a gap filler to maintain air supremacy, yet, when the then Defence Minister Mr. Nelson made the snap decision, Houston's input as well as that of the RAAF boss at the time was minimised. The RAAF boss at the time stated in front of our elected officials that if the F-35 was late, our existing legacy Hornets and F-111s could be life-extended. Surprise; and of course Mr. Nelson wanted to be his own man with Defence.

I can only salute AVM Houston and thank him for serving his country. That “thank you” is only in a very general sense as I believe he has helped contribute to the downfall of Australian military capability. Certainly, for air power issues, he was out of his depth both in his time as an RAAF boss and as the top boss. Well AVM Houston: We used to have alternatives.

I don’t really know what can be done with Australia’s Defence planning malaise except to start over with a blank sheet of paper. Let us take that opportunity now while we still have the chance.

.

Update from Defence about that PC-9 mishap

Update from Defence about that PC-9 mishap.

Update on PC-9A aircraft incident

Squadron Leader Bruce Collenette, a qualified flying instructor aged 45, remains in a satisfactory condition in hospital.

Flight Lieutenant Steve Andrews, a qualified pilot and instructor trainee aged 28, remains in a satisfactory condition, but has been transferred to Melbourne for further testing and specialist care.

Both are in good spirits.

Overnight, the details of their routine training flight have been confirmed. The crew were undertaking a routine training flight. On climb out of the airfield, the aircraft lost power approximately 9 kilometres from the airfield and turned back towards East Sale.

Power could not be restored to the engine, so the crew followed the engine shutdown procedures checklist. The crew did not have sufficient glide potential to reach the runway, so ejected from the aircraft in line with standing procedures.

Their response was testament to their high level skills and training. Air Force is providing support to them and their families, and wishes them a speedy recovery.