The invisible but crucial element our Air Force needs

acotrel says:

08:22am | 20/02/13

Military manufacturing is is not all bad. In the past it has provided the technology seed for Australian industry, we should be looking for offset agreements, to see if we can resurrect a smidgin of high tech production in Australia. We could do it standing beside our ailing car industry ?

Hartz says:

09:06am | 20/02/13

WTF - did I really just find some common ground with Acotrel… I need to go and lay down

Adam R says:

11:09am | 20/02/13

Yeah I’ll second that Hartz. This is the first time I’ve read acotrel’s comments and agreed with him, and as far as I can see hell is indeed freezing over at this moment.

Fiddler says:

08:14am | 20/02/13

except the McDonnell Douglas corportation no longer exists, merging with Boeing in 1997, but yes, you are correct.

The biggest problem with the JSF project was the insistence of the STOVL B model.

They could have easily made once for the USAF and USN (think how successful the F-4 Phantom was) and had a top notch aircraft that would already be operational

jtz says:

12:20pm | 20/02/13

Actually the F18 super hornet is the only aircraft built on ti.e and on budget. Also note the gap filler is the super hornet not the standard hornet.

Bomb78 says:

08:55am | 20/02/13

Correct Tex Ranger. The F35 is the best available option. The only other fifth generation fighters are either unavailable to us or exist only in research programs.

Peter says:

11:33am | 20/02/13

“It all depends on what is the criteria for assessing the F-35 I suppose.”

Well, according to the Four Corners programme on the other night, there wasn’t any real criteria for assessing the F-35.  Howard signed the country up to the programme without having gone to tender and without having any formal assessment process done at all.  It’s an absolute disgrace.

Sam says:

11:45am | 20/02/13

It would make infinite more sence to buy the SU-37 over the F-35. The aircraft is very capable, has a decent range and weapon array and you can buy many more for the same dollars as on F-35.

jtz says:

12:23pm | 20/02/13

Actaulyy the F22 is a 4.5 generatiom fighter.

The issue with the su is servicing. Russian aircraft habe always neen and will always have a higher cost to maintain. Also compared to the Russians, the weopons and radar on US systems are superior. Have a read of the AA120C missile. Russia still has not developed an alternative.

Tator says:

12:26pm | 20/02/13

Sam,
the Su37 never made it into production and has only ever had a couple of prototypes built.  The Su35 has made it into production but is not as technologically advanced as the Su37.  Even then, this brings about the issues of munitions compatibility with our allies as no NATO or ANZUS nation has ever used Warsaw Pact equipment and switching over would complicate logistics as NATO and Warsaw Pact equipment are not interchangable.  On top of that, the RAAF would have to change over its entire ordnance stockpile.  In addition, having equipment similar to our Allies such as the US would allow cross training of the services with USAF/USMC/USN pilots swapping with ours allowing cross pollenation of tactics and flight operations and during operational use, scrounging of spare parts and munitions is commonplace.  In the first Gulf War, the saying in the US forces was “the Marines steal from the Army who steal from the Airforce but everyone steals from the Navy” 
On top of that, flying similar aircraft to our possible enemies in conflict would lead to more friendly fire situations, even with modern IFF technologies.

acotrel says:

08:24am | 20/02/13

What else are you suggesting which provides so much motivation to excel in technology ?

Colin says:

10:45am | 20/02/13

@  acotrel

“What else are you suggesting which provides so much motivation to excel in technology ?”

Stop going to war and develop technology for peaceful purposes..?

PsychoHyena says:

11:06am | 20/02/13

@Colin, while not a huge fan of war and conflict, unfortunately human nature is such that without war humans would be a content species without a need to develop technologies.

War reflects humanity’s will to survive and dominate, all humans have this trait (as much as they try to deny it), if we didn’t have this particular trait then we would let cancer do what it does.

Steve of QBN says:

01:27pm | 20/02/13

@Colin,
As sad as it is, war has always driven technological advances.  Even during the last Great Unpleasantness, advances in RADAR, SONAR, jet propulsion, nuclear fission, medicine, surgery, plastic surgery were achieved that quite frankly, would not have happened without the impetus of war.

Go back far enough and you will find that bronze was first used not as a better sickle than one made of copper but, being harder than copper, it made for much better swords, cutting through copper swords.  And then the iron age for the same reason.

Yes, peaceful technology have been turned to being a weapon but more often that not, the research, creation and use of weapons has advanced the peaceful use of the same technology.

acotrel says:

09:03am | 20/02/13

We could use more drones - the LNP has got plenty.

Tator says:

09:21am | 20/02/13

Iansand,
Stealth aircraft are still detectable by radars as all stealth does is reduce the radar signatureso that it is less detectable at longer ranges, the radar signature of a F117 Stealth Fighter is the equivilent to a small bird, it is just that they need to be at much closer ranges which leaves gaps in most air defence radar set ups that they fly through undetected.  The F35 is designed with what is called first day stealth, which is designed so it can run in a stealth mode only using internal payloads until the opposition air defence radars are neutralised and then it can run in full noise mode with a full payload of external stores.

iansand says:

12:57pm | 20/02/13

Tator - I am sure of one thing.  Smarter people than me are working out out how to circumvent stealth technology, and they will succeed.

Steve of QBN says:

01:32pm | 20/02/13

@acotrel

annnnnnd he’s back.

PsychoHyena says:

01:42pm | 20/02/13

@iansand, well yes and no. You might be able to develop ways to circumvent current stealth technologies, but while they are developing ways to circumvent, they are also developing better stealth technologies.

Take the fact that they have supposedly started working on a cloaking device that while rudimentary is working.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/technology/2012/12/11/17/53/canadian-company-says-it-has-made-invisibility-cloak

http://phys.org/news/2013-01-ultrathin-invisibility-cloak-wide-applications.html while this one deals with electrical currents it uses a similar principle to what could be used for people, etc

Steve of QBN says:

01:43pm | 20/02/13

@iansand

“Smarter people than me are working out out how to circumvent stealth technology, and they will succeed.” which is why it is called an arms race.

Technology hides it, technology will find it.

iansand says:

02:00pm | 20/02/13

PsychoHyena - Does the JSF have that technology?  I didn’t think so.

PsychoHyena says:

02:58pm | 20/02/13

@iansand, did you deliberately miss my point? At no point did I say that technology was being used on the aircraft, my point was that as people develop counters for one or more forms of stealth technology other forms of stealth technology will be developed.

This has always been the way with any technology, especially when used for military purposes.

Tator says:

03:53pm | 20/02/13

Iansand,
To be honest.  Stealth is rarely used on its own to defeat radar based sir defences.  A joint attack using stealth, ecm aircraft such as the F/A 18 Growler and non-covert wild weasel tactics whe dedicated air defence supression aircraft will generally deal with most ground based defences.  As C&C facilities and air defences are the first high priority targets on the first day of any conflict especially if you need air superiority to succeed.

Meph says:

04:23pm | 20/02/13

@Tator

I was always partial to the HARM. Launch it and it loiters until a ground based radar lights up. The missile rides the radar signal back to the dish and proceeds to messily spread it over a few hundred meters.

iansand says:

04:57pm | 20/02/13

PsychoHyena - I thought you missed mine.  Any aircraft that relies on stealth for its advantage immediately loses that advantage when stealth is countered.  The author’s point (or one of them) is that, in spite of inferior performance, stealth technology still gives an advantage.  That advantage will possibly dissipate very quickly leaving you with an aircraft of inferior performance and nothing else.  To my mind, that is a dumb decision.

Tator says:

06:54pm | 20/02/13

Meph,
anecdotes from wild Weasel squadrons in the first Gulf war stated that HARM launches had a tendency to startle friendly pilots as they made a big flash, so the pilots would call “HOWDY HOWDY HOWDY” when they launched one, this was so effective that the Iraqi Air Defence Radars would shut down immediately on that call and some wags amongst the pilots would just transmit “HOWDY HOWDY HOWDY”  to get the radar to shut down which it would, saving a missile, heard about in a book called “It’s not hell, but you can see it from here” by Barry McWilliams

Fiddler says:

10:14am | 20/02/13

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_X-47B

not that secret, although the capabilities no doubt are.-

Hartz says:

09:38am | 20/02/13

I mentioned this yesterday but I’ll point it out again. I don’t really like hearing “Defence” used generically as it tars all ADF members with the same brush as the bumbling bureaucrats within DMO and the political offices in Canberra… While the rest of us sit here in frustration as the senior Sirs tell us to penny pinch and save a few bucks for our fabulous government they continually piss it against the wall… In saying that, I am sure that the uniformed component involved in making these decisions would be quite small and it would be dominated by suits and slick haircuts. Makes you wonder about the integrity of these tender processes and the people who run them - stinks of kick backs and corruption from here….

Meph says:

10:09am | 20/02/13

@Hartz

While I can see where you’re coming from, personally I take any reference to “Defence” to be the bureaucratic branch of government set to oversee (and often meddle with) the ADF. There are indisputably good and bad elements to all three services, and so I don’t personally tar all ADF members with the same brush.

Having said that, winding some of them up with known stereotypes can be fun.

Paul says:

10:52am | 20/02/13

“and flight in the vicinity of storms (the last problem made me laugh – ‘sorry 75 Squadron, you can’t fly in the NT during the wet season ‘cos there’s lightning about’).”

The reality is that there is already a fix for this… but as with all things aviation extensive testing has to be done, which takes time and money.  Ever watch air crash investigation? Even using the incorrect screw can screw you (so to speak).  Wouldn’t you rather that they get it right, especially given the money we are spending on them?

“By the time the aircraft is delivered (IOC in 2020…. FOC when?), the technology will be nearly two decades old. “

What a stupid throwaway line! 5th Generation fighters are bleeding edge technology.  The problems facing us are the same problems being faced by others… It’s not like we are being left behind the world here (which is what your comment implies), but being left behind is exactly what will happen if we cancel our orders and go for older, 4th generation planes.

We have the 12th largest economy in the world… surely we can afford to do the right thing by our nation!

Meph says:

11:28am | 20/02/13

@Paul

“The reality is that there is already a fix for this”

While true, the fact that the aircraft was supposed to be beginning the delivery phase last year makes this revelation somewhat concerning. It’s also not like having a properly sealed and earthed fuel tank is bleeding edge tech that is unrefined. Plenty of aircraft today can take a direct lightning strike and keep on ticking (though don’t get me wrong, with the F-16’s reliance on the onboard computers to keep it flying, I’d not want to be in that situation).

I’ve mentioned another issue regarding stealth that the moderators seem to have decided to consign to the bit bucket, but I shall say this: If your aircraft can be out-flown and out-gunned by pre-existing airframes, and your only advantage is being invisible(*) to radar, you’d better hope that the enemy doesn’t figure out another way to track you, otherwise you’re screwed.

*. Personally I find the word stealth to be a little over-charged with respect to the capabilities of next generation aircraft. Plus there’s the whole “not totally invisible to radar, and in fact, not even as invisible to radar as the F-22”

Peter says:

11:38am | 20/02/13

@Paul, hang on, fella, the technology will certainly be old and you know it.  In fact, given the pace of technological change, any intelligent procurement strategy would buy off-the-shelf fighters for way, way less and then have a shorter re-purchase cycle.  Just like we do with our phones and laptops.  In other words, we should buy what’s available now, for less, and upgrade later.

Fiddler says:

10:31am | 20/02/13

do you even understand air warfare? Stealth, except in the very small chance of a “dogfight” is pretty much everything.

The Typhoon is probably the best non-stealth fighter out there, but that’s still like saying you have the best horse drawn carriage.

And as for weaponry, the F35 can carry pretty much everything the Typhoon can

Adam R says:

11:17am | 20/02/13

Unless you want to get into a dog fight every single time I don’t think it’s reasonable to say that we don’t need stealth. I think the point behind stealth is that you want to blow up the enemy before they see you or can even think of engaging in combat with you.

There’s a reason why the every nation is going after stealth fighters… It’s not just the US, it’s China and Russia. In all honesty I’d trust American military engineering over the ex-soviet’s any day. That and our systems integrate tightly with them.

I think we’re forgetting that the JSF will be part of a system that is used to defend our nation. We’re not going to send them out one by one. If you don’t have a military that can talk and respond on the move you’re going to lose 9/10. It’s a ‘team sport’.

P.S. The JSF’s are multirole… that’s why we’re getting them, they have the same capabilities as the F18 and then some.

PsychoHyena says:

03:35pm | 20/02/13

@RobJ, better let the ninja’s know their stealth meant nothing compared to the Samurais.

Fiddler says:

11:53am | 20/02/13

Yes, but with stealth the detection range is a lot less.

For arguments sake say the AIM-120D has a range of 160km’s (fire and forget) and the F35 can be detected at a range of 30km but the Typhoon can be at 150km’s (Given the reported RCS, these are probably fairly accurate figures) then you can see how much a game changer this capability is.

And no, it isn’t really any cheaper (if current figures can be believed)
Typhoon - 90 million Euros ($116 million) vs F35A - $107 million + engine

Steve of QBN says:

02:05pm | 20/02/13

@Fiddler,

But we can buy the Typhoon now.  Is it better than the Super Hornet?  Don’t know.  It is stop gap technology until the F-35 finally arrives.  We are purchasing the Super Hornets because we lost long range capability when we stood down the F-111.  And the F-35 will not restore that long range capability either.

Should we have scored some A-10’s from the US?  Maybe.  Much better ground attack than the FA-18 (longer time on target, more ordnance, better deployment into rough areas).  The F-35 will be no better, too fast, too high, too expensive, too far back from the front, no loiter time.

Should we buy F-16’s?  Perhaps.  Great planes, the Israelis love them, tried and tested technology.  The MiG 31’s the Indons have will run rings around them though.

Planning for a 2020 deployment is fine if your current technology is sufficient to keep you on a level pegging with your neighbours.  If it doesn’t, then you are creating a capability gap.

Dennis Jensen says:

02:27pm | 20/02/13

RobJ, you are only talking radar in X-band. L-band and lower, the JSF is quite detectable (due to physical dimensions, at longer wavelengths the stealth shaping becomes irrelevant, and it is coatings etc that become important, and they are difficult to achieve, never mind on an aircraft where the coatings have to be thin).

What about visible (have a look at the 4 Corners program, those suckers are flying almost all the time with wing-tip vortices saying “here I am”). Then consider the IR, that exhaust is going to put out loads of heat, never mind the thermal cooling issues.

In terms of missile envelope, be very careful of simply reading sales pitch. A missile may have a range where aircraft are coaltitude, flying head on at high speed of 100km. Put one lower than the other, where the target is high supersonic and you are chasing (nose to tail) and the range could go down to 15-20km, and even then the target could escape with some vigorous terminal manouevres.

For the person saying that no one had AIM-120C capabilities, suggest you check the likes of the R-77 Adder and the Meteor that is fitted to the Eurofighter. Consider also that the JSF is only able to attack another aircraft using radar guidance. Far easier to defeat that if you have two missiles, one radar and one IR coming at you, where what you would do to defeat one could make you more vulnerable to the other. That is where a mix is advantageous.

Fiddler says:

11:55am | 20/02/13

Except the Flankers aren’t stealthy and will last a few seconds in the air.

They can do some pretty cool tricks at airshows though

RobJ says:

12:08pm | 20/02/13

Fiddler, OK I concede, we need a stealthy multi-role fighter, also we may need a stop gap, why isn’t the Typhoon being considered over the Super Hornet? Would it be an infrastructure issue, ie we already know the F/A-18? I just have a suspicion that we favour American gear because it’s American and we rely on them for security, the reason I have this suspicion is because we purchased those Abram tanks which seem rather useless for Australia. Sea Sprite is another example of a crap procurement .

Tator says:

12:37pm | 20/02/13

RobJ,
I believe that the RAAF went for the Super Hornets due to the amount of commonality they have with the normal Hornet. (around 30% common components)  and that all ordnance used by the RAAF is already certified for use with the Super Hornet this minimising the extra training required for both flight and ground crews.
As for the M1A1 tanks, battle proven against most other Warsaw pact tank, only real complaint is that it is too heavy for our roads which is a load of crap - I work with the heavy haulage industry and we move 200 ton loads around Australia regularly which is over twice the weight of a M1A1 on its transporter.  Plus the real issue is more that we have crews trained up on the M1A1 and they use US supplied tanks on overseas deployments as the US have massive amounts of these things set up in predeployment ships around the world so they actually have more tanks than crews.
  Sea Sprites were problematical because of the attempt to marry a 30 year old airframe with modern avionics and it didn’t work.

RobJ says:

01:07pm | 20/02/13

Tator,

Thanks for that, my beef with the Abrams is that we have 50 of them and Australia is massive so they aren’t much use as a defensive weapon. I’m not sure we have the capability to deploy them overseas (we might with the LHD) and deploying them overseas on a US war of adventure is not defence.

Meph says:

01:45pm | 20/02/13

The Eurofighter Typhoon had some teething problems of its own. If I recall correctly, it had to be retrofitted for air to surface operations, as it was originally intended as an air supremacy platform, not multi-role.

My personal concerns with the M1A1 is the amount of air the onboard turbine needs to keep the thing powered. The old Leopard II MBT’s they have in Darwin are capable of running using a snorkel while all but completely submerged. It makes fording rivers where there is no bridge a simple prospect. About the only place where the M1A1 comes up trumps is in the weight of armour it carries. About the only tank that can kill an M1A1 with one shot, is another M1A1.

Angus says:

02:03pm | 20/02/13

The super hornets are not a replacement for the hornets. They are an interim stop-gap measure for the loss of our strike capability when the F-111’s were put to bed early. We will have 24. Just for a laugh the boffins on Russell Hill are now telling us that they will serve past 2040!! They’ll go down a treat against 5th gen air superiority fighters. The rest of our fast jet fleet are the original hornets, probably slowing decomposing on the tarmac at Williamtown waiting to be retired while the pilots fly simulators.

It makes sense in terms of training and parts etc. to have the super hornet, but the ordinance we have could have been put on the Eurofighter without much fuss because of NATO commonality requirements. We could have also replaced the Hornets with the eagle along the lines of the K or SE variant which does have some small stealth characteristics. Boeing are desperate to keep their assembly line at St Louis open and we could have practically stolen a much more capable aircraft, especially now that defence are talking about these timeframes because the f-35 continues to appear as a mirage on the horizon.

Steve of QBN says:

02:20pm | 20/02/13

@RobJ,

tanks (Leopard or Abrams) are like koalas.  A protected species and not to be exported. 

The real value in them is that, if we need to send troops somewhere where tanks are likely to be of value, we will keep the tanks here, send the crews away and have them crew borrowed US ones.  The down side is that, our tanks have several internal differences to the US ones.  Not show stoppers, just annoying.

Tator says:

02:37pm | 20/02/13

Meph.  Apparently in one of the gulf wars, one got so bogged the couldn’t drive it out so they tried to destroy it and all the dudsat round did was lesve a nice crease in the Armour

RobJ says:

02:47pm | 20/02/13

“About the only tank that can kill an M1A1 with one shot, is another M1A1.”

What about a Challenger? And could an Abrams kill a Challenger with one shot considering the Challenger has better armour.

Fiddler says:

02:50pm | 20/02/13

@Meph,

The M1A1 has a 120mm smoothbore cannon, same as the Challenger 2, Leopard 2, Merkavka 4 and various others. The Russian T80 and T90 have 125mm guns as well.

It isn’t a bad tank, but there are others which are just as good. It isn’t indestructable, it’s just the Iraqis were using mostly T-72’s and really didn’t engage them much, which is the main time they have been used in a force on force environment.

Oh, and we have neither the good armour nor good ammunition for them

Meph says:

02:56pm | 20/02/13

@Tator

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:120mm_M829A2_APFSDS-T.jpg

There’s something to be said for the application of a depleted uranium knitting needle at something close to 1,680 m/s, but you’d think seeing as they not only use the thing exclusively, but also invented it, that at least a few of the jarheads would know how to make one pop.

TheRealDave says:

12:52pm | 20/02/13

That would be the Liberal Party - you’re welcome

TheRealDave says:

12:54pm | 20/02/13

Carl Gustav - off the top of my head

Steve of QBN says:

02:14pm | 20/02/13

@ LJ Dots,

As TRD has said, almost nothing except the Carl Gustav (anti-tank weapon - Swedish?) and the submarine (Swedish).

Buying non-NATO can present a problem if we want to put US or NATO gear into it due to “non-standard” sizing and / or security issues.

Meph says:

03:58pm | 20/02/13

@Colin McKerlie

Jet? no, you’re absolutely right. On the other hand, the Australian Boomerang flew alongside mustangs, hurricanes, kittyhawks and spitfires during WWII in direct defense of our coastline from sorties flown by Japanese Zeros.

Aside from that, it’s probably also worth noting that scrying the future is notoriously difficult, just ask Nostradamus

Fiddler says:

04:13pm | 20/02/13

@Meph, give it a few more years until the defence files from the early to mid 60’s are declassified. It is well rumoured in ADF circles that in Sukarno’s later days we were being overflown by Indonesian aircraft, some of whom “may” have been shot down by RAAF jets

Meph says:

04:26pm | 20/02/13

@Fiddler

That would have placed things fair in the middle of Mirage III territory for 75SQN yes?

Fiddler says:

05:07pm | 20/02/13

Not 100% sure. I do know (from a groundcrew who was there) that they were pulled from Williamtown very quickly to go up North. There were a number of emergency scrambles and after a few days of this during one the radar was switched off.

On landing there were some very happy with themselves pilots and the planes were missing some bullets from their guns. And yes, Mirage III’s

Steve of QBN says:

06:58pm | 20/02/13

@ Colin McK,

We bought the F-111 due to the belligerent expansionism of Indonesia in the early 1960’s.  They were the only planes in the world at that time to be able to fly from Brisbane, bomb Jakarta and get home again without inflight refueling.  With the retirement of the F-111, we no longer have that sort of strike range and the F-35 will not provide it either.