tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2807805689442566934.post3082644744672526350..comments2023-11-03T07:58:58.440-07:00Comments on Ozzy Blizzard's Australian Defence Times: Air Power Australia, F/A 18F and the RAAF, a reformed smokers view...Tim 'Ozzy' Blizzardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16766155273391982401noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2807805689442566934.post-34212157981268542332010-07-19T12:58:28.247-07:002010-07-19T12:58:28.247-07:00Thank you!
Unfortunately the APA's flawed ana...Thank you!<br /><br />Unfortunately the APA's flawed analysis is being shopped all around Canada in an effort to label the F-35 as a "lemon" purchased by the Conservatives.<br /><br />Nobody is listening to or understanding the rationale behind fielding and operating the F-35 for the CF. It's good to see that somebody understands what make the F-35 such a capable platform.kEiThZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17922934696198250193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2807805689442566934.post-86905930741960088522008-02-02T18:09:00.000-08:002008-02-02T18:09:00.000-08:00Nice one Ozzy. As an aside, have you seen:http://...Nice one Ozzy. As an aside, have you seen:<BR/><BR/>http://geocities.com/element1loop/<BR/><BR/>Its about time that those not connected with defence bought the APA comments to heel.<BR/><BR/>It absolutely irritates me that they well know that ADF/DMO personnel are unable to provide a response, so they get a free hit everytime they market their nonsense. I had to go through this with Collins as well - and we've all seen how poor reporting and those with vested interests have continued to tarnish the reputation of an outstanding platform. Unfortunately aviation military commentary and broadsheet defence journalism in this country are attrocious and lack any form of research rigour. <BR/><BR/>Keep it up.gf0012-austhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07197346179546052945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2807805689442566934.post-10759889711102889062008-01-06T21:03:00.000-08:002008-01-06T21:03:00.000-08:00Hi Ozzy, nice work on the blog by the way. I had t...Hi Ozzy, nice work on the blog by the way. I had thought of doing something similar myself, but I thought I'd restrain myself (and my girlfriends patience...) and stay with the forums I already visit... :)<BR/><BR/>I agree with pretty much everything you say here. If one were to be churlish you could point out that in fact ALL of APA's ir power analysis revolves around their desire to be awarded the F-111 upgrade contract. Everything else is their justification of WHY the F-111 should be upgraded, but their intent is that THEY receive the hefty some to do so...<BR/><BR/>f111raaf, I understand your point that no matter what, someone may be able to identify a vulnerability in your system and exploit it. That this is a possibilty is even more reason why the approaches to national security should be wholistic and not predicated upon such useless comparisons as 1 v 1 fighter engagements.<BR/><BR/>The SU-30's will not possess a significantly greater "raw performance" over the Super Hornet OR the F-35 to makes us vulnerable because of that alone. <BR/><BR/>Your comment on "guns" in relation to air combat also needs addressing. How fast do you expect combat aircraft to be travelling if they are close enough to use guns on their enemy? I would expect quite slowly all things considered and the slower the fight gets, the better Hornet variants get. It's the top end (and less useful because the top speeds can rarely be reached in operational configurations) that the Hornets are lacking in, if anything and as I pointed out this is less useful. <BR/><BR/>A few other points, flares do nothing for radar guided missiles. They are designed as decoys for IR guided missiles. <BR/><BR/>Again with the close in "knife fights" even Dr Kopp allows that in this day and age, HOBS (high off boresight) heaters (short ranged infra-red guided missiles) and helmet mounted cueing systems make turning performance all but irrelevent. <BR/><BR/>No aircraft can turn with a 60G rated ASRAAM air to air missile or even a 40G rated AMRAAM missile for that matter.<BR/> <BR/>The R-73/R-77's are similarly rated and if a Sukhoi gets off the first shot against any other aircraft, including the F-22 in WVR, it is likely to die. <BR/><BR/>How many times does it have to be said about strike, that the F-111's range is irrelevent? It can only go as far as it's escorts because it is not and never will be survivable against modern fighters?<BR/><BR/>The SH has a fraction less range than the Strike Eagle. This can be accounted for in other ways, such as the KC-30B which can refuel 2x Super Hornets simultaneously compared to 1 Strike Eagle, or via the Super Hornets own buddy refuelling capability. <BR/><BR/>I would rather the US$30m MORE per aircraft that would have to be spent to acquire Eagle as opposed to Rhino, be spent on greater weapons packages or perhaps a dedicated SEAD/DEAD capability. A capability wholly non-existent in published RAAF and APA plans...<BR/><BR/>Your wishlist is ludicrous. It could not possibly be manned by ADF and would be hugely expensive, not to mention completely unnecessary. Why on Earth would you want AWACS, what sort exactly you don't explain AND E-2 Hawkeyes for the same force?Aussie Diggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01973862487107160241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2807805689442566934.post-13176912759278331382007-12-02T19:26:00.000-08:002007-12-02T19:26:00.000-08:00Having Super Bugs for shore based Defence will be ...Having Super Bugs for shore based Defence will be good and the F15s/F111s for deep strike. Covering all bases is better. Yes your points are formidable and take some arguing. If we develop systems in the future along with Russia to outsmart the missiles with EW, then we will have guns. With guns the aircraft who has the best agility wins. I guess we should never put our eggs in the same basket, especially all of them.<BR/>I think we should be more modest in our approach to warfare, or, we may end up washed up on the beach due to our own short sightedness. Hopefully this never happens, but I am not someone for tempting fate or God for that matter.<BR/>If we have the superior technology, and that is what you say is going to win the day, what makes you think Russia is not going to work hard on this from now on? Plan for the future, otherwise we will be caught out.<BR/>Because the hare placed too much emphasis on his speed, the tortoise beat him. But I don't think we are going to be 'overtaking' sleepy Indonesian pilots in the Pacific skies.....even if they are retards at flying jets.....<BR/><BR/>Also with Deep strike it is essential in having the best aircraft. The faster the better in order to outrun SAMs and other threats. All I can say is we just can't allow ourselves to go for the smallest model on the rack with a 1.3 litre engine that just can't handle the heat.<BR/><BR/>thanks for your response, it is most interesting and most valid, although I discount the fact in a high threat environment that the Super Hornet is going to do the job.<BR/><BR/>Australia has poorly assessed its Defence Requirements. Mostly all Defence requirements are political, essentially. But, keeping this in mind, we must consider the following. The deterrence gained by having a deep strike capability, and RAAF Butterworth available for forward deployment characterizes our deep reach in South East Asia and into Northern Asia with the right equipment, is essential for maintaining safety.<BR/>Secondly a shore based defence structure as in a reactionary force designed to counter threats (incoming) through radar, air combat capability and SAM emplacement. Having fast, superior aircraft that can extend beyond our shores is not beyond our needs as an earlier reaction to threats is a far better outcome than a slower reaction. The F15 is a prime candidate in covering both roles.<BR/>My wish list for a supreme Air Force in Australia would be:<BR/>64 F111s<BR/>126 F15s<BR/>12 AWAC<BR/>12 E3 Hawkeye<BR/><BR/>If given support I would also pursue a bigger Navy, with 2 Midsize carriers carrying your Super Hornet aircraft each with 25-30 including Growlers. I would purchase 5 Nuclear Submarines and I would be happy that we have a force structure able to deal with issue much further away from our shores and having more reliability from our equipment.<BR/><BR/>I like what you say about the AIM9X.F111RAAFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12835541281649843776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2807805689442566934.post-29360324885359467452007-12-02T18:38:00.000-08:002007-12-02T18:38:00.000-08:00f111raaf thanks again for your interest, it's nice...f111raaf thanks again for your interest, it's nice to know people are reading your work. <BR/><BR/>All of thepoints you raised about deep strike will be adressed in my next article which is in the works, and it sound like you'll have a bit to say about that aswell ecause it is at odds with what you have stated above, so i look forward to that conversation.<BR/><BR/>My article only dealt with air superiority because it was primarily a comparison between the Su30 and F/A 18F in that role, which Dr Kopp stated. That was the purpose of this article. My next one will deal with strike. <BR/><BR/>One point i will adress now is the within visual range enguagement (close in fight). Agility os no longer the defining factor in the WVR fight. The latest generation WVR missiles like the AIM 9X Sidewinder and AIM 132 ASRAAM. Both of these missiles use a Raytheon Focal Plane Array seeker that is (in the words of DR Kopp and the manufacturer) are impossible to defeat by maneuver alone. Therefore what good is turning if you cant out turn the missile? As for getting the first shot off, both the AIM 9X and ASRAAM can fire over the pilots sholder at a target behind the aicraft. Both of these missile are more capable than the Russians equilvelent R73 which is stil analoge. So if you cant out turn a missile, and you dont need to turn your aircraft to fire then what good is a better turning capability then????<BR/><BR/>Anyway since vietnam over 90% of all combat has been BVR (Boyond Visual Range) and jamming or chaff would have a hard time with an AMRAAM seeker, its specifically designed to defeat such countermeasures, as is the R77.<BR/><BR/>Thanks again for your input f111raaf.Tim 'Ozzy' Blizzardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16766155273391982401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2807805689442566934.post-26031238514412013812007-11-30T08:40:00.000-08:002007-11-30T08:40:00.000-08:00Terrorists gained very easily access to a strike w...Terrorists gained very easily access to a strike weapon, Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft. And, because no one expected it, they did strike.<BR/>So yes maybe the idds will be better when we aren't feeling so nice towards some country.....but<BR/>we can always be caught off guard. Everything what you say is good, but what if flares and chaff defeat the AMRAAMs, and it goes close in? The super hornet has less agility than a Flanker, and when the flanker outmanoevres the Super Bug, the Super Bug has less speed than the Flanker and would probably need to refuel. We lose the initiative.<BR/><BR/>Everything of what you say is nice, and the Radar technology is good I agree, but, if something goes wrong and the RAAF pilot gets tagged then we will be doing well if he/she gets out alive.<BR/><BR/>You are thinking of the scenario of where we are not going deep strike.<BR/><BR/>I am thinking of deep strike, and the only combination of doing this is with F111Cs with same speed F15Cs and Es which can offer cover and mission backup, as well as the same range as an F111.<BR/><BR/>Deep Strike is a strategic objective where we will have to counter threats in a more responsive environment than in the defensive environment you are imagining we are containing with the Super Bugs.<BR/><BR/>If Australia throws away the deep strike capability (in the F111 only) we really are ignoring the events of 1967 and 1973 where Israel managed to deal strategic blows to opposition forces.<BR/><BR/>You speak of 'threat'. We are only gearing ourselves for defence so it is purely ignoring retaining our deep strike capability. Getting F15Es will additionally cover the F111s on long range deep missions. We will still retain a fear in the region, and with the ability to go on the offensive I think few will mess with us anyway. I don't oppose the Super Bugs, I just oppose getting rid of offensive capabilties.<BR/><BR/>The F111 will be good for another 20 years or so. I think we should design an F11X though to carry us through to 2050.<BR/><BR/>At least you are very optimistic about the ADF's Defensive capabilities and that is good. I just hope we can keep our offensive capabilties.<BR/><BR/>Also your Super Bugs will need to be based in Western Australia as well. The need for numbers will be around 100. 24 Super Bugs won't be enough.<BR/>I prefer Eagles anyway and they are worth the outlay. They can fly higher, faster and longer than the bugs. :-) just like the F111s......F111RAAFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12835541281649843776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2807805689442566934.post-21430144535380661252007-11-30T07:09:00.000-08:002007-11-30T07:09:00.000-08:00Thanks f111raaf for the input, i'm glad you enjoye...Thanks f111raaf for the input, i'm glad you enjoyed my article. As to your points.<BR/><BR/>The network itself is not platform or single system spesific, there is plenty of redundency. If for examle the objective was to disable JORN, the facility is well in centrel Australia, thousands of kilometers from the coast, so the realistic number of possible threat systems that are capable of even reaching its vitals can be counted on one hand, and none of them in south east asia. Also any endo-atmospheric threats are going to have to penitrate the RAAF's air defence system with JORN as the nucleus which is not going to be easy by any streach of the imagination. In addition to this JORN is a huge system of antenna's and recievers that is lieteraly kilometers long, so apart from a few pin point vulnerabe spots a large number of warheads would be needed to sdisable the system. So basicly it is very very hard to destroy. If a wedgetail could be shot down which is also very, very hard to acomplish considering its protection and EW capability, annother fighter can act as the AEW&C with all of the other platforms in the package still making passive BVR missile shots. So the only way the Netowrk can be "shot down" is if there is literally only one platform left in the air. As to the system being jammed, well this is a simple equasion of ECM vs ECCM, or their jammking and your counter jamming. Due to our acsess to the latest US datalink and radar technology, we hold a very healthy lead in ECCM effectiveness over anyone in the region. In order for this to change russian ECM technology would have to leapfrog US ECCM capability (including the very large capability lead the US already holds)with less funding, and somone in the region has to aquire the capability. Pretty far fetched if you ask me. So basically as it stands now the network can not be effectively "Jammed or Shot Down".<BR/><BR/>As for puting all of our eggs in a single "hi tech basket" well i have to say that is not what defence is doing at all. Considering the capability of super bug BK2's and HUG BUG's, the RAAF's healthy lead in missile capability (AIM 120DC5/C7/D and AIM 132/AIM9X) and its huge lead in quality of personell training and tactics, we could comprehensively defeat any conceavable opponants even if they were equiped with advanced flankers without the networK (with the exeption of Singapore). NCW just gives us a HUGE additional advantage over the any realistic threat. So no one is putting "all our cards" on some hi tech capability, its just an important part of the picture which Dr Carlo Kopp ignores.<BR/><BR/>And for not ending up like New Zealand, we just spent $3bn (platform aquisition cost) on one of the most advanced fighters on the market, so we're hardly just investing in networking, and it was 40% cheaper than F15E block 2 with comperable capability, lower maintinace and logistics costs, no weapon intergratioon problems (eagle can not cary Harpoon) and lack of cominality with current RAAF assets. Therefore I dont know how you think that investing in a comprehensive air defence system with inprovement in all areas of the kill chain, from EW radar to platform to missile is a path that will leave us in a similar predicament to New Zealand. By the way NZ's P-3C's dont cary AIM 9's, in fact they dont cary any A2A ordinance.<BR/><BR/>Also i dont knwo what 9/11 has to do with a discussion on modern air combat? Will box cutters somehow negate all the advantages of NCW?<BR/><BR/>The question of future RAAF ORBAT is one I will answer in my next article.Tim 'Ozzy' Blizzardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16766155273391982401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2807805689442566934.post-39959635183462478932007-11-28T10:58:00.000-08:002007-11-28T10:58:00.000-08:00Great article and yes you state facts correctly, b...Great article and yes you state facts correctly, but I must point out that your view is in line with a very optimistic General. To be operational the apparatus must not be destroyed. If the network is jammed or shot down etc, then we are placing all our cards on high-tech capabilities, which even terrorists managed to defeat in 2001 with items even simpler than guns.<BR/>We must play our cards properly and not rely on a single Ace to win which some people in Defence and yourself actually are doing.<BR/>We should aim to be the best in all capability, not just network, otherwise we will end up like the Royal New Zealand Air Force and arm P-3Cs with Sidewinders.<BR/>Let's put some common sense in here and think along the lines of having a much superior F15 (F22 as well) which will fly deep strike cover missions with F111s. The Bugs are good but only for carrier duty. We live in large country and bugs don't cut it. Eagles are predators and this is where I place emphasis on Defence.F111RAAFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12835541281649843776noreply@blogger.com