Australia the losers in the Asian arms race

Crikey,Australia ^ | 9 July 2007 | Dr Carlo Kopp

[Freeport]

The F-15 was designed based on intelligence analysis of the MiG 23. At the time, it was very much feared by the West. It was later found to be a paper tiger... But we actually got one heck of a beast in the F-15.

Unfortunately, it was so expensive for the time that a lower cost solution was demanded by Congress... Hence the F-16 (One of the very few times a government listened to designers & the military about a less expensive/capable machine that made sense!)

So we have a similar situation now... The F-22 for Air superiority and a less capable, but quite a bit less expensive multi-roll aircraft for everything else...

Still, the idea of an F-35 replacing an A-10 is just about the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.... No way will it be able to take the pounding, provide the loiter time, be able to gun anything that moves on the ground, and still carry 16,000 lbs. of other ordinance and bring its pilot back alive even if the aircraft isn't recoverable!

[Weeedley]

The highest mark of F-16’s for dogfighting and the F-35 to replace the Harriers they never bought.

A more pressing need for the Aussies is for the govt there to tear up the idiotic ban on guns so they can field an experienced army that has some idea which end of the tube the bullet comes out of.

[Gengis Khan]

It really doesnt matter what you sell them or want to sell them. The main point about the article is not whether Superhornets are all that better then Sukhois or whether F-15s would be better option. What really matters is how much dough you can put on your hardware. If sufficient amount of $$$s are poured, even a Mig-21 can become formidable. Its not that Asian countries havent had russian hardware before. Whats has really changed is that with rapidly rising economy Asian countries have more dough to put on their russian hardwares. Main point of the article is that Australia is having trouble keeping pace with a rapidly modernising defense of Asian countries. Today's Russian equipment is a lot more then the 80's Soviet technology, now they come with european electronics and weapon systems depending on the amount of dough you can throw on it. Todays russian hardware more dangerous then what was fielded by the Soviet Union in the 70’s and 80’s. Add to that Chinese and Russian equipment have more bang for a buck. They have sufficient technology edge and they are dirt cheap enough to be fielded in large numbers. And thats gonna be a tough opposition for Australia to take on. Regardless of whether Australia buys the F-22, F-35, Superhornets or F-15s it really doesnt have much dough to put on them.

Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia will be much tougher opposition in future. And only in their dreams will Australia be able to beat China.

[Gengis Khan]

A-10 is a sitting duck in an air space that heavily guarded by enemy interceptors and ground based SAMs. A-10 in the USAF typically operate in an environment where complete air superiority over enemy air space has already been established and there is no opposition to the A-10s wheather on ground or air.

That kinda complete air superiority is difficult to establish unless you have overwhelming superiority over your enemy in terms of numbers and technology. Thats not something Australia has. It would make more sense to buy multi-role aircraft that can do a combination of ground strikes and air defense.

The Mig 23 is useless but the Flankers are formidable. The F-15s are fast becoming outdated and would at best just hold ground against the Sukhois. Australia doesnt have much options.

[Yo-Yo]

The latest Sukhois with the latest Israeli radar is only as good as the pilot using it. Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, and even China can spend all they want on the latest shiny toys, but they’ll also have to match the professional level of training of India, Australia, Japan, and the U.S.

As for Australia defeating China, the point is that they don’t have to. They only have to defend against China long enough for Australia’s allies to respond. I know that Australia has a ‘go it alone’ operational policy, but as you pointed out, with a total population base of 20 million, it’s getting harder for them to fund such a noble ideal.

That’s why the U.S. could forward deploy F-22s to Australia or Japan as a contingency, if relations in the region are deteriorating.

[Yo-Yo]

A-10 is a sitting duck in an air space that heavily guarded by enemy interceptors and ground based SAMs. A-10 in the USAF typically operate in an environment where complete air superiority over enemy air space has already been established and there is no opposition to the A-10s wheather on ground or air.

And a fast jet like the F-16 or F-35 cannot provide the close air support required of the ground troops. The U.S. found that out rather quickly in Gulf War I when the concept was to have "A-16s" replace A-10s, only to find out that the F-16 jocks flew too fast to be able to visually identify targets.

Also, with it's redundant manual flight control systems, titanium bath tub, and engine placement, the A-10 is designed to absorb more ground fire than the F-16 or F-35 ever will. Yeah, sure, the U.S. only operates them in areas of total air superiority because we are so risk adverse these days.

However, if an all out world war with China were to occur, the U.S. will send in an A-10 for close air support, and if necessary also send in F-16s, F-35s, or F-22s to fly MigCAP (or SuCAP) over them.

[Atlantic Bridge]

If the F-22 is not available the Australians should turn to Europe and buy up-to-date Rafales, Gripens or Eurofighters. Those planes are able to deal with the newest Russian products. Outdated US planes like F-15s do not necessarily.

Besides - the Australians were the staunchest buddies the US can dream of. WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Iraq etc. pp. The Aussies lost a lot of their sons for the defense of America. Therefore it is a dumb and primitive insult not to sell them F-22 fighters. To offer old BS is despicable. I could understand such mistrust on other US allies in central continetal Europe, but in difference to Australia they do not need to buy US products since they are building suitable planes on their own. Australia needs a helping hand and the US fail to reply the friendship they recieved from the land down under.

The US foreign policy concerning its friends is strange sometimes. No matter if we talk about the visa policy in eastern Europe or those planes in Australia.

[wastedyears]

We have to lobby to them to keep the A-10 for as long as its shelf life says.

[Yo-Yo]

Already taken care of.

A Higher-Tech Hog: The A-10C PE Program

02-Jul-2007 20:06

The Precision Engagement modification is the largest single upgrade effort ever undertaken for the USA's unique A-10 "Warthog" close air support aircraft fleet. when complete, it will give them precision strike capability sooner than planned, combining multiple upgrade requirements into one time and money-saving program rather than executing them as standalone projects. Indeed, the USAF has accelerated the PE program by 9 months as a result of its experiences in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The entire A-10 fleet will be modified over 4-5 years, at an estimated total cost of $420 million. While A/OA-10 aircraft continue to outperform technology-packed rivals on the battlefield, this set of upgrades is expected to help keep the aircraft current until the fleet's planned phase-out in 2028. Overall, an April 2, 2007 GAO report places the potential total cost of upgrading, refurbishing, and service life extension plans for the A/OA-10 force at up to $4.4 billion.

This is DID's FOCUS Article for the PE program, and for other modifications to the A-10 fleet. It covers the A-10's battlefield performance and advantages, the elements of the PE program, other planned modifications, and the contracts that have been issued each step of the way. In the latest update, that large contract to re-wing 242 A-10s has come through.

Excerpt. Read more here.

[wastedyears]

Glad to see we’ll be keeping them for a while. Thanks

[Gengis Khan]

“And a fast jet like the F-16 or F-35 cannot provide the close air support required of the ground troops. “

Its not because they are fast. Its because F-16s and F-35s have short range and carry far less weapon load. In Gulf War I a fast jet like the Jaguar was among the most successful strike aircraft. Israel used used Mirages and Kfirs and have busted more tanks then most countries. India used the Mirage 2000 to drop LGBs and PGMs on mujahedeen bunkers at a height of 16000 ft in Kargil (among the most difficult targets to identify). Its all a matter of skill and training.

The A-10 are useful where the enemy has overwhelming numbers on the ground and there is a large territory to cover. Its an attractive option for a country like India that has a long border with a massive China. It would be very useful to provide air cover for our troops and supply lines especially in the North East given the forest cover and the vast terrain to defend. Only problem is its too costly for an operation even attack helos can perform.

In Australia’s case ....... Australia wont face a land invasion. Any attack would be on sea or air. Aerial and Naval targets can easily be engaged by the JSF or even F-16s. And if you are considering penetrating enemy airspace and taking out their air defense systems, that would require long range standoff and land attack cruise missiles for which the JSF can act as a delivery platform. A loud noisy gatling gun is of little use and it will be greeted not with ground fire but with SAMs.

[Gengis Khan]

“Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, and even China can spend all they want on the latest shiny toys, but they’ll also have to match the professional level of training of India, Australia, Japan, and the U.S.”

Its wrong to blindly assume their level of training and ability would be any less then that of US and Australia. Vietnam very successfully used the Migs against American F-4 Phantoms.

“They only have to defend against China long enough for Australia’s allies to respond. I know that Australia has a ‘go it alone’ operational policy, but as you pointed out, with a total population base of 20 million, it’s getting harder for them to fund such a noble ideal.”

In India’s case I would much prefer we build the capability to ‘go it alone’ whatever the cost. Its good to have allies but I dont want to depend on them to respond. The last thing I would want to do is hold my breath and prey that the allies respond in time. It far better to have the capability to fight alone even if thats a modest capability. And to be able to actually ‘go it alone’ the most important capability is to be able to build ones own weapon systems. In thats respect building the LCA fighter jet is a small but a significant step. Indigenisation is the most important corner stone of our defense modernisation.

[sukhoi-30mki]

The Europlanes can take on most Russian threats-but they still don’t offer all that the Aussies need.Mainly long-range & payload.

[Yo-Yo]

Its wrong to blindly assume their level of training and ability would be any less then that of US and Australia. Vietnam very successfully used the Migs against American F-4 Phantoms.

You clearly have no understanding of the air war in Vietnam.

[Rummenigge]

Load of the EF is quite all right - but we don#t need range in europe. I guess they could have AESA if they wanted - but that would be extremely expensive.

Why don’t they grab some balls and start their own air&space programm ?

If the US acts like a girl with their stuff and the euopeans are too expensive - isn’t that kind of an opportunity to team up with BAE or anyone to build something that has extreme range, a monster radar and is a bit more spacy like a stupidhornet ?

A new F-111 ?

Or - hell why not take the Flanker and modify it.

They could go shopping then for the rest like AESA radar, Link hardware and weapons (Meteor and Taurus ;-).

[sukhoi-30mki]

Export customers,esp like Australia or Japan put a premium on longe range-& the Typhoon’s payload would suffer if you fit more fuel tanks.The Typhoon would probably only have conformal tanks after 2010 when the tranche-3 variants come into service.

A tweaked Flanker makes no sense,if you have only used American equipment-it would become as expensive as an F-15.Neither would the Russians or any Western nation allow the other to look at their crown jewels.

[stoka]

It would be tragic in a future military engagement if most of our airforce was to be swept aside nonchalantly by a hostile regional neighbour. It would be even worse, bordering on unthinkable, if our then weakened defence environment emboldened such an adversary to attack a major civilian target like a city. It occurs to me that the $6 billion to be invested in the Super Hornet would be much better spent on the F22. I’m sure the Americans would be selling it to us in the event that the Government presented its case very strongly (I’ve listed a number of points which seem logical to me below .) 1. The US doesn’t have a closer or more supportive ally than Australia. 2. The massive land mass of Australia dictates the need for a long range aircraft. 3. The massive land mass of Australia and the fact that we are an island dictates the need for a twin engine aircraft. 4. The proliferation of Sukhoi class aircraft in the region dictates that such an aircraft must be superior to the Sukhoi class of aircraft if Australia is to remain at least competitive, or ideally retain some deterrent capability. 5. Australia has a role counterbalancing the expansionist military ambitions of China – an aspect of retaining a good trading and cultural relationship with China is for our military to command their respect. How can Australia counterbalance an adversarial relationship between China and the US if our closest ally refuses us access to the weapons system we need to perform that role? 6. How can Australia command a genuine deterrence capability in our region if our military capacity is seen to be riddled with weakness or vulnerability? 7. In dealing with a more powerful enemy, survival usually entails being able to outwit, outrun and evade him, while at the same time striking a telling blow. According to the technical information available in the public domain, the FA/18A-E has neither the speed, the range, the altitude, the manouverability or the offensive capability to defeat a Flanker. 8. Australia is absolutely awash with money at the moment from the minerals boom. We can certainly afford the Raptor in significant numbers. The purchase will be good for the Americans as well – they can increase their own order. To seal the argument, the F35 costs are going up an up all the time and now appear likely to rival the cost of an F-22. With my limited technical knowledge, it would appear that the F22 Raptor is a more appropriate aircraft for our geopolitical requirements than both the FA/18A-E and the F-35. I also find the arguments against the early retirement of the F-111 compelling; at least to the extent that a prototype program could be undertaken to retrofit an F-111 with contemporary engines and avionics at a relatively modest cost to ascertain the feasability of retaining it as a viable asset well into the future. The availability of large numbers of spare F-111 airframes at minimal cost from the US would only enhance exploring this course of action.