|
Post by richard1098 on Aug 21, 2023 17:49:25 GMT 12
One of the upsides to the decision to upgrade the F-18Fs to block III and keep them in service longer, is that their replacement now broadly aligns with the USN's F/A-XX program timeline. Not only does that expand options beyond the F-35, it may also include an EA-18G replacement. I'm guessing we'll see follow orders for more Redbacks, at least Hanhwa will be working pretty hard to make that happen. Quite the possibility so too does the USAF have a program to replace F22 Raptor both the USAF/USN have 6th gen programs, and both called Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) and then you have both Japanese and Euro options, for which i see little appetite for the RAAF to get involved in the latter program. I personally think that the RAAF should get some F35B for the remaining aircraft buy in for Project AIR 6000 Phase 7 for dispersed forward operations, along with the KC130J buy FARP operations. I think RAAF is too one-dimensional plenty options how to deploy a STOVL jet in the pacific and SEA. www.aerotime.aero/articles/31756-what-do-we-know-about-ngad-heres-every-concept-so-farwww.documentcloud.org/documents/21095460-navy-aviation-vision-2030-2035_fnl?responsive=1&title=1That could be an understatement. Just my view, but I can't see the ADF signing up for a program that could easily turn into a supersonic, fixed wing, high altitude NH90 or Tiger.
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Aug 21, 2023 18:35:42 GMT 12
That could be an understatement. Just my view, but I can't see the ADF signing up for a program that could easily turn into a supersonic, fixed wing, high altitude NH90 or Tiger. Agree neither can I Japanese would be a long shot, but I could see a US/JP/AU program or payments into R&D like F35. But I can't ever see a program like F35 again 3 types in the one program.
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Aug 22, 2023 14:53:11 GMT 12
That could be an understatement. Just my view, but I can't see the ADF signing up for a program that could easily turn into a supersonic, fixed wing, high altitude NH90 or Tiger. Sounds exactly what the ADF will sign up for ....
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Aug 22, 2023 17:14:46 GMT 12
That could be an understatement. Just my view, but I can't see the ADF signing up for a program that could easily turn into a supersonic, fixed wing, high altitude NH90 or Tiger. Sounds exactly what the ADF will sign up for .... Why? I suspect they'll remember NH90 and Tiger for a long, long time... Most ADF procurements go pretty smoothly by global standards. M1A1, Boxer, EA-18G, F-18F, E-7, ANZAC frigate upgrades, Bushmaster, etc, etc. The cost and schedule over-runs on the Hobart AWDs don't look too bad compared to a lot of programs elsewhere, even the RNZN's ANZAC frigate upgrade ..
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Aug 23, 2023 14:48:00 GMT 12
Sounds exactly what the ADF will sign up for .... Why? I suspect they'll remember NH90 and Tiger for a long, long time... You have more faith than me Sounds exactly what the ADF will sign up for .... Why? I suspect Most ADF procurements go pretty smoothly by global standards. M1A1, Boxer, EA-18G, F-18F, E-7, ANZAC frigate upgrades, Bushmaster, etc, etc. The cost and schedule over-runs on the Hobart AWDs don't look too bad compared to a lot of programs elsewhere, even the RNZN's ANZAC frigate upgrade .. The FMS ones went as good as expected because they were proven platforms. E-7 didn't, and has never reached what was promised, there was a lot of pain as well. That said it's probably 90% of the way there and is clearly the best platform of it's type in service. And even 80% of a promised capability fielded is better than not being fielded. KC-30 had a number of issues but is also now an excellent platform. I'm not so much across the land and naval platforms as they aren't really in my sphere of interest. The SSN's and Hunter Class worry me...
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Aug 23, 2023 16:02:10 GMT 12
RAAF E7 were not acquired under FMS, it was a collaboration between AusGov Boeing and BAE as the prime contractors.
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Aug 23, 2023 17:08:11 GMT 12
If you want systems and platforms that are tailored to your needs, not some else's, and have the industry to support and sustain them long term including upgrades, you need to accept a level of risk. There's no way around that reality.
|
|
|
Post by Antonio on Aug 23, 2023 18:14:52 GMT 12
How are the Hawk Mk.127 LIF performing? Are they fit for purpose for future combat pilots?
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Aug 23, 2023 22:39:57 GMT 12
How are the Hawk Hawk Mk.127 LIF performing? Are they fit for purpose for future combat pilots? Air 6002 Phase 1 has been pushed back Hawks were set to start retiring from 2027 they are currently going through a upgrade, new timeline is expecting first aircraft 2032 so contract signing is from around 2027. I think they are waiting for T-7A Red Hawk to mature a little more which would suit the government fine they can defer the budget a little further then. Just my 2 cents
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Aug 24, 2023 12:20:19 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by mcmaster on Aug 24, 2023 16:16:41 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Aug 24, 2023 20:05:55 GMT 12
How are the Hawk Hawk Mk.127 LIF performing? Are they fit for purpose for future combat pilots? Air 6002 Phase 1 has been pushed back Hawks were set to start retiring from 2027 they are currently going through a upgrade, new timeline is expecting first aircraft 2032 so contract signing is from around 2027. I think they are waiting for T-7A Red Hawk to mature a little more which would suit the government fine they can defer the budget a little further then. Just my 2 cents It looks like the USAF hasn't yet approved the T-7 for production, due to ejection system issues that need to be resolved. I don't think the RAAF has much choice but to pause Air 6002 until all that is resolved. It wouldn't even be feasible to proceed with an open competition. www.airandspaceforces.com/new-t-7-trainer-wont-start-production-2-more-years/
|
|
|
Post by falcon124 on Aug 27, 2023 16:49:26 GMT 12
I know a few people who've crewed E-7 Wedgetails who think they're the bees knees and absolutely love them. There's a reason the USAF and RAF are buying them and it has to do with their demonstrated capability from the Middle East operations As to buying from anyone but the USA: it seems that the ADF has adopted the concept of "No one ever got fired for buying American..." while also trying to go as close to pure FMS as possible (as few changes as possible and only those supported by the vendor ).
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Aug 28, 2023 11:13:51 GMT 12
I know a few people who've crewed E-7 Wedgetails who think they're the bees knees and absolutely love them. There's a reason the USAF and RAF are buying them and it has to do with their demonstrated capability from the Middle East operations As to buying from anyone but the USA: it seems that the ADF has adopted the concept of "No one ever got fired for buying American..." while also trying to go as close to pure FMS as possible (as few changes as possible and only those supported by the vendor ). E-7 was also procured by South Korea and Turkey. Recent army procurements include: Hanhwa AS21 Red Back IFV, AS9 (aka K9) Hunter SPG and AS10 (aka K10) reloading vehicles, Boxer CRV, and Spike LR ATGM, all for local manufacture. Hawkeye, Bushmaster and EF88 are locally designed and manufactured. Recent RAN procurements: Hunter class frigates, which use a modified UK designed hull and propulsion systems, (+US and Aus sensors and weapons systems, along with Franco-Italian MU90 torpedoes) for local integration and manufacture. Aus is a development and manufacturing partner in the F-35 program, so that's not "vanilla" FMS. Similarly for the P-8 program Australia was a paid up development partner. None of the old European "powers" have any real strategic interest, involvement or presence in the Indo Pacific (except France to a degree), so what level of support would you get from them, or would they be able to provide, if things really did "heat up"? Look at how NH90 and Tiger went, in peace time.
|
|
|
Post by Mustang51 on Aug 28, 2023 14:40:33 GMT 12
Agree Richard....my personal...
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Aug 29, 2023 15:09:41 GMT 12
RAAF E7 were not acquired under FMS, it was a collaboration between AusGov Boeing and BAE as the prime contractors. Did I say it was?
|
|
|
Post by snafu on Aug 29, 2023 22:40:52 GMT 12
RAAF E7 were not acquired under FMS, it was a collaboration between AusGov Boeing and BAE as the prime contractors. Did I say it was? Apologies if I misinterpreted what you said.
|
|
|
Post by falcon124 on Aug 30, 2023 0:36:28 GMT 12
Recent army procurements include: Hanhwa AS21 Red Back IFV, AS9 (aka K9) Hunter SPG and AS10 (aka K10) reloading vehicles, Boxer CRV, and Spike LR ATGM, all for local manufacture. Hawkeye, Bushmaster and EF88 are locally designed and manufactured. Recent RAN procurements: Hunter class frigates, which use a modified UK designed hull and propulsion systems, (+US and Aus sensors and weapons systems, along with Franco-Italian MU90 torpedoes) for local integration and manufacture. Aus is a development and manufacturing partner in the F-35 program, so that's not "vanilla" FMS. Similarly for the P-8 program Australia was a paid up development partner. None of the old European "powers" have any real strategic interest, involvement or presence in the Indo Pacific (except France to a degree), so what level of support would you get from them, or would they be able to provide, if things really did "heat up"? Look at how NH90 and Tiger went, in peace time. All valid points and I wish we'd get more stuff from South Korea but check out Apache, Black Hawk, HIMARS and other missile systems: all pure FMS from the USA. I suspect if the USA had put forward an IFV & SPG we probably would have gone with them in place of the others (wot, me, cynical? ). As to Hunter: remains to be seen how that one goes. I'm crossing my fingers that it comes right and also survives the government's naval surface fleet review as there are some who are saying it may be scaled back, etc. Always rumours with these things so I'm waiting to see. As to F-35: Yes, we're in development but ACURL (Australia Canada UK Research Lab) gets to put suggestions in and, if all goes well, they wind up going into the core system which then becomes part of our aircraft. So, still FMS and no orphan development as we've done with other items. Oz is remaining in lockstep with the USA amd getting Tech Refresh 3 (TR3) and the Block 4 upgrade programs. Our new aircraft are due to have TR3 and then it will be retrofitted as aircraft go through maintenance. So yes, we're in development & manufacturing but we're not forking off our own variants, we're contributing back to the core line which then comes back to us under the FMS process. Ditto for the P-8A: we're contributing but it's going back into the core. Apologies if I've got it wrong but from the various interviews & discussions I've been involved in, that's my understanding of how those projects are being managed.
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Aug 30, 2023 10:31:48 GMT 12
Recent army procurements include: Hanhwa AS21 Red Back IFV, AS9 (aka K9) Hunter SPG and AS10 (aka K10) reloading vehicles, Boxer CRV, and Spike LR ATGM, all for local manufacture. Hawkeye, Bushmaster and EF88 are locally designed and manufactured. Recent RAN procurements: Hunter class frigates, which use a modified UK designed hull and propulsion systems, (+US and Aus sensors and weapons systems, along with Franco-Italian MU90 torpedoes) for local integration and manufacture. Aus is a development and manufacturing partner in the F-35 program, so that's not "vanilla" FMS. Similarly for the P-8 program Australia was a paid up development partner. None of the old European "powers" have any real strategic interest, involvement or presence in the Indo Pacific (except France to a degree), so what level of support would you get from them, or would they be able to provide, if things really did "heat up"? Look at how NH90 and Tiger went, in peace time. All valid points and I wish we'd get more stuff from South Korea but check out Apache, Black Hawk, HIMARS and other missile systems: all pure FMS from the USA. I suspect if the USA had put forward an IFV & SPG we probably would have gone with them in place of the others (wot, me, cynical? ). As to Hunter: remains to be seen how that one goes. I'm crossing my fingers that it comes right and also survives the government's naval surface fleet review as there are some who are saying it may be scaled back, etc. Always rumours with these things so I'm waiting to see. As to F-35: Yes, we're in development but ACURL (Australia Canada UK Research Lab) gets to put suggestions in and, if all goes well, they wind up going into the core system which then becomes part of our aircraft. So, still FMS and no orphan development as we've done with other items. Oz is remaining in lockstep with the USA amd getting Tech Refresh 3 (TR3) and the Block 4 upgrade programs. Our new aircraft are due to have TR3 and then it will be retrofitted as aircraft go through maintenance. So yes, we're in development & manufacturing but we're not forking off our own variants, we're contributing back to the core line which then comes back to us under the FMS process. Ditto for the P-8A: we're contributing but it's going back into the core. Apologies if I've got it wrong but from the various interviews & discussions I've been involved in, that's my understanding of how those projects are being managed. If the ADF could source most of its large equipment procurements through F-35, or even P-8, like programs it would probably be the ideal solution. Industry involvement in design, manufacture and through life support, commonality with regional partners, and costs savings that only large volume programs can generate.
|
|