SayethWhaaaa 245 Posted March 16, 2010 (edited) Read this article in the Oz (The Australian) a few weeks ago. It's interesting reading considering considering.... Source: Australia's shrinking air force * Cameron Stewart * From: The Australian * February 27, 2010 12:00AM THE nation's air combat force has withered to its smallest size in a generation, with less than half of the country's fighter jets available for operations. At times this year as many as three out of four of the RAAF's 86 fighter jets have been grounded due to maintenance, upgrades or safety concerns. Of those warplanes that are available, only a handful can be sent into combat because they do not yet have sufficient electronic protection to survive against modern air defences. The Weekend Australian understands that only 21 of the RAAF's 71 F/A-18 Hornets are currently available, while the 15 ageing F-111 strike bombers were only cleared to fly again last week after being grounded early this month when an in-flight emergency forced a safety review. The parlous state of the frontline air force has added urgency to the arrival of 26 F/A-18 Super Hornets that were purchased for $6 billion by the Howard government and are due to start arriving next month. Defence Minister John Faulkner refused to discuss the current availability of the RAAF's fighters, but maintained: "Air force is at all times generating sufficient combat capability to meet government requirements." The government has promised to inject more funds into making defence equipment more battle-ready. It has recently come under pressure to explain why the navy has been unable to put more than one of its six submarines to sea on a regular basis. Defence sources say the F/A-18 Hornet fleet, which is of 1980s vintage, has been hit by maintenance issues, delayed upgrade programs and staffing problems. After a safety review, the F-111 fleet was cleared to fly again on February 19, but the 1960s-vintage strike bomber is due to be retired at the end of the year and is considered unlikely to be given heavy operational requirements from now on. The RAAF's 71 Hornets were designed in the US and assembled in Australia in the 1980s. As a result, they have been subjected to rolling upgrades to their systems and airframes to ensure they can provide effective air defence until the first squadron of new Joint Strike Fighters comes into service in 2018. The problems with the RAAF's fighter fleet are mirrored in many other areas of the defence force, where billions of dollars of powerful weaponry is awaiting upgrades or promised replacements and cannot be deployed. The navy's eight Anzac frigates cannot be sent into a hotly contested war zone because of a lack of defensive weaponry, while the army cannot deploy its 33 Black Hawk helicopters to war zones because they are vulnerable to shoulder-launched missiles. Edited March 16, 2010 by Say What?! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Gocad 26 Posted March 16, 2010 Is it just me or these deficiencies only brought up to prove once again how bad "the government" has failed? I know that this might a minority opinion here, but I'm pretty tired of all those "OMG! We don't have as many planes/tanks/ships/whatever available like x 10, 20, etc years ago" calls. Prove me wrong, but I'm pretty convinced that in 9.5 out of 10 cases such reports are made for a number reasons, but definitely not because someone is thinking about the nation's safety or the much quoted "warfighter's needs" (I really can't stand this phrase, mostly because of the circumstances when it's used).... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lexx_Luthor 57 Posted March 16, 2010 "parious" -- would they mean perilous? I can't find my dictionary and haven't found it online. I do see it used so context may be available. Say What, I'm guessing Aussie is not alone. All modern western militaries are funded by debt, and as we are in some kind of global debt collapse everybody's gonna get bit, well maybe except the very largest banks. So it may be like the 1930s and "democracy" forces get small again. I'd replace F-111s with Tornados and air refueling. Not saying it would work in the Pacific area but its my best guess. I'd go for a small Gripen fighter force but purely because of classical SAAB "kewl"~ness. That's assuming SAAB developed air refueling since earlier times. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SayethWhaaaa 245 Posted March 16, 2010 Apparently there is a bit of a grudge match taking place between the government and the RAAF, nay, the ADF in general right now. The ADF future planners want the latest and best US equipment, regardless of cost (case in point, The F-35 and post-Collins subs) and the Government, irrespective of which party has been in power over the past 25 years, has been trying to get them to compromise between capability and cost but has been shooting itself in the foot by getting into bed with contractors and lobbyists, when it hasn't been cutting it's budget for short term gains. But what really surprised me was the availability of the Hornets and F-111s. For years, especially during the previous conservative government, there was this absolute fear amongst the government that there would be a major F-111 accident and they moved heaven and earth to retire them as soon as possibly, despite their being one of the most capable strike platforms in the region and apparently increasingly expensive to maintain, despite the US offering to sell spares and engines at cost or otherwise greatly reduced rates. Consequently, our Hornets have had to pick up the slack as, unofficially at least, the F-111s would never be deployed overseas again and would have to fill operational requirements in theaters such as Iraq and now it's coming back to bite us in the arse with low availability rates, although the numbers I heard thrown around from RAAF/Industry buddies here being 27. It just seems bizarrely interesting to me to keep a platform in service that is never to be used, outside of being a loud, pyrotechnic display for yobbos at Grand Prixs and Supercar series meets. I'm wondering if our new SuperBugs are going to be modded with a fuel dump between the engine nacelles... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted March 16, 2010 No, no, they have buddy refueling pods now. Just cut the end off the drogue and watch the pyro!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SayethWhaaaa 245 Posted March 17, 2010 Ooh... dual dumps and burn. The Yobbos are gonna love that, and we'll be out 26 more strike platforms! lol Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
