Australia Should Buy Aircraft for its Aircraft Carriers

In "We should learn from US’s F-35 experience" (Australian Financial Review, 5 April 2014) Brian Toohey argues that Australia did not make the right choice with the F-35A stealth aircraft. The advantage of the F-35A over the F/A-18F Super Hornet, is not so clear for Australia, as Toohey suggests.

However, one area in which the F-35 has an advantage is the F-35b model, for which Australia's two Canberra Class amphibious assault ships were designed. These ships have a prominent ski-jump ramp, to launch short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft, the only one of which is in development is the F-35b. The support equipment for maintaining the aircraft can be trucked onto the ships in standard ISO container modules. I suggest eighteen F-35b aircraft would be sufficient to equip the two ships and provide a reserve.

Toohey also criticises government plans to build twelve large conventionally powered submarines, arguing that the F/A-18F and G aircraft would be sufficient to deal with maritime threats. However, even with air-to-air refuelling, the F/A-18 has a limited range. More effective for long range patrol will be the Boeing P-8 Poseidon, a modified 737 airliner, with the F-35's radar and 11 weapons stations capable of carrying a similar payload to the F-35, but over a much longer range.

Australia should replace its current six Collins Class submarines, but I suggest this should be with a smaller, lower cost proven design, made in Europe or Asia. The effective range of the submarines can be increased by providing support vessels (which can be Australia made, if required for political reasons).

Australia Purchasing Electronic Warfare Aircraft

In 2008 I suggested a relatively quick and easy purchase for Australian defence would be a dozen EA-18G Growler aircraft. The Australian government has now decided to do this, with twelve F/A-18F Super Hornets to be upgraded for electronic warfare.

It should be noted that while this is an upgrade of a proven aircraft, it is not simply a matter of bolting on some extra parts. The EA-18G electronic suite was derived from an older aircraft and is in need of upgrade. So the aircraft are likely to need an upgrade just about as soon as they are delivered. Also the receivers and transmitters of the aircraft need to be updated frequently with new signatures of the enemy equipment they are to detect and jam. This will require a local team of experts and access to their US counterparts to make the aircraft effective. The USA may be reluctant to provide the required sensitive information if Australia can't secure its on-line infrastructure.

Proposed F-35F Long Range Variant

Hugh commented that a stretched fuselage and extra fuel tanks were added to single-engine aircraft fairly easily, but twin engines for the F-35 stealth multirole fighter is a major redesign. A simpler variant would have one engine, but a larger wing with greater fuel capacity for longer range and strengthened landing gear to handle the extra weight.

The resulting F-35F would be a medium bomber to replace the Australian F-111C and meet the requirements of the US Air Force Next-Generation Bomber. The aircraft would have advantages in commonality of training and maintenance with the F-35, while having three times the range.

However, the F-35F would have disadvantages. With a lower power to rate ratio, lower maximum speed and less manoeuvrability, this would no longer be a true fighter aircraft.

A single engine and single crew is unusual for a bomber. But single engine fighter aircraft with reliable engines and automation, are now routinely flown over transoceanic distances.

With modern military aircraft the problem is not so much the aircraft surviving in battle, but surviving a long development time and budget pressures, with the development of reliable electronics being a stumbling block. Building a variant of an existing aircraft with already developed and tested systems would outweigh the limitations of a derivative design. An aircraft which can be produced on time and on budget is more useful than one a decade late and too expensive to buy.

Proposed F-35D Long Range Variant

The Australian Government selected the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II single-seat, single-engine stealth multirole fighter to replace the F-111C and F/A-18 Hornet. While a capable aircraft, the F-35 does not have the range of the F-111C. This will be made up for, to some extent, by the use of in flight refuelling, but a larger aircraft would be desirable. It would be feasible to produce a twin-seat, twin-engine, long range derivative of the F-35.

The F-35 "Joint Strike Fighter" was planned in three variants: F-35A conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL), F-35B short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) and F-35C carrier aircraft. A fourth variant was added in 2010, the F-35I for Israel, derived from the F-35A.

It would be feasible to add a fifth variant, the F-35D, derived from the F-35C, which has larger wings and tail control surfaces than the F-35A and B. The proposed F-35D Long Range Variant would differ from the F-35C by having a larger fuselage and wings, twin engines and a crew of two. The range of the F-35D would be three times that of the F-35C with the same weapons payload.

The F-35D development would be relatively rapid, low cost and low risk, compared to a completely new design. The F-35D would follow the approach taken with the successful development of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet from the F/A-18C/D Hornet. More commonality with the existing aircraft would be possible than was the case in development of the F/A-18E. The sensors, computers and other electronic components of the F-35 could be used unchanged. Some components of the F-35 would be duplicated for the F-35D, such as the engines and cockpit instruments. Other components would be scaled up, such as the landing gear and the fuselage.

The Australian air-force requires only 24 long range aircraft to replace the F-111C and development of the F-35D could not be justified for this small production run. However, the US Air Force is investigating options for a Next-Generation Bomber. The F-35D would meet the requirements for such a medium bomber. It would have advantages in commonality of training and maintenance with the F-35.

In 2006 the Australian Department of Defence invited participation by Australian researchers in the F-35 project. One area for research could be for the Australian government to fund a small study into the feasibility of the F-35D and see if this sparked interest by the US Government.

Australian electronic warfare aircraft

On 11 September 2008 I suggested a relatively quick and easy purchase for Australian defence would be dozen EA-18G Growler aircraft. The Australian government has decided to do this, having 12 of the F/A-18F Super Hornet, which have already been ordered, wired for electronic attack. .This can be done for the relatively modest cost of A$35M, as the cable can be installed while the aircraft are being made.

There are some difficult decisions for the ADF to make. All that has been ordered is the cabling in the aircraft, not the extra sensors and transmitters to plug into the cable. The full offensive electronic warfare suite for the F18s would cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

The US is unlikely to provide the source codes for the EW software, so that Australia would be dependent on the USA for maintenance, upgrades and local requirements. There would be US imposed restrictions on what Australia could do with the aircraft and the relatively high cost of purchase, training and minenance.

Boeing is considering a export version of the F/A-18G. This would have the cabling and sensors to detect electronic emissions, but not transmitters for jamming. This would allow the aircraft to be sold with fewer export restrictions and be cheaper to buy an maintain. Australian might well choose a middle path, having some aircraft equipped with the full offensive capability and some with just sensors. It might also be worthwile plugging locally developed sensors and transmitters into the pre-installed cabling to customise the aircraft for local conditions.

What Australia should buy for Defence

In a speech to the RSL, the Prime Minister has indicated Australia would increase Defence spending in response to developments in the Asian region. However, defence systems take decades to acquire and Australia has had failures with such projects. But there are some quick and relatively easy, but not cheap, purchases which can be made : electronic warfare aircraft, landing helicopter dock and fast transport ships.

EA-18G Growler Electronic warfare aircraft

One quick and relatively easy purchase for Australia would be a dozen of the EA-18G Growler aircraft. This is the electronic warfare version of the F/A-18F Super Hornet, already ordered by Australia. These could be purchased off the shelf and would make the already ordered Super Hornets more effective. However, the Growler is not perfect: when equipped with its electronic warfare pods, it is slower that the standard F/A-18F. Also Australia would be dependent on the USA for maintenance of the complex electronic systems on board. Later versions of the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter are likely to incorporate many of the features of the Growler without a performance penalty, but the aircraft may not be available for decades, if ever.

Canberra class Landing Helicopter Dock ships.

Australia could also order one or two more Canberra class "Landing Helicopter Dock" (LHD) ships. These are aircraft carriers, in all but name, and would be useful for longer range operations. There is no fixed wing aircraft in production suitable for the LHD ships, but they could use various rotary wing manned and UAV aircraft. The could also use the the F-35B is the short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) variant of the F-35 when (if) it is available.

Hobart class of destroyers

Australia should add at least one, and perhaps more, to the existing order for three Hobart class destroyers. These are coming from the same company building the LHDs and are to a proven design in use by the Spanish Navy, making a reasonably low risk for such a high technology platform. Extra ships would lower the per unit cost of the program and make training and logistics much easier than buying something different.

Australian made Joint High Speed Vessels

A complement to the Canberra class LHDs would be the production of a class of ships referred by the US DoD as Joint High Speed Vessels (JHSV). Australian shipbuilders Incat and Austal are the world leaders in the design and building of JHSVs for the US DoD, but have been largely ignored by the Australian military.

In "Widen the Lens for JHSV" (Proceedings of the U.S. NAVAL INSTITUTE, June 2008 Vol. 134/6/1,264), Commander Robert K. Morrison III and Lieutenant Commander Phillip E. Pournelle (U.S. Navy) suggests widening the role for JHSVs. For the cost of one Canberra class ship, the Australian Defence Force could have a fleet of low cost high speed multi-purpose ships. The JHSVs are ideal as helicopter platforms, due to their large deck area. Apart from the lower purchase cost, these would require a far smaller crew, reducing operating costs and recruitment issues. They could also be used for resupplying other ships and submarines, increasing their effectiveness.

Automation to Reduce Recruitment Issues

One aspect of the adapted civilian design of the high speed transport ships is their level of automation. Given the current difficulty in finding enough defence volunteers, Australia could invest in the automation of its existing and new weapons systems.

It is likely that Australia will want to build more of a replacement for the Collins class submarine. Apart from the technical complexity and risk of the project, there is the problem of how to find the crew to operate them. One way is to increase the automation so fewer people would be needed. Also it is likely they will be equipped with autonomous underwater vehicles (AUV) to extend their range (miniature robot submarines, about the size and shape of a torpedo).

... the task of an effective national security policy is to maximise the opportunities and minimise the risks.

Driving much of the change in our region will be the rise of China.

China will be the most dynamic major economy in the first half of this century - followed by India.

According to some estimates, by 2020 China will replace the United States as the world’s largest economy.

China’s economic growth will change the way it sees its own role in the world.

And it will change the way others see China – the Olympics are a great example of that.

Over the long term it is clear that China will have more political influence in our region.

Our other major Asian trading partner, Japan, will remain a major world economy even if it is not recording the growth rates of China.

An ageing population will have a major impact on Japan by 2050, with more than one-third of its population over 65.

But given its stature in the region and its continuing strength, Japan remains a major global and regional power.

The United States is likely to remain the world’s only superpower through to the mid-century.

Over the coming decades, the United States may see its position decline relative to other economies, but it will remain a major economic influence and a powerful source of ideas, innovation and technology in the global economy.

You only have to look at the US’s unmatched capacity for transforming new ideas into new technology.

The United States accounts for around one-third of all world patents.

By contrast, Australia accounted for 1.6 per cent and China 1.8 per cent in 2004.

The United States has shown time and time again that it can rise to any challenge and constantly evolve.

So nobody should ever underestimate the ability of the US to maintain its global leadership role.

The United States will also remain strategically dominant given the vast array of military capabilities available to future US administrations.

The Asia-Pacific region will become more prosperous and its population will continue to grow.

Militarily, however, as it has already become economically and politically, the Asia-Pacific will become a much more contested region.

The region’s total population will exceed four billion by 2020, or 56 per cent of the world’s total.

Australia’s population will only experience modest growth, growing to around 35 million by 2050.

But China’s population is expected to peak at around 1.5 billion in 2030.

India will near the 1.8 billion mark by mid-century.

Indonesia’s population could be as high as 350 million.

The demographic changes in our region will mean that by 2020 when we look to our north, we will see a very different region to the one we see now – one where population, food, water and energy resource pressures will be great.

We have to add one more element to this mix when we are looking at the future, and that is the existing military and political fault lines. ...

From: Address to the RSL National Congress, Kevin Rudd,
Prime Minister of Australia, 9 September 2008

ABC TV Documentary on Australian F18

Last night (8:30pm, 29 October 2007) the Australian Broadcasting Corporation ran a program "Flying Blind" critical of the decision for Australia to buy F/A-18F Super Hornets as an interim replacement for the F111. It is also critical of the decision to buy the F-35 JSF:

For more than 30 years Australia has rested its security on the seemingly ageless wings of its F-111 fighter fleet.

But in aviation circles these days there are doubts and rumblings. Some experts fear Australia is set to give away its crucial air superiority in the region.

The reason, they claim, is that decision-makers have made the wrong choices about the planes that will replace the F-111s.

From: "Flying Blind"? Four Corners, 8.30 pm Monday 29 October.

Available from the ABC are:

1. Program Transcript

2. Video On Demand

3. Background Reading

4. Discussion Forum

The program seemed a little one sided, with a few people interviewed at length on the F-18's faults and only a few small segments on its strengths. Also the program seemed to mix up the roles of smaller fighter aircraft, such as the Dassault Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon larger aircraft such as the Sukhoi Su-30/35/37 'Flanker'.

There was also some confusion over "generations" of aircraft. The Wikipedia entry for "Fighter Aircraft" describes the Rafale, Typhoon, 'Flanker' and the Super Hornet as "Generation 4.5 (1990-2000)", which seems reasonable. The F/A-18 Hornet is described as Fourth generation (1970-1990). The F-111 is not listed as it is a medium-range strategic bomber, reconnaissance, and tactical strike aircraft not a fighter.

Also the program seemed to miss the point that the Super Hornets were more stealthily than the F-18, plus have a very advanced radar and electronics, similar to that of the F-35. The Super Hornets are intended to operate in concert with each other, sharing data and with the Boeing Wedgetail Airborne Early Warning & Control (AEW&C) aircraft. It should even be possible to share data with troops on the ground by podcast for Network Centric Warfare.

The program seemed to alternate between criticism of the Super Hornets for being outdated and the F-35 for being not yet available. Given the choices currently available to the Australian Government, it seems to me to be reasonable to buy something proven to work now (Super Hornets) and keep the option to buy something better later, if it works (F-35). It is likely that the Super Hornet will work so well that Australia will skip the F-35 and instead buy UAVs later, along with converted civilian airliners.

Other options

It should also be noted that on 20 July the Australian Minister for Defense announced that Australia will spend $4B on the P-8A Poseidon Maritime Patrol and Response Aircraft (MPRA) to replace the AP-3C Orion. The MPRA is a modified Boeing 737 airliner, but it can carry about the weight of weapons as an F-111 and has a longer range. While not suitable for use in contested airspace, it would be useful for asymmetric warfare.

The RAAF has already ordered the Boeing Wedgetail Airborne Early Warning & Control aircraft (AEW&C) , which is also based on the 737. The P-8A requires more modifications for an internal weapons bay and under wing pylons.

It is likely the aircraft will also be used for electronic surveillance and signals interception (SIGINT and ELINT). The aircraft have a lot of room, compared to the typical military aircraft, to carry rack mounted supercomputers for real time processing of signals and to act as a flying web server to distribute information to other aircraft, ships and vehicles.


Mix of F/A-18F Super Hornets, UAVs and Carrier F-35s for Australia?

The Australian government's decision to buy the F/A-18F Super Hornet fighter/attack aircraft seems a reasonable one. The Super Hornet is a two seat derivative of the F/A-18 Hornet currently in service with the RAAF.

The Super Hornet would be used as a stop gap due to a delay in the availability of the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter. These are to replace the F111s due for retirement in 2010.

The F/A-18F is relatively new design, has the advantage of being proven in service but is not a stealth aircraft like the F-35. While the Australian plan seems to be to only order enough Super Hornets as a temporary stopgap, it may make sense to retain them to replace the older F/A-18s. Australian could then consider if F-35s are needed, or if their job could be better done with UAVs exploiting advanced computers and telecommunications technology.

Lockheed Martin have proposed an UAV derivative of the F-35, with a typical mission consisting of four unmanned JSFs controlled from two piloted F-35 or F-22s. Sensor information would be shared between the aircraft via datalinks. However, the F-35 and F-22 are both single seat aircraft, leaving the pilot little time to fly another two aircraft remotely. In contrast the F/A-18F has two seats, making it more feasible for one of the crew to control the UAVs.

Australia could also consider a mix of land based F/A-18Fs and F-35B Short Take-Off Vertical Landing (STOVL) aircraft based on the new Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD) ships, which are essentially small aircraft carriers. The F-35B stealth capabilities would complement the longer range of the F/A-18F.

See also books on:

• Military Technology
• UAVs
• F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program
• Network Centric Warfare
• airborne early warning and control aircraft

Mix of F/A-18F Super Hornets UAVs and Carrier F-35s for Australia?

The Australian government is considering buying 24 F/A-18F Super Hornet fighter/attack aircraft. The Super Hornet is a two seat derivative of the F/A-18 Hornet currently in service with the RAAF.

The Super Hornet would be used as a stop gap due to a delay in the availability of the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter. These are to replace the F111s due for retirement in 2010.

The F/A-18F is relatively new design, has the advantage of being proven in service but is not a stealth aircraft like the F-35. While the Australian plan seems to be to only order enough Super Hornets as a temporary stopgap, it may make sense to retain them to replace the older F/A-18s. Australian could then consider if F-35s are needed, or if their job could be better done with UAVs exploiting advanced computers and telecommunications technology.

Lockheed Martin have proposed an UAV derivative of the F-35, with a typical mission consisting of four unmanned JSFs controlled from two piloted F-35 or F-22s. Sensor information would be shared between the aircraft via datalinks. However, the F-35 and F-22 are both single seat aircraft, leaving the pilot little time to fly another two aircraft remotely. In contrast the F/A-18F has two seats, making it more feasible for one of the crew to control the UAVs.

Australia could also consider a mix of land based F/A-18Fs and F-35B Short Take-Off Vertical Landing (STOVL) aircraft based on the new Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD) ships, which are essentially small aircraft carriers. The F-35B stealth capabilities would complement the longer range of the F/A-18F.