Was sitting at home today looking after my sick son, and was thinking about Australia hanging on to the F-111 as long as it has, and if it will be as missed as some have said.
Personally, I grew up on Amberley AFB, and even worked on them at one stage. So it got me to thinking about why not just build more from scratch with modern materials and avionics?
The reason I ask this, is because surely after having the aircaft as long as we have. Then surely, the RAAF would know it inside and out, and how it works… Surely if it is going to be as missed as some say, then why not.
Now, I understand that these were built by a US company. But surely once an Airframe becomes obsolete, then surely all licensing would be a non issue, if the aircraft is built as a replica with newer materials and the like… I for one think that it should be a consideration, considering the aircraft has proven to be so worthy of its constant service…
Interested in your thoughts?
ps’ I am about to build the Academy RAAF 1/48 kit. But have decided to build it as a ‘what if’ Australian re-built, modern F-111…
What is it about this aircraft that is so important to Australia’s needs. Even long after everone else has replaced them? 20 some years ago… It cant just be about money, as they would have cost an awful lot to maintain?..
Obsolete? I wouldn’t say that. It is an old aircraft and with modern technology a better aircraft could be made. But dedicated strike/bomber aircraft are not made any more. Most airforces want multirole aircraft that can do a lot different things but excell at nothing.
And that’s what the F-111 does, it excells at long distance/strategic strikes. There still are few aircraft that can beat it in that role.
So that is why I decided to put the question out there…
If it re ally is so good. Then why not improve on it, and start from scratch…
I dont mind Australia buying the Super Bugs, infact would be nice to see some cool new toys.
But the government’s of the past 20 years have wanted to hang on to them longer for some reason?
I still see it being a great pre-emptive strike aircraft purely because of its ability to hold alot of hurt. But because not many aircraft have its outright speed…
Just my two cents but I think Australia has maintained these birds for so long for two reasons.
They have them. Someone in their exchequer office must have figured out that it is cheaper to maintain and gradually upgrade them than to purchase a new airframe.
The plane excells in the interdiction/strike role. It can also cary a wide variety of payload. North of Australia are the Straits of Malacca - a region Australia has a large hand in ensuring freedom of navigation. This plane may well be part of that assurance.
So here is my problem… Although its nice to have the greatest and latest toys. But why decommission this strike ability, if we know that it is proven and feared?
The F-111 was built for a high speed, low altitude strike… And although it is still considered somewhat 50/50 a fighter . I think that it should be extended and used purely for my reason above… To hit… Hit hard… And to high tail it… Keep the toys for the dogfights…
So again, why not start from scratch. Update its internal weapons bays. Use newer materials to give it added frontal stealth (dont worry about the back, because it is the reason why she is so fast. And we simply want to hit quick, and get out). And give it modern avionics designed by Australians in order to suit our needs…
Clearly, the RAAF have been the losers, equipment-wise, over the past two decades. While the Navy have had a lot of investment in both surface craft and submarines that nearly always submerge/surface, the Armys vehcile fleet has almost entirely been replaced (ASLAV’s Bushmasters, Blackhawks, Abrams) The RAAF, meanwhile, is still stuck with the same aircraft it had twenty years ago. I too, would be interested to see if the F-35 can fill the same role as the F-111.
Now clear up something for me while I’ve got you. The F-35 is supposed to replace the Hornet and the F-111 ? And because of a holdup, the superbugs are a stopgap while we wait for the F-35 ? Or have I got it ass-about ?
I guess the point I am trying to make with this thread is:
If China can tool out its own aircraft after previous models (Russian (all-be-it, iffy) Then surely Australia has the same ability to not re-build an ‘old’ F-111 aiframe. But completely re-tool, and build new airframes ‘based’ on the F-111’s they have now!
Old and true design. With new and improved materials…
Re-invent the wheel in using old idea’s, with new science.
We don’t want them to be fighters. (thats what the new toys are for) But to strike with little to no warning at low level, and at the speed of light!
Just because we can, should, and show, that we are not as reliant on outside sources as our neighbours for our security!!
It would be awesome to see them rebuilt using 21st century technology. Imagine advanced composite construction, possibly powered by GE F110’s , maybe some aerodynamic tweaks and modern avionics. It’s also possible that weight savings gained from the use of composite materials could see it realise it’s original design concept and give it a true multi-role capability in the long-range interceptor role (as the F111B was intended to be).
BUT
Even if the physical tooling for building the F111 were available to start manufacturing new airframes tomorrow, it would require an enormous amount of R&D and engineering/testing to adapt the existing design to use modern composite materials and state of the art engines and avionics.
The initial RAAF purchase was 24 aircraft (later augmented by ex USAF aircraft) out of a total production (all variants) of 563(?) units. Unless we could be guaranteed a sufficient number of export sales, it really would be economically unviable to do all this setup and development to build 24 aircraft. Remember that total F111 production numbered about 563(?) and Australia was to be the only export customer.
If it were possible, this would also put us in competition with “the establishment” of mainstream aircraft manufacturers (eg. Boeing, Lockheed-Martin) who no doubt would put pressure on our prospective buyers to purchase their products.
I wonder it there was any research into the possibility of re-engining the '111’s using GE F110’s like they did with the F14’s. Imagine what the 111’s would be capable of with up to 30% more thrust [8D]
Short version is that the only likely customer for a re-built F-111 or other indigenous Aussie-dewsigned strike fighter would be the RAAF, whose requirement would be unlikely to exceed 30 airframes. With the US, Russia and Europe having all long-established aircraftin the same class, the likelihood of export sales would be small. If development costs had to be amortised over such a short production run, the per-unit cost would be massive.
Plus, even if development were to start tomorrow, it’s unlikely that service entry would be before 2020, 2025, more like. And it’s exactly the sort of project which a government looking to reduce or re-prioritise expenditure would cancel when 80% complete.
So it looks as if you’re stuck with the Bugs - I wouldn’t bet the ranch on the F-35 ever entering service, personally - which will make life aboard HMSs Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales kinda quiet, but that, as they say, is a whole different ball game. While hardly the most wonderful warplane ever devised, they should still be enough to persuade any threat from the North-West that they would ever actually get ashore.
There are quite a few examples of companies buying the type certification to manufacture parts and even new airframes, Columbia Helicopters and Erickson have done so with the Vertol 107, Boeing 234 and Skycrane. The RAAF could probably do so if they wanted, but its probably like an old car, you can keep a car going forever, but there is a point it just makes more sense to buy a new one instead of rebuilding the old one.
assuming that the RAAF developes a viable design ($$$), and the decides they’ll build it; you bring into life “bag of worms number two.” You gotta tool it up. Just one machine center to cut the wing spars will probably set you back fifteen to twenty million American (could be as high as thirty-five million), and then you gotta tool the machine up. So you virtually double the machine’s price tag (that’s been the general rule for the last twenty five years). Aircraft manufacturers tend to buy a lot of custom turn key pieces of equipment to do a certain part. I doubt that you could tool up an F111 clone for under $225 million (you still gotta build the building and power supply on top of all this. If you go with composites for the outter skin then you will actually add to this, and the technology is fairly secretive. You pretty much have to go it alone as the other guys (Europe) are so embedded with industrial espionage, that the guys that are your building the piece of equipment (China and Russia) will know what your doing within hours. (not that there’s not a similar element in the Pacific Rim). I doubt that you could be up and running for anything less a two and a half billion dollars.
This leads us into (thirty month delivery time) for most custom turnkey pieces of equipment, but some maybe as long as forty two months delivery time. But when you finally get enough equipment to start some of the processes. Where do you get the help? You gotta train them! Right? These folks are not button pushers, and are highly skilled in what they do. But it might actually be cheaper in the long run to have someone like General Dynamics to do your composites for you as they’re pretty much tooled up anyway, so all you’d need are the molds and dies. (money pit is growing by the hour)
Next problem is not huge but tricky. Raw materials! You sure don’t want Chinese 17PH4 rearc melt stainless steel in your landing gear struts! Most of it comes from U.S. suppliers, and I’m sure they’d be able to supply all they’d need. Can Australia manufacture space age metals? (this is something you don’t just start doing next week). I’d expect that the RAAF would buy engines from a U.S. supplier or Rolls Royce (pretty much a U.S. supplier now) as this alone is a huge expenditure in itself. All Hestalloy afterburner cans are poured in one small foundry owned by the U.S. Government and G.M. (sets right in the middle of a Rolls Royce plant by the way), and they are extremely secretive about what goes on in there. They’ll need lots of titanium, and that mostly comes out of Siberia (remember what I said about the embedded folks). Titanium is a whole new learning experience just like Hestalloy. The Hestalloy is something that’s only spoken of in whispers when it comes to machining it, and processes are extremely secretive. But you gotta have the stuff if you want the engines to last more than a hundred fifty hours. But it’s doable if you can get Valenite to help you.
The next major obstical is the prototype work, and this is big bucks. Much of it ends up in the scrap pile. It’s all one up and very small batch work that in the end will have to be tooled up on the fly (not a pun). They’d actually be better off having somebody like G.D. develope the plane, and then come down there and build it in Australia with a local work force.
If you want to see how this could all go pear-shaped, consider the Mitsubishi F-2A. A two-decade-plus development programme resulted in an aircraft less capable than a Block 30 F-16C, at a unit cost very close to that of a F-22.
We could probably sell you some second-hand, low mileage, Tornadoes!
Just curious as to why you say that. The F-111 used the TF-30 engine that the F-14 used. Then F-14 then upgraded to the F110 engine without too much structural fuss.
I disagree about there beeing aicraft in the same class. There are almost no real strike aircraft in production. Su-34, Rafale, F-15E? They are all converted fighters, I wonder if they can go low and fast with those big wings.
And that’s the core problem, there is no market for specialized strike aircraft, it is just not cost effective anymore. I therefore do agree with your conclusion that restarting F-111 production is not feasable.
Maybe the Aussies would be best off with a Su-24 or the F-15E.