Modelling > Scenarios
Australian continuous building program for combat aircraft
Volkodav:
It comes down to whether you are looking at the most efficient production runs or the most efficient way to sustain an industrial capability.
First thing would be to discontinue midlife upgrades and modernisations, choosing instead to replace capabilities much earlier. Looking at the Mirage III, the first 50 (2 French built, 48 local) were Mirage IIIO(F), the second 50 were IIIO(A) with the first 50 converted to (A) models after, maybe instead of the upgrade the Fs were replaced with new build A's perhaps even an improved variant of the O(A) with the Fs sold on to other operators, i.e. as has been seen lately with Eurofighters, Gripens etc. France shouldn't be opposed as the buyers of the second hand aircraft likely wouldn't have bought new ones, while Australia was replacing them with new build aircraft.
This would stretch production to the mid 70s and the Mirage F1. The F1 production could be extended through ordering F1CR to replace the Canberra's in 2 SQN to fill the tactical rec role. This would carry production well into the 80s and the Mirage 2000, especially if a CTOL carrier version were adopted for the larger carrier (or carriers) adopted in the 60s to replace Sydney and Melbourne.
GTX_Admin:
--- Quote from: Volkodav on February 01, 2021, 08:23:38 PM ---It comes down to whether you are looking at the most efficient production runs or the most efficient way to sustain an industrial capability.
--- End quote ---
You can't have one without the other otherwise you end up creating a false expectation and then have to be constantly protecting it because it isn't strong enough to stand up on its own.
M.A.D:
Wow, some nice in-depth work thanks GTX, especially your 'Production Schedule charts 👍
--- Quote ---"Why Spey powered? It would make much more sense to go with the standard SNECMA Atar 9K-50 so as to keep a degree of commonality with the earlier SNECMA Atar 09C in the Mirage IIIs rather than introduce a completely new engine type in the form of the RR Spey that wouldn't be getting used in any other RAAF platform."
--- End quote ---
A good and valid point you make GTX in terms of commonality. But the principle reasoning behind my desire for the Spey, is directly related to what you go on to highlight further down your comments, which is 'the evolutionary aporoach' for and by the RAAF. The Spey being a far more fuel efficient and technological advanced turbofan, which also has relatively low maintenance costs, as opposed to the older technology SNECMA Atar 09C, which one would appreciate was for all intent and purposes busting it's guts with the Atar 9K-50 derivative.
(On top of this, I should also mention that the Dassault/GAF Mirage IIIO in my Alternative ADF ORBAT are Avon-powered from the get go, with the RAAF arranging with Dassault to actually physically evaluating both the SNECMA Atar 09C powered prototype and the one off Avon-powered Mirage IIIA prototype in Australia and importantly, in Australian conditions up north....)
As for the invisaged upgrade of the later production Mirage IIIO's that remain in the RAAF ORBAT, this will be more in line with canards, sensors and weapons systems....with the Avon engine being deemed sufficient enough to see its service life out...
The other type of aircraft I have in my Alternative ADF ORBAT is a derivative of the Spey-powered Douglas CA-4E and CA-4F Skyhawk's, for both the RAAF and RAN, which is license manufactured by GAF/CAC. As such there will be some commonality of powerplant within the ADF.
--- Quote ---"The problem with this is that you end up having very expensive production costs plus having to constantly find a new program or else producer at lower rates which increases costs even more and results in a fleet of very wide spread ages etc. Relying on domestic needs just does not make sense for Australia. One has to either export (hard if its's someone else's design in the first place) or accept to being part of a bigger program (e.g. the F-35). This is something Sir Lawrence Wackett clearly identified back in 1972 in his autobiography."
--- End quote ---
I concur with what you are saying here GTX, but I would think that if an Australian government/society was legitimately focused and adherent to a purposeful ADF and Defence Industry, based on Strategic importance, rather than wedge politics, beckoning to private industry and penny pinching, it would and should negotiate defence related purchases on the grounds of strategic importance, so as to ensure that vitally important platforms like our principle fighter/bomber/strike/AEW, etc... can and will be maintained in operation readiness. I believe this was why when Australia opted to build the Sabre, Canberra and Mirage IIIO's, it was deemed critical on all three projects that we'd manufacture the heart of these aircraft - their engines - period. Unfortunately, this mindset was derived from wartime experience, which was still fresh in the memories of both politicians and military alike.
It's unfortunate since the manufacturing of the Mirage IIIO's that Australian politics/government's seemly so easily beckoned to business/corporate terms and conditions instead of the other way around.
This more stringent business-model of Australian Defence Industry that I envision and would encourage would also include Australia negotiating Australian participation in manufacturing a portion(s) of given selected aircraft for the world market - for example given components that would be used, in this case, Dassault manufacturing of the Mirage IIIO/D/R.....This will importantly not just keep the likes of GAF/CAC busy, it will also retain a skilled workforce in touch for the next major military aircraft to be manufactured for the ADF....
I guess one thing that really gets up my goat was the ease in which consecutive Commonwealth government's allowed Commonwealth facilities to be run down, until they become near delepatated and hence inefficient, outdated and as a consequence allowing one side of Australian politics to successfully push the narrative that 'Government owned and run defence manufacturing was unviable and inefficient to remain a government entity', opening the flood gates to the private sector. Instead the facilities of CAC and GAF could have/should have become aerospace technological industry hubs, which not just strove to keep in line with technological advancements, but also manufacturing techniques and world best practices and techniques.
As for producing weapons for foreign customers, so as to make manufacturing and ADF purchases more cost effective, in my personal conscience, this has hairs on it. If it was to occur, I'd want it to have some very stringent Legislation behind it, perhaps something reminiscent of the stringent export rules of West Germany up to the end of the Cold War, in which West Germany/West German Military manufacturers could only legally export given countries/militaries - predomantly those of NATO. To witness today's willingness of both German and Australian enthusiasm to export to almost anyone that has the cash, as opposed to fundimental qualities like democracy, human rights, has and will wither away much moral fibre that we perceive we have to both the region and the wider world.
--- Quote ---I somewhat addressed this issue in my The French Connection story by increasing production to over 125 jets plus including another 92 export jets plus introducing the Mirage UpGrade (MUG) program to generate work in addition to any 'normal' sustainment activities for industry.
--- End quote ---
I like and support your notion of 'Mirage UpGrade (MUG)-like programs to not just generate work within the Australian aerospace industry', but also retaining capability parody.
--- Quote ---If one were to try for this sort of continuous building program it would be far better to work on a evolutionary style approach so as to reduce change over costs etc and also to maximise investments already made. Thus one might go with the Mirage F.1 in the mid 1970s but then stick with it or derivatives over a longer period rather than introduce completely new, unrelated types.
--- End quote ---
Interesting perspective, which I'll give some serious thought. My existing notion is for the ADF to retain a qualitative edge over any potential adversaries, but not at stupendous cost at the cost of numbers.
Oh, and for your question GTX within your chart dated 1975-1994 - "What comes next?", in my Alternative ADF ORBAT, it's the Northrop F-20A/B/RF-20 Tigershark, which replaces the Spey-powered Mirage F1.
Also by this stage Australian aerospace industry is solidified in terms of skill, capability and reputation, the Australian government/GAF/CAC opt into either:
- a joint Singaporean/Australian re-manufacturing of the Douglas A-4 Skyhawk - aka
SAI Aerospace A-4SU Super Skyhawk or
- The AMX International program, where the RAAF doesn't just gain a replacement for its ubiquitous Douglas Spey-powered A-4 Skyhawk's, GAF/CAC gain key and productive manufacturing of one-quater of all AMX aircraft....
[The key difference of the the RAAF's AMX being the incorporation of the non afterburning General Electric F404 in place of the Spey, cockpit armour and the two DEFA cannon's]
Either way, consequently, by the late 1980's/early 1990's the RAAF have three principle combat aircraft powered by GE F404 turbofans - now that's commonality.😉👍
Finally, I'd like to imagine Australian aerospace being like that of Israel's IAI, in that it sees and appreciates the lucrative market of aircraft upgrades and refurbishment, as opposed to stright forward new manufacturing - again under the premises that the nation's aircraft that are being upgraded/refurbished meet moral and ethical criteria of Australia....imagine GAF/CAC doing upgrades for Malaysia, Singapore, New Zealand, Thailand, .....
MAD
M.A.D:
In such a scenario of Australia/Australian government becoming more serious in the importance of a national aerospace industry - manufacturing, upgrades and maintence, do you think both GAF and CAC could remain viable? Or do you think a combining of both into one be sensible. Please note, this notion doesn't attempt to exclude or pit government vs private companies......
MAD
Volkodav:
--- Quote from: GTX_Admin on February 02, 2021, 02:20:38 AM ---
--- Quote from: Volkodav on February 01, 2021, 08:23:38 PM ---It comes down to whether you are looking at the most efficient production runs or the most efficient way to sustain an industrial capability.
--- End quote ---
You can't have one without the other otherwise you end up creating a false expectation and then have to be constantly protecting it because it isn't strong enough to stand up on its own.
--- End quote ---
One thing we are seeing with the end of the automotive industry in Australia is a reduction in the number of highly trained competent engineers, technicians and trades. This was not factored into the economic value of the industry nor was the contribution made by high quality government trained apprentices technicians and engineering cadets.
Ex defence personnel are filling some of the shortage but unfortunately many of them are leaving defence before they are truly competent in their fields, having spent a lot of their careers perfecting skills other than their technical ones. Specifically, while its worth hiring ex E8 or O4 or above, those below often have a lot to learn before they can be as effective as civilian trained people in the same fields.
I'm not an old fart saying "back in my day" rather I am an old fart who recognises that the old an bold individuals who trained and mentored me are sorely missed, as are the industries that trained them.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version