RAAF Gears Up for Lead-In Fighter Selection

ADF Requirements

S/Ldr Gordon Todd, an F/A-18 pilot who is now responsible for developing the operational requirements of Project Air 5367, says the RAAF is looking for an aircraft that will maintain the present training regimen with some additional ADF support training. The current syllabus sees trainees in effect ‘stepping down’ from advanced training on the PC-9 to the ageing MB-326 of Williamtown based 76 Sqn as Pearce based 25 Sqn for combat and weapons training, and then ‘climbing up’ to the F/A-18 for 85-100 hours of very costly conversion training, most of which could have been achieved during the previous stage at one sixth of the cost had a more capable aircraft been available. F-111 pilots also transition from the PC-9 via the Macchi to gain fast jet experience on something a little more forgiving than the ‘pig’. While the RAAF itself does not require operational as opposed to training capabilities for the aircraft, it is actually Navy’s needs for fleet support which are going to determine the top end capabilities of the aircraft selected. With an expanding and technologically advanced fleet of Anzac ships, new destroyers, new patrol vessels, new minehunters and new submarines, a high performance aircraft with expansion potential would logically seem to be a must. Fleet support tasks are now being performed under contract by RNZAF A-4 Skyhawks out of Naval Air Station Nowra, and RAAF F-111s and F/A-18s. This task includes inbound missile simulation for radar intercept and CIWS (Phalanx) crews while also exercising Air Intercept Controllers in aircraft attack profiles. And while the Army’s needs do not demand the same high performance – e.g. 500kt (925kmh) plus at low level – some multirole capabilities to permit training in close air support (CAIRS), and battlefield air interdiction (BAI) will probably be sought at a later date. Although there appear to be strong arguments for a level of capability over and above the RAAF’s training requirements to meet ADF support needs, there may be less enthusiasm about the cost of increased performance in the aircraft sought and its impact on the equipment programme of the other Services, especially the Navy. It was previously assumed that by the time the ITR was released it would not have been possible to pin Navy down on its fleet support needs and that these were to be incorporated later in the RFT. However Cameron says the Major Capability Submission was all encompassing and that the ITR now reflects these additional capabilities over and above that sought by the RAAF. It is now up to the respondents to the ITR to determine the extent to which these call for aircraft of higher performance (and cost) or otherwise.

The Likely Contenders

According to one authority on defence equipment projects – the Price Waterhouse Top 100 Defence Projects – there are 12 possible contenders for the Lead-In Fighter project and doubtless the majority will be responding to the ITR, however the author believes only four or five are likely to be shortlisted to receive the RFT, these being the: British Aerospace Hawk 100; McDonnell Douglas Goshawk T-45A; Aermacchi MB-339C; Elbit/Garrett/Aero Vodochody L-159, and possibly the Dassault Alpha Jet ATS. The foregoing assumes that development of the new generation Alpha Jet ATS will be completed in time to meet the RAAF’s initial acceptance deadline. An important factor for potential primes such as Dassault and British Aerospace, is the size of the requirement. It is understood that by some quirk of economics, the number of aircraft to be acquired, reputed to be between 30 and 40, will depend on the capability that comes with them – i.e. the more capable, the greater use and the more aircraft required. While the dual seat Hawk 100 is at the upper end of the likely candidates performance wise it is also one of the most expensive with a unit price reportedly ranging from $8-$10m upwards depending on weapons and sensor fit. However British Aerospace points out that with a maximum speed of over 550kt (1020kmh) at low level, it is among the most capable of jet trainers on the market, and argues that its superior performance does not necessarily have a price penalty when its life cycle costs are compared with aircraft of lesser capability. The company makes the point that the Hawk 100’s avionics suite, based on the 1553 databus, enhances training by introducing systems management on equipment similar to that of the F/A-18. But this would need be true of any other contender since it is believed the RAAF would not consider any aircraft which did not have a digital cockpit including hands on throttle and stick (HOTAS), modern HUD (head up display) and nav/attack systems whether based on the 1553 bus or other navigation/weapons datalinkage such as the ARINC 429. The Hawk’s closest rival is the McDonnell Douglas T-45A Goshawk, a US Navy derivative of the former, which has been modified for carrier operations. This carrier borne capability makes the T-45A a more robust aircraft which, its maker say, endows it with a substantially extended fatigue life. And perhaps one of the most telling points in favour of the Goshawk is that it is replacing the A-4 Skyhawk in transitioning USN pilots to the F/A-18. In tune with this country moves towards regional ‘engagement’ McDonnell Douglas is believed to be looking at a regional approach to its proposal which is based on the Singapore’s perceived need to replace its S.211s with a more capable trainer. The company is considering the possibility of building T-45s in Singapore (assuming these win the RSAF trainer requirement) and then providing green airframes to Australian industry for engine, cockpit and weapons integration, for the RAAF’s requirement. Or vice versa. However the RSAF’s decision to acquire additional F-16s instead of the F/A-18, may adversely influence the ultimate choice of the T-45 as lead-in trainer.

And while the Aermacchi MB-339C, equipped with a more powerful engine than hitherto, may more closely approach the performance of the Hawk and Goshawk and will fill the RAAF’s training needs at less cost, it may not eat into F/A-18/F111 hours in conversion training enough or be able to replace them in their fleet support activities to the same extent. However, the fact that the RNZAF is equipped with this aircraft has to be seen as a plus, possibly offering worthwhile commonalities in maintenance, training and operation. And if in the end the FSPPC decides against acquiring performance greater than the RAAF’s training requirements, then why would anyone look beyond the MB-339? The CASA C-101DD Aviojet and the Dassault Alpha Jet could also be candidates for the Australian requirement. Little has recently been heard of the former but the latter which has been out of production for some years, could be a contender not only for Air 5367 but for the global market for high performance jet trainers, now estimated at some 1000 aircraft by 2010. It is understood that Dassault’s planned revival of the high performance Alpha Jet to the ATS (Advanced Training System) concept is aimed at the potential French Air Force requirement (for lead-in to the Rafale) and several other foreign air forces. In Germany the Alpha Jet is presently used as a fast jet transition trainer for Tornado and Phantom crews. In addition to performance enhancements derived from Dassault’s expertise in advanced combat aircraft design (Mirage 2000 and Rafale), features of the proposed Alpha Jet ATS include a modern glass cockpit and avionics update enabling it to emulate the range of navigation and attack functions provided in new generation combat aircraft. However, it remains to be seen whether Dassault can get the ATS off paper and into the air in time for the Australian requirement.

Another candidate with not inconsiderable potential has to be the westernised Czech Aero L-139 equipped with a Garrett turbofan engine and Elbit developed glass cockpit, advanced avionics and HUD, with, as we understand it, a more powerful (L-159) version in the offing. It seems that Rockwell may offer the L-159 in which case it might supply and integrate its own digital avionics suite. However the costly westernising of this aircraft, which has dominated the Eastern Bloc market with sales of L-29 and L-39 versions topping 2800 units, is likely to reduce the original price advantage associated with such an extensive production run. And to top the capability stakes, Alenia has now put forward an audacious proposal, offering the two seat operational training version of the AMX battlefield support and light attack aircraft for the Australian requirement. ‘Detuning’ an operational aircraft reverses the current trend of upgrading or fitting weapons systems to training aircraft in order to provide them with additional training or operational capabilities. (In this regard the industry objectives for the Lead-In Fighter project makes reference to rapid modification for short warning conflict situations.) Designated the AM-T Advanced Trainer, it is derived directly from the AMX but is effectively detuned by removal of the radar altimeter, radar ranging, RWR, ECM, chaff/ flares, wingtip missiles and launchers and pylons, all of which remain as optional fittings. Although a potentially costly aeroplane to be introduced into the RAAF inventory as a trainer, the promoters suggest that by dividing the fleet into squadrons and equipping the aircraft in each to meet the different training requirements, costs can be adjusted according to needs. Though the essentials of this requirement have been around since the late seventies it is at least true now that a decision will be made in the next few years as the existing Macchi fleet flies well and truly into its twilight years. Tom Muir is a specialist Canberra based defence writer and publishes the monthly Australian Defence Intelligencer.