RAAF Lead-in Fighter Programme – Overview

The first of more than 100 Macchi MB-326Hs for the RAAF and RAN (most of which were built locally by CAC under licence) was delivered in 1967. Already by the mid 1970s some consideration was being given to building the Hawker Siddeley HS.1182 – now the BAe Hawk – under licence with Hawker de Havilland, CAC and GAF.

When fatigue problems with the Macchi arose during the mid 1970s CAC proposed rebuilding the trainers to meet future RAAF requirements and the elimination of structural problems (such an aircraft would have featured stepped cockpits as on the MB-339). This ambitious proposal was rejected on the grounds of costs, and instead the RAAF Macchi fleet underwent a life of type extension programme – LOTEX, which was to overcome the Macchi’s fatigue problems through rebuilding and strengthening key components including the wing spar, fuselage centre section spar, spar caps and wing fittings, extending airframe life to the early 1990s. The aircraft were upgraded between 1978 and 1984.

In 1985 the Pilatus PC-9 was ordered to replace the CT-4 Airtrainer and Macchi. This purchase freed up the Macchi from general pilot training work (RAAF pilots are trained to wings standard on the PC-9), and allowed the establishment of two day fighter squadrons (25 and 76) for fast jet and lead-in fighter training.

In 1990 the MB-326 was found to have major fatigue cracking in the main spar, and much of the fleet was subsequently grounded from late 1991 until new build wings were delivered from Aermacchi in Italy. In all 28 wing sets were acquired, enough so that the Macchi can remain airworthy until the end of this decade.

It was not until 1993 that the definitive Macchi replacement/lead-in fighter was formulated – AIR 5367. This project aims to equip the RAAF with new trainers for fast jet training and air defence training support for the Navy. There is no official requirement for the aircraft to fly close air support/battlefield air interdiction missions.

Given that AIR 5367 has no official requirement for a ground attack capability, the lead-in fighter’s outright performance is less important. The lead-in fighter should be able to familiarise students with operating a glass cockpit and modern automated systems (including HUD and HOTAS controls) in high speed, high G conditions. But this does not call for a high speed, manoeuvrable fighter-like trainer in itself.

Thus the major factors the lead-in fighter will be selected for will be a modern glass cockpit closely emulating that of the F/A-18 (both in current and upgraded form) and the post AUP updated F-111, and initial acquisition, operating and maintenance costs and airframe life.

The RAAF has not defined the actual number of aircraft to be acquired and the contenders are asked to work out what would be a suitable quantity. Factors that will influence the number of aircraft to be ordered include through life costs and expected life support costs (an indication that the cheapest aircraft to acquire will not necessarily get the nod). In taking over the current Macchis the new lead-in fighter should eat into as much expensive F/A-18 Hornet and F-111 flying time as possible, reducing flying costs and extending the fatigue lives of these precious aircraft (advanced trainers can cost as little as one sixth to operate as the F/A-18 and F-111).

Rather than specifying the number of aircraft it needs the RAAF has defined a precise job description for the lead-in fighter including a rate of effort defined in flying hours per year. Against this the bidders are being left to define the number of aircraft required to sustain that rate of effort over a 25 year service life. The number of aircraft required then will be determined against the aircraft’s fatigue life, maintenance requirements and operating costs. For the first time too the winning manufacturer will have to contractually guarantee through life costs, with financial penalties if these are exceeded.

Another important consideration is Australian Industry Involvement. The RAAF requires that deeper maintenance and logistics support be provided by the lead-in fighter contractor. It is likely that this work would be subcontracted to an Australian company, while Aermacchi and McDonnell Douglas have announced that if successful their aircraft would be assembled in Australia (with Hawker de Havilland and ASTA respectively). In the case of the Hawk and the MB-339 any maintenance facilities set up in Australia could be used as a regional maintenance base for other Asia Pacific operators. The MB-339 is in service with New Zealand and Malaysia, while the Hawk flies with Indonesia and Malaysia.

The current timing of AIR 5367 sees a decision and announcement of the winning contender made in late 1996 and service entry in mid 1999. This is an ambitious timescale, but is necessary as the MB-326s are running out of hours, and the RAAF is confident of meeting it.

AIR 5367’s Invitation to Register Interest (ITR) was issued in September last year, to which there were 14 respondents. From these respondents six contenders were subsequently shortlisted – the Aermacchi MB-339, Aero/Elbit L-59F Albatros, Alenia/Aermacchi/Embraer AMX-T, BAe Hawk 100, Dassault/Dornier Alpha Jet ATS and the McDonnell Douglas T-45A Goshawk. The draft request for tender (RFT) was issued in late September.

Of these shortlisted aircraft, just three have survived the evaluation process so far. In June Alenia/Aermacchi/Embraer withdrew their AMX-T voluntarily from the contest when it was clear there would be no close air support requirement, while on August 1 the Alpha Jet ATS and L-59 Albatros were ruled out by Defence Minister Senator Robert Ray.

Of the contenders, the AMX-T was always going to be something of a dark horse as it was by far the largest and most capable of the aircraft offered, being a downgraded two seat version of the AMX, a dedicated light ground attack platform in service with Italy and Brazil. As offered to the RAAF, the AMX-T would have been a detuned development of the AMX-T two seat conversion trainer. Several attack specific items of equipment would have been deleted to bring down costs such as Radar Warning Receiver (RWR), Electrical Countermeasures (ECM), chaff and flare dispensers, ranging radar and the wingtip Sidewinder stations, etc.

Due to its size, large Spey turbofan and weight the AMX-T would have been the most costly of the contenders to operate as an advanced trainer. However it would have been the most useful in any secondary ground attack role and would have given the ADF a purpose designed close air support aircraft, albeit somewhat degraded due to the amount of equipment deleted in the interest of reducing costs.

In contrast the L-59F Albatros probably would have been the cheapest aircraft to acquire. The Albatros offered against the LIF requirement would have been powered by an AlliedSignal (Garrett) F124 turbofan and featured Elbit avionics. Elbit (of Israel) was to have been the prime contractor. The F124 turbofan in afterburning form powers Taiwan’s Ching-Kuo (formerly IDF) light fighter, and its origins lie in the successful TFE731 which has a large number of civil applications (and powers the RAAF’s Falcon 900s).

The Albatros was eliminated from the LIF programme as it stood little chance of winning (although it could well have come second), one of the factors in this decision being the risks involved in integrating the new avionics and new engine with the airframe. The L-59F seemed to offer a similar level of capability and performance to the Aermacchi MB-339FD.

The decision to drop the Alpha Jet ATS from the LIF programme was well publicised. The Government linked ruling out the Alpha Jet with the French Government’s resumption of nuclear testing in the South Pacific, although the aircraft was widely recognised as an outsider. The Alpha Jet ATS as offered by Dassault would have featured advanced cockpit displays (as developed for the Rafale). However the Alpha Jet is currently out of production and there would be some risk involved in integrating the new glass cockpits, so Dassault would have been very hard pressed to meet the programme’s timing deadlines. Interestingly though the RAAF found that the fact the Alpha Jet is a twin did not add significantly to the aircraft’s operating costs. Aside from the RAAF, Dassault was offering the Alpha Jet ATS to the French Armee de l’Air as a lead-in fighter trainer for the Rafale.

When announcing the decision to drop the Alpha Jet Defence Minister Senator Ray noted he wasn’t trying to “put a bulldust gloss on this by saying it was a hot favourite. It wasn’t.”

Regardless the elimination of three of the unlikely contenders from the shortlist will save Defence considerable time and effort in evaluating aircraft that are unlikely to be selected to meet the requirement. Further it saves the manufacturers and their Australian industry partners a significant amount of money that would have been spent on promotion and developing a successful bid.

And so three aircraft remain – the Hawk 100, T-45 Goshawk and MB-339FD. In this issue we review the Hawk 100.

Both the Alpha Jet and Albatros would have found it very difficult to meet the RAAF’s mid 1999 delivery date. The Alpha Jet is currently out of production and would have to be qualified with its new glass cockpit, while the Albatros was to be re-engined with an AlliedSignal F124 turbofan and fitted with Elbit avionics, posing some development risk. (German MoD and Aero)

Australian Aviation December 1995

The AMX teaming withdrew the AMX-T from the lead-in fighter contest voluntarily in June when it became clear there was no official close air support/ground attack requirement. (Aermacchi)