Australian Fighter options [Archive]

jwcook

14th Feb 2007, 07:28

It smacks of incompetence, fancy letting the it go this far without alternatives such as the Typhoon, Rafale etc, Australia could have 20 odd Typhoons by 2010, France would jump at the chance of an export!!!

So lack of time is a very poor excuse, it is like pleading incompetence.
It seem ludicrous that a government would paint itself into a corner and put itself it a terrible bargaining position with just a single supplier, if they have run out of time they should have listened to those who said don't buy a paper plane off the drawing board. the JSF will suffer delays like any other program only the terminally stupid would think otherwise.

And whats all this about commonality I thought the F18E/F was a completely different to the C/D, what are the common items?:confused:
IMHO Only the F18 quadron badges are the same! ;-).

Prepare yourselves for another round of keep the F111 and buy F-22 (when and If etc..) from the usual suspects. :yuk:

ftrplt

14th Feb 2007, 08:28

whatever you say

Hempy

14th Feb 2007, 10:30

The Americans wont like us anymore of we don't buy their things.........

XV277

14th Feb 2007, 13:20

I suppose the K/E/F/A-18F would be a Force Multiplier. You can read the headlines - "Australia to get new fighters, bombers & tankers - all in one Airframe!"

If I remember both the Typhoon and Rafale were regarded as too 'short on legs' for the RAAF requirement, and the F-18f is an in-service airframe. More importantly, youcan sell it to the polititians as 'not a new aircraft, but an improved version of what we have'

LowObservable

14th Feb 2007, 14:54

Ftrplt...
Time? When do you think that you will get F-35 IOC? And at what cost, since anything before 2015 delivery is LRIP and costs over $100m a pop, and the 2015 price won't be fixed until 2013?
Legs?
Might have been the case once but no longer - there is now relatively little difference between the F-35 and Typhoon or Rafale, just that the F-35 carries all fuel internally.

L J R

14th Feb 2007, 15:06

You might find that the US are unwilling to sell F-22 because it it that airframe that will take on the Iranian and Nth Korean IADS at once (seem to remember their 2 war simultaneous theory). Before anyone jumps up and down, I really mean that it will be used on day 2 after all the CALCMs, TLAMs, Black UCAVs etc have done the dirty work, and the planned 'swift' clean up commences. The US may want to do this sweep on its own, as it would be difficult to sell such a war to the UN et al, given the attempts to gain international support to clean out Iraq during the spring offensive of '03. Therefore, why should it sell its nice new toys, only to have some of them denied the use that they were intended.

OFBSLF

14th Feb 2007, 15:09

there is now relatively little difference between the F-35 and Typhoon or RafaleIsn't the F-35 significantly stealthier than the Typhoon or Rafale?

L J R

14th Feb 2007, 16:44

Ofb Slf
.
.
.
.
.

Yes
.
.
.
.
.
.

LowObservable

14th Feb 2007, 16:52

OFBLSF - just to make myself clear, I was talking about range difference between the JSF and others.

jwcook

14th Feb 2007, 19:14

I think the evaluation process in Australia that was curtailed suddenly in 2002 put some manufacturers noses out of joint, You have to wonder if some bridges were not burnt then??.

As for range both the Rafale and Typhoon have conformal tanks planned, and all alternatives have similar range.

Oz Conformal tanks (http://www.baesystems.com/newsroom/2002/may/160502news1.htm)

Information I have (from a few weeks ago) is that the Australian government have not even sought quotes or delivery schedules for alternatives!!...

How do they know this is the 'best deal' as Angus Houston put it - if they have not asked the price of the alternatives??... This is what I find unusual.:confused:

Oh and The F-22/F-111 brigade entrenched in Oz have fire up again, theres now several reports/opinion pieces flying about mainly about begging for the F-22, and questioning the knee jerk purchase of SH..Danger from China (http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2007/s1848001.htm)

Just a quick addition, Boeing is refusing to give india the source code for the radar in their fighter competition, does Australia get operational soverignty, another good reason not to rush into things!!

Cheers

GreenKnight121

15th Feb 2007, 06:36

With Typhoon, Rafale, F-15E(customized for your country), and F/A-18E/F all having been the subject of several competitions recently, I would think that all of the cost (both purchase & long-term), performance, offset, etc. info that anyone needs to compare them is already available from governments friendly to Australia... therefore there is no need to do it all over again just to get the same data.

The pro-F-22 mob (including Carlo Kopp) are already countering with claims that the US Deputy Defence Secretary: A) does not know what he is talking about; B) does not have the authority to make that decision; C) never sent that letter at all... it is a lie by Defence Minister Brendan Nelson to cover his arse.

This of course ignores the following: A) England is in a post where he would be part of the process of making such a decision; B) would not be making that decision, but would surely know if the President, etc had made that decision; C) would not make any such claim unless his bosses would back it up, due to the political ramifications of saying it if it weren't true; D) Nelson would be exposing himself dreadfully if he were to make up something like this... it would be easy for the Opposition to verify or disprove, just by talking with the Democrats in the US... now that they control Congress, they have to be fully informed of all such things, and have no reason to protect any deception by a representative of the Bush Administration... therefore it is extremely unlikely he would say such a thing if it were not true.

jwcook

15th Feb 2007, 08:45

I do think its necessary to run a competition to see whats on offer, Norway is reaping the benefits of a competition by getting workshare from all competitors and the US has offered much more just because of the competition re JSF/Typhoon/Gripen.

Now whether Eurofighter would bother with Australia now is another matter!.:)

Offsets are yet another matter, Eurofighter offered a large offset to Australia, Boeing is offering zero, Eurofighter offered all source code to enable operation sovereignty, has Boeing, because its been denied to India??.

Now the whole deal with the US company starts to look less attractive the more you look into it.

Potentially billions missed in workshare, millions missed in competitive tenders, and operational sovereignty handed to a foreign power!!!..

I doubt an incompetent fool could have negotiated any more away :rolleyes:
Hmm just reread this and it does sound a bit harsh, but thoroughly deserved.

Please tell me I'm wrong I'd hate to think Oz is that bad!:sad:

A fair appraisal of the situation by Andrew Davies here (http://www.aspi.org.au/publications/policybrief.aspx?ContentID=115&pubtype=9)

Carlo Kopp, Peter Goon etc are quite famous in Oz for championing F111 and F-22's despite reality trying to tell them otherwise,

Cheers

GreenKnight121

15th Feb 2007, 09:26

OK, so you are comparing a no-offset Boeing 24-aircraft "something to fly until the Lockheed-Martin F-35 gets here" deal with the only possible Typhoon deal... a 75-90 aircraft mega-offset "permanent fighter choice instead of the F-35" deal? :rolleyes:

And you want to spend the time and money to run a "next-fighter competition just for the sake of being able to say "we are having a competition"... when all of the same info the competition would give you is already available right now?

Or are you really just looking for all of the bribes... er... "incentives"... that holding a competition would bring to everyone who could possibly influence the final decision (BAE-Saudi, etc)?

Lazer-Hound

15th Feb 2007, 09:50

By buying SuperHornet, the RAAF will be getting a combat-proven, capable multi-role aircraft already fully cleared for just about every A2A and AtG weapon in the RAAF inventory, with a state of the art AESA well ahead of anything in Typhoon or Rafale. Furthermore, they'll save a great deal on training costs due to the similarity with the current F18 fleet and the aircraft are available near term. So in fact, buying SuperBug makes eminent sense for RAAF. Especially as they're unlikely to want to fund conformal tanks/AESA for Typhoon/Rafale on their own.

jwcook

15th Feb 2007, 10:58

GK121
No I'm still comparing apples with apples, the offsets (or Bribes :rolleyes:) were offered to Austria for 24 airframes (later reduced to 18),l I don't see why a similar sort of deal could not be done for Oz!, it runs into billions!!!, I'm sure the french would bend overbackwards to sell the Rafale.

The capability gap is mainly in the fighter area, something the Typhoon is designed for, and would compliment the JSF far better than the SH, both the UK and Italy will use the Typhoon/JSF.

I was just suggesting that Typhoon or Rafales might fit that gap better and at a similar price (possibly better with offsets\bribes), BUT you won't know till someone asks!!.

The time and money running a comp seems to be worth it, virtually every other buyer do not rely on other countries evaluations to make decisions.. What makes Oz different???, if you really want to rely on other countries evaluations then who the hell has ordered super hornets?:confused:

If the RAAF get a better aircraft that will remain current longer and have more allied flying it, then I'm all for the 'incentives' being offered by all sides in a fair competition, just shocked nobodys been asked!!!

Lazerhound
Where has the SH Block 2 been used in combat, I didn't think it had?.

Hmmm... is this the same radar in the Block 2 thats got the 'nagging software problems' that Janes reported or is it another model?, and does it come with operational sovereignty to fix any such problems in Oz, or do we have to purchase upgraded software?.

I was under the impression the SH Block 2 was a different beast to the Oz hornets Ie if its a very high % commonality why are we buying a old design, if its virtually all new design wheres the commonality?, what is it?.

BTW Conformal Tank work is already done in Oz for the Typhoons, see link earlier, no payment required thanks.

To sum up why hasn't anyone asked for prices or requests for information from manufacturers?, things sure have change since 2002 when the last real evaluation was cut short!.

Cheers

Lazer-Hound

15th Feb 2007, 11:47

jwcook. SH itself has been used in combat over Iraq and Afghanistan. Block 2 isn't that different. Whatever problems AGP79 AESA is having, it's a lot further along in its development than the Typhoon AESA, and indeed is in series production. From the pilot's POV, SH is pretty similar to F18A-D, certainly a lot more similar than Typhoon is.

But you know, I sense that whatever I say, you've already decided on Typhoon, so I'll just leave it at that.

LowObservable

15th Feb 2007, 16:16

Block 2 SH is pretty different from Block 1, with very, very much improved avionics. That said, a lot of that is not obvious to the pilot and non-avionics aspects are pretty much identical.
The Kopp/Goon gang have done a good job of laying a smokescreen by talking about upgraded F-111s (a potentially wonderful aircraft but a potentially horrible program to execute) and F-22s (not versatile enough, not long range enough, too expensive and unreleasable).
The real problem is the termination of the competition. Hell, at this point Australia could realize some serious gains by pretending there was a competition, just in order to get better terms. At the moment they are committed to buying something with a very uncertain price tag and no firm offset commitments.

jwcook

15th Feb 2007, 19:21

The real problem is the termination of the competition. Hell, at this point Australia could realize some serious gains by pretending there was a competition, just in order to get better terms. At the moment they are committed to buying something with a very uncertain price tag and no firm offset commitments.
Yesterday 23:47

Bingo!, I would love to see the actual process whereby they came to the decision to buy SH!!.

I've made my mind up - I'd love to see the Typhoon in Oz, but I think having a competitive tender process is much more important!.

We don't want to make a Seasprite of this :eek:

Cheers

LowObservable

15th Feb 2007, 19:31

You mean the decision to buy JSF?
I think they were offered a chance to get in at the ground floor of a 4000-plus-jet program and to get F-111-like range and stealth for $40 million a pop. I'd do that too... if it was real.

señor_jones

17th Feb 2007, 06:11

jwcook,
Do you think it is possible that the people working on this acquisition may be smart guys that have some experience in the field? I don't know who you are or what you know, and I don't give a $hit, because the people that matter DO know what they are doing and are well respected within the appropriate community.

There's no conspiracy theory here, so why don't you run off and take down your poster of Carlo Kopp. See you at Avalon - I guess you'll be the one with the hand-held scanner and logbook of tail numbers.

jwcook

17th Feb 2007, 07:16

Hmmm.. your not very friendly señor.

They may be smart people,and I would think staff in that position would be smart, Just wondering why this particular group of smart people have come to a very different conclusion to all the other groups of smart people charge with a similar task...?
(Did some one say Seasprite:ouch: )

As for my poster boy Carlo, LOL you couldn't have got me more wrong, I've never been a fan of his... and as to who I am, I'm a nobody who just happened to be in Logistics and Purchasing in a previous life, so my understanding of the processes is a little better than the laymans:) especially in regard to how long things take to do correctly.

I don't think theres a conspiracy, just an odd decision that seems rushed... (it was only last year the government of Australia asked Defence for a backup plan for the JSF if it was late, You'd think Defence would have at least asked around re price/availability from various manufacturers etc!!).

I posted here precisely because of the knowledge and experience of people here, in the hope of getting an understanding of whats were the reasons for SH, your post doesn't help me one bit.

and BTW I don't have a scanner/notepad or even an anorak..:=

Cheers

DESPERADO

17th Feb 2007, 15:31

JWCook

I think that you have missed much of the point of the problem for the RAAF. The purchase of SH is to fill a capability gap with an aircraft that will fit into the RAAF relatively easily and provide instant and proven capability.

I have a deep knowledge of Typhoon, I am also a big fan - it really is a great airframe and will be an outstanding combat aircraft, but it has some way to go still. In the timeframes that the RAAF need this capability (2010 operational) getting Typhoons is not going to be an option from just a purely manufacturing point of view let alone infra-strusture in Oz etc etc. Rafale is expensive, and I just would not consider it in the same sentence - buying anything off the French can be a minefield (just ask the Oz army about the Tiger programme). Gripen is simply not as good as the other options.

The Aussies are doing the pragmatic and sensible thing - despite your allusions to the Seasprite fiasco, my impression of the Oz procurement system is that they generally get value for money. This buy does smack a little of panic, but what can they do with the F111 becoming so expensive and unserviceable and F35 heading right at a rate of knots.

You could compare this a little to the good old UOR process where the performance/cost/time triangle suddenly becomes much more heavily weighted in the 'time' corner. SH will be available and operational for the RAAF in 2010, the rest won't.

GreenKnight121

17th Feb 2007, 15:50

"(it was only last year the government of Australia asked Defence for a backup plan for the JSF if it was late, You'd think Defence would have at least asked around re price/availability from various manufacturers etc!!)."

And what's to say they didn't?

I know they did not go through the "massive PR blitz/press conferences with chest-beating, self-flaggellation, ashes & sackcloth-type very public angst/recriminations/everybody get their two-pence worth in" kind of freak show that so many expect with any procurement decision, but why should they?

I expect that they quietly called up each applicable manufacturer of suitable aircraft (Lock-Mart for F-16F, Boeing for F/A-18F & F-15E, EADS for Typhoon [is there a two-seat attack-oriented version... I think not], Dassault for Rafale [see Typhoon comments]... I doubt they even bothered with Sukhoi), asked them "If we ordered 24, when could we get them and for how much (with 15 years support & operations included)" and reported the results to the Defense Chief along with their assessment of relative performance (lots of real-world data is available without a formal competition).

The Defense Chief then talked to the RAAF senior staff, then he made his decision and contacted the PM, etc.

jwcook

17th Feb 2007, 22:31

DESPERADO

The original plan was for the JSF to be delivered 2012 time frame, the SH procurement is to be operational in 2010, looks to me like someone is now playing with the 'time' corner making it a lot tighter. capability overlap instead of gap!, I wonder what requirement was stated in the brief.

I do know the Typhoon would have problems meeting the 2010 for 24 airframes, barring unexpected surprises they could possible squeeze ~15 from the process by 2010, but I'm equally sure some members would give up 9 delivery slots for an order from a well respected procurement agency. AIUI no ones asked, I'd certainly like to hear otherwise as my curiosity would be totally satisfied...

As I see it there was a big opportunity for Oz in offsets that may have been missed.

Mentioning Seasprite was a bit harsh, I suppose Abrahms M1's would have been a bit better than mentioning the Collins class :) This bits is a joke so everyone take it easy! and back away from the keyboard slowly.

GK121 see PM's

Gnadenburg

17th Feb 2007, 23:38

Two months prior to the possible Super Hornet deal made public, RAAF brass were in the media stating there will be no capability gap with the F111 retirement, JSF is on track and there is absolutely no need for an interim fighter.

Has Nelson lost faith and overrided senior RAAF officials with the Super Hornet? Seems a wise move. Though let's not forget, this is the first of many probable cost blowouts in providing RAAF with 100 fighters and it's desired capability to operate on concurrent operations.

Barry Bernoulli

18th Feb 2007, 09:01

What about the conspiracy theory option?

Australian government is intent on increasing the capability of all arms of the ADF. Instead of trying to sell the voting public on increasing the size of the fighter fleet in the absence of a stated threat, they introduce an 'interim capability', in the form of an additional SQN worth of Super Hornets. If they can find lateral recruits, they can not only introduce the JSF without a capability 'dip' but also, through the back-door, increase the size of the fighter group by continuing to operate the SH through the transition and then replace the SH frames with an add-on buy of JSF at the end of the program. :hmm:

alidad

18th Feb 2007, 09:35

On a lighter note; there is one thing the minister forgot to do before he hade a decision....

http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_sounds/hg/arms.wav

jwcook

18th Feb 2007, 10:24

Dammit I missed the bit where he said:-

"Pointed stick? Oh, oh, oh. We want to learn how to defend ourselves against pointed sticks, do we? Getting all high and mighty, eh? Fresh fruit not good enough for you eh? Well I'll tell you something my lad. When you're walking home tonight and some great homicidal maniac comes after you with a bunch of loganberries, don't come crying to me! Now, the passion fruit. When your assailant lunges at you with a passion fruit..."

You have to wonder if Carlo was involved in that threat assessment!.

:)

Blackhawk9

18th Feb 2007, 12:31

Australia went thru the same predicament toward the end on the Mirage 111 service, keep the Mirage 111 in service a bit longer and hope the F-16/F-18/ Mirage 2000 generation A/C were not delayed to much or buy the Mirage F1 as a stop gap , they took the chance and waited, the Mirage 111 got new Matra missiles to keep them going and good luck they were not needed in anger and the F/A-18 A/B's arrived in an acceptable time scale. Now 30 years later the world is not as stable and rather than taking the chance as Australia did in the late 70's will get a stopgap in the F/A-18F S/Hornet,just as the Mirage F1 was looked at as a stopgap and would have been ordered without going to tender because of similarity to the Mirage 111 in spares,maintenance and training etc, the F/A-18F wil be ordred as a stop gap for the same reason - ease of intergration into service with minimal cost,training and infurstructure of a completely new type.

Australian Defence procurement has had its ups and downs in the last couple of years:

The good ones- Collins class subs (eventually!!),ANZAC Class frigates, ASLAV 25,Abrams Tanks (the Armour boys love them both),Tanker for Navy (HMAS Sirius), C-17's, Air Warfare Destroyer, A330 Tanker(Eventually),737 Awacs (eventually)and hopfully choose the Spanish Helicopter Carriers

The sh*t ones- Tiger Helicopters (should have been Apache),Seasprite Helicopters (more SeaHawks),NH90 Helicopters (UH-60 M's) , Steyr Rifles (M4/M16), John Deere Bulldozers( should have been Caterpillar).

Hempy

18th Feb 2007, 13:11

Steyr Rifles (M4/M16)

or stayed with the SLR :ugh:

superfrozo

19th Feb 2007, 06:00

:ugh: Seems someone raised this issue a while ago:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=57992&highlight=AIR+6000

I like the particularly prophetic (and equally sarcastic) "...course we all know there won't be costs or delivery time blowouts with the JSF!!!".

Perhaps we should continue with Poll to see who's right re: interim jet, even though the government at the time stated there "...will be no capability gap OR interim type"?!?

Booger where are you now?:}

jwcook

19th Feb 2007, 09:14

No never a pilot... not even close... wrong material.

1 x Dodgy retina plus crappy hand eye coordination. Oh and a risk taker, In fact I'm soo bad I drive a Volvo..:\

OK the Volvo is close to having an anorak/scanner/logbook.

Cheers

LowObservable

19th Feb 2007, 17:02

<<Do you think it is possible that the people working on this acquisition may be smart guys that have some experience in the field? I don't know who you are or what you know, and I don't give a $hit, because the people that matter DO know what they are doing and are well respected within the appropriate community.>>

Item one, Mr Jones, anyone who has been in or near this business for more than six months knows that smart guys with some experience in the field have been responsible for a whole lot of massive c**kups. It happens. The second part of the quote is both a classic example of argumentum ad hominem and an example of the insularity and arrogance that protects bad choices from challenge. Onward the Light Brigade!

Maybe you should consider that there is something happening here and you don't know what it is, do you, Mr Jones?

jwcook

20th Feb 2007, 20:55

Heres a couple of Australian articles that are Anti F18/ pro f-22, one from Carlo :ugh: (suprise surprise), they do make some interesting comments..

Link Carlo (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/02/19/1171733680380.html)

t this point the minister's claims become bizarre. A news release issued the same day contained the statement that "the Government has not asked the United States for access to the F-22 Raptor", thereby confirming that the minister had not requested that the LOEXCOM process be performed to establish whether export is permitted. Another incongruity is that Gordon England, known as an outspoken advocate of the Joint Strike Fighter, is not the party responsible for managing this process. This task falls to the US Air Force.

Link Canberra (http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=your%20say&subclass=general&story_id=558529&category=Opinion)
Air Marshal Shepherd is, of course, right. It's all in the definition, you see. The Super Hornet is not as good as either the F-15 or the SU 30, the jets that our neighbours in the region are buying. But these are the so-called 4.5-generation fighters. What a fine little linguistic distinction. He should have been a lawyer.

Looks like this story has legs, the choices are on extending the F111 lives or Buying the F18, but with an election at the end of the year it looks like the options are limited.

Cheers

GreenKnight121

21st Feb 2007, 03:49

A little note for Carlo Kopp... as Deputy Defence Secretary, Gordon England is over the US Air Force in the chain of authority.

señor_jones

21st Feb 2007, 06:51

LowObservable, (http://www.pprune.org/forums/member.php?u=81203)

Firstly, you can refer to me by my correct alias.

<<Item one, Mr Jones, anyone who has been in or near this business for more than six months knows that smart guys with some experience in the field have been responsible for a whole lot of massive c**kups. It happens. The second part of the quote is both a classic example of argumentum ad hominem and an example of the insularity and arrogance that protects bad choices from challenge. Onward the Light Brigade!>>

Who do you propose we burden with the responsibility of these decisions if not smart people with experience in the field ? A group of bluntus maximus that can't tell their ass from a hole in the ground? Don't bother looking that one up in your Latin dictionary, just take a look in the mirror.

There it is again - argumentum ad hominem. I'm willing to counter a valid argument whenever you'd like to produce one.

<<Maybe you should consider that there is something happening here and you don't know what it is, do you, Mr Jones?>>

Are you coming onto me ?

L J R

21st Feb 2007, 06:55

Why do you guys give K Copp so much cred?. He is a spotter who draws tech profiles of aircraft and dreams of some decorative literature to add to them in order to show his 'copyrighted' drawings in 'authoratative' publications. He has never dropped a bomb in anger.

jwcook

21st Feb 2007, 08:56

Señor_Jones

I expect to have the same people there making the decisions, but I would love to know what set of criteria was used if the answer is a JSF/Super Hornet mix in 2020..

I would love to know how much the offsets other manufacturers would have offered if they had been asked!
My information is at least one manufacturer hasn't been approached since 2002, now I could be wrong on this but thats the rumour from someone who should know!, this has a bearing on the total cost to Oz..

The operational date is now 2010, not the 2012 date that would have produce a gap, which aircraft are excluded by this and why?. shouldn't it be capability at the introduction time (2010-2012) thats important?, not right now?

The introduction of the JSF would have been 2014, the capability gap was supposed to be starting 2012, the rush is now to have something in service by 2010!!!

I'm sure the correct answer to the question from intelligent procurement people people is the Super hornet, but I think its the criteria use and question asked of them that have to be looked at, from no gap to hurry up and buy something quick! curbs their talents somewhat.

So before you get all defensive re the procurement teams, the incompetence I'm talking about may lie a tad higher...

For example:-

THE Chief of Air Force, Air Marshal Geoff Shepherd, has offered a "mea culpa … slightly" for Defence's rushed decision to plug a looming gap in Australia's air-combat capability at a cost to taxpayers of $4 billion.
Air Marshal Shepherd was asked by a Senate committee why the Government was advocating buying 24 Super Hornet jets just months after Defence dismissed concerns there were problems with the F-35 joint strike fighter.
At a cost up to $16 billion, about 100 F-35s are being sought to replace Australia's fleet of fighter jets from 2014. But, as revealed in the Herald, there have been cost blow-outs and delays because of US budget cuts. Super Hornets are being considered to fill the gap should the F-35 be delayed.
Cabinet's national security committee was briefed on the option just six weeks after Defence told Parliament the F-35 was on track in November last year.

"It has been done in a more rapid process than the normal process," Air Marshal Shepherd said. "I suppose that's a mea culpa … slightly."

The Opposition defence spokesman, Joel Fitzgibbon, said: "They took a great leap of faith on the F-35 and were naive in their assessment about when the US was capable of delivering it … They have got themselves in a pickle."

While the decision has been criticised by some analysts because of the Super Hornet's poor stealth, Air Marshal Shepherd said it could be available by 2010.

A $4 Billion Mea Culpa!!, thats not peanuts. plus the US isn't offering offsets and the only part I know of thats manufactured in Oz is the Flaps (http://www.defence.gov.au/teamaustralia/FA18_EF_Super_Hornet_wing_trailing_edge_flaps.htm)

It seems best value wasn't high on the list.

Cheers

LowObservable

21st Feb 2007, 15:12

<<Who do you propose we burden with the responsibility of these decisions if not smart people with experience in the field ? A group of bluntus maximus that can't tell their ass from a hole in the ground? Don't bother looking that one up in your Latin dictionary, just take a look in the mirror.>>

I don't think any person or group should take on these decisions blindly and without reference to what other people may say or think, merely because they believe that they have the "qualifications".

I think it is extremely valid to argue (in the case of the Oz JSF deal) that the picture has changed since the competition was terminated and the commitment was made to JSF. JSF is more expensive; some of the alternatives (not the F-22) have become more credible; there may be value in the Super Hornet as a stopgap, and pushing the competition down the road to the point where it is needed (two to three years ahead of IOC).

I would suggest also that some people don't want to revisit the decision because the consequences could be negative (more political faffing around, for instance).

However, "if you're not a [insert qualification here] your statements are invalid" is a logical fallacy. You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

Now, if you want to argue that the best thing for Australia to do is to persist with JSF with no fixed price, on a schedule which means buying a lot of aircraft out of LRIP at $100m a pop, and that above all this decision must not be re-examined, go ahead.

And whatever your secret desires may be, the Mr Jones comment had nothing to do with anything of the sort, but maybe you do have many contacts out there among the lumberjacks.

LowObservable

21st Feb 2007, 15:24

JWC,
The key to this has to be buy-back. Shepherd apparently told Senate that the plan is still an all-JSF force, so the Super Hornet deal has to be a lease or include a buyback option.
It suits almost everybody.
The RAAF gets to fill a capability gap, and pushes back the JSF program so that not as many aircraft are needed from LRIP, which saves money, but leaves JSF basically intact so that they don't have to fight the fighter battle over again in the backstreets of Canberra.
The Australian government pushes back the spectre of major cost overruns in JSF.
The USG keeps Australia in the JSF fold.
The US Navy, which is trying to sneak as many Super Hornets as possible under the budget radar while deferring F-35C as long as it can, has another 24 lightly used (no cats and traps) Super Hs coming in 2018-20.
The new chairman of the House Armed Services Committee is from Missouri, or Mizzurrah as they say down there.
So it's great for everyone except the Australian taxpayers, who will never know whether they could have got a better deal out of Eurofighter or Dassault. But who gives a pair of used dingo's kidney's about them anyway?

jwcook

22nd Feb 2007, 08:41

Blimey a lease... what a waste!, if the JSF program is canceled or hits problems and it pushes out to 2020, you have to wonder what the alternatives would be..

Politically I wonder if this is such a hot potato for Prime minister John Howard it might get pushed to the back burner till after the election? or will he stick to the early March announcement of the buy.

As a side issue I wonder if the Austrians have been approached By Oz to get the 18 Typhoons in a deal that they seem desperate to wriggle out of !.:}

It would be funny to watch Austria then try to field any sort of air force if their bluff was called.. and we could get them a $1 billion cheaper.:eek:

BTW I'd expect several more articles from Kopp, Goon, etc, in the coming days, though Mr Jensen may be a bit more subdued;).

Cheers

NURSE

22nd Feb 2007, 09:23

with he election looming who's likley to win and what are the likley defence consequences?

jwcook

22nd Feb 2007, 11:34

Would you mind explaining (from a technical PoV, not aesthetics) why you believe the Typhoon/Rafale would be a better alternative than the F/A-18F?

Oooh Theres a loaded question...:) very nicely done.

Depends on what you want, but from my personal perspective,(which is going to be Typhoon orientated as its the one I know more about.So I make no apology for that).

If its the fear of our northern neighbors having a better fighter capability, then the Typhoon would fit better.
If its having an aircraft thats used by several countries/interoperability then the Typhoon fits better.
If its a carrier capable aircraft thats required then Rafale/F18E/F are the best fit.
If its technology transfer then Typhoon is better.
If its maritime strike then Rafale/F18E/F are better at present.

However the main requirement seems to be its operational by 2010, so all three would seem to fit the bill.

But what is this "gap"? which areas are the present Hornets deficient?, if air superiority is the main concern then go for a fighter optimised aircraft like the Typhoon, the capability of the Typhoon fits in with the "gap" with its air to ground and Maritime capability coming on line in 2010-2012, as does the Rafale

I'm not sure of the benefits of being the first and possibly only export customer of the F18E/F, it would be like buying the Rafale ;-). So any serious deployment by Oz overseas would require the USA to be there too.

The Typhoon is to be operated by UK,Italy,Spain,Germany,Austria,and if all goes well Saudi Arabia, thats quite a few places where one could deploy with a minimum of equipment if you had Typhoons.

Then theres operational sovereignty, does the f18E/F come with that?, Indias F18E/F offer has denied access to the radar codes, So are we also denied?, Eurofighter have offered full access!. there cannot be any restrictions on parts/support by Eurofighter unless all partner nations agree, unlike the US which has be know to use it as a err... foreign policy tool!.

Ok its getting late and I'm tired... so sorry if I rambled on... some of these points deserve to be explored much better than I can do justice to in such a limited fashion like this.

Cheers and good night sleep tight!

SeeArSee

22nd Feb 2007, 12:50

At the end of the day, the F22 is ridiculously expensive. The USAF is buying loads less than planned, with a resulting hike in unit price. Whilst it sounds like a good bit of kit, most cash-strapped air forces would do better with more of a different plane (any Typhoons for sale?....)

GreenKnight121

22nd Feb 2007, 18:44

I do not know about the F/A-18 radar software issue, but I do have an opinion developed from other weapons/tech transfer issues.

Australia is one of the most valued and trusted of the US allies... not just another hardware customer. An example is that Australia is the only nation the US has authorized to buy JASSM.

India is working closely with Russia on military weapons & systems... therefore there is a much greater chance of a leak of sensitive info than with Australia. India is considered as just another hardware customer.

Therefore, India being denied the UberBug codes has nothing whatsoever to do with what Australia might or might not be given access to.

As for the specific question about the RAAF & the SuperHornet codes... refer to the JASSM issue to see what the US trusts Australia with.

jwcook

23rd Feb 2007, 09:14

So, whilst the Typhoon will become an excellent 4.5 gen fighter, it will never be the striker that we require (That's why the RAF have GR.4, and intend to replace them with JSFs, not Typhoon).

Thats precisely why the Hornet/JSF combo is odd, the UK and Italy are going the JSF /Typhoon option, the S Hornet has its own problems re development - Radar software etc.
The advanced radar developed for the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet has completed a key testing period with a nagging software problem still unresolved but showing improvement, according to the US Navy. The Raytheon APG-79 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar - the first dual-mode sensor in service on a US military fighter - completed its operational test and evaluation phase on 6 December 2006.:rolleyes:

Re the Deployment issues, its nice to train, and fight with aircrew who operate the same equipment, allowing people to exchange and learn how best to use the systems, remember the there are more Typhoons on order than Hornets, more countries operate them, over a wider geographical and political area, so the advantage remains with the Typhoon.

As I said its very odd combo even for a couple of leased years!, which I doubt as the following is saying its a sale not lease.
Australia – F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Aircraft
WASHINGTON, February 6, 2007 - The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Australia of F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Aircraft as well as associated equipment and services. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $3.1 billion.
The Government of Australia has requested a possible sale of 24 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Aircraft, 48 F414-GE-402 installed engines, 6 F414-GE-402 spare engines, 24 AN/APG-79 Radar Systems, 24 AN/USQ-140 Multifunctional Informational Distribution System Low Volume Terminals, 30 AN/ALR-67(V)3 Electric Warfare Countermeasures Receiving Sets, 145 LAU-127 Guided Missile Launchers and 30 AN/PVS-9 Night Vision Goggles. The proposal will include integration of the AN/ALE-47 Electronic Warfare Countermeasures Systems, Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems, 12 Joint Mission Planning Systems, and AN/ALE-55 Fiber Optic Towed Decoys. Also included are system integration and testing, software development/integration, test sets and support equipment, spare and repair parts, maintenance and pilot training, software support, publications and technical documents, U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $3.1 billion.

Whats to say they will buy them back?, hasn't happened in the UK with those Chinooks... and AFAIK the US need them.

The individual systems your quoting for the Super Hornet are for the most part equaled or exceeded in the Typhoon, and while your correct in saying the Typhoons AtoG ability is austere at present it won't be by 2010-12, the list of weapons is as you probably know extensive. eg storm shadow/Brimstone/Taurus/Iris-T/Asraam:) /Meteor would compliment the JSF unlike the SH. all should be available in EOC1 and EOC2 in the that 2010-12 time frame, and do this as a self escorting strike too

I'm unaware of problems with g/alpha issues, are we talking recently with the heavy load??, Even so perhaps the solution with the Typhoon FCS will be a little more err... elegant that the Super Hornets wing stall issue :)

As for tech transfer the Eurofighter GmbH has offered full transfer, it may be a non issue If the US does the same, as you say we will have to wait and see, But I remain quite sceptical.

and the final quote is from the FMS notice:-

Australia needs these aircraft for coalition operations. The proposed sale of F/A-18E/F aircraft will increase Australia’s tactical aviation capabilities. An increase in capability will be accrued primarily due to the larger number of aircraft and the larger range and endurance of the F/A-18E/F.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not affect the basic military balance in the region.

I thought this is why were buying them to change the balance in the region in our favour:)

BTW did you hear Oz has lost a large contract for the JSF production!!, and the government isn't amused, perhaps trusting in a close ally/friend to do the right thing may not work out, especially if you throw any negotiating leverage away, as they have done in this case.:ugh:

Cheers

jwcook

23rd Feb 2007, 09:36

Have you compared the range of the SH to the competition?, and is it my imagination or does the toe out on the wing tanks look excessive and a wee bit draggy on the SH? If it is that angle is there any reason why?.

BTW Thanks to everyone who's replied - I'm learning quite a bit about all sorts of stuff.

Cheers

Art Vandelay

23rd Feb 2007, 12:32

JWC,

Do you work for BAe Systems?
Your blind obsession with that platform suggests so. SJM111 highlighted the nice kit SH will come with and you seem to think the Euro-lemon will "equal or exceed" it. Lets do a comparion:

APG79 vs Mechanically scanned Typhoon Radar - Winner SH (hands down!)
ATFLIR vs LITENING III - Winner ATFLIR (just I will conceed and some will disagree but SH A-G capability is mature so I will say SH)
MIDS vs Typoon Datalink - Tie (link is link, don't you think?)
JHMCS vs Typhoon HMS - Tie
JDAM vs PW IV - Winner JDAM again because it is mature and PW IV is not yet working

Not to mention the other Typhoon weapons you mentioned:
Stormshadow vs JASSM - Winner JASSM (yes it might not work yet, but niether does stromshadow on Typhoon)
Brimstone - Winner Typhoon, but I don't think the Red Army is much of a concern these days
ASRAAM vs AIM-9X - Winner Typhoon. Yep I'll give you that one but again this is replacing the F-111 not the F-18A which does have ASRAAM. We want A-G capability here.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy watching the Typhoon at airshows as much as the next guy but it is a LONG way off from being a mature A-G platform. Certainly not what the RAAF need now. As for Rafael - are you joking?

The only real option for the RAAF in the short term would be Strike Eagle or Super Hornet. I would suggest we are pinching the SH off the production line rather than joining the queue for F-15E (K) which to me is the best move. It could also be argued that what the SH lacks in payload vs the F-15 it makes up for with sensors.

Now lets sit back and wait for this announcement and be thankful rather than critical. As much as I like the F-111 its retirement is well overdue. Get rid of it ASAP and get these flash new jets on the line.
Art

LowObservable

23rd Feb 2007, 12:54

Again, if the Oz leaders are to be believed and if they have any sense, the goal is a one-fighter force, ergo the SHs have a return option - which is quite believable as the USN would like that.
So the question is not just SH-versus-Typhoon but what you want in the long term and whether it is smart to have committed to the only non-fixed-price option you can find without a proper competition.
And, by the way, if there is anything out there that the Typhoon can beat on range it's probably the SH. Take a casual look at the US Navy's online photo gallery and see how many SHs are loaded with four gasbags and a buddy store.

jwcook

23rd Feb 2007, 20:46

No I don't work for BAE systems, I just have an interest in the Typhoon.

APG79 vs Mechanically scanned Typhoon Radar - Winner SH (hands down!)

Have to agree (with reservations see later comment) - what about Captor-E (Caesar E scan)?, but what capability gap does the F111 leave that only an AESA radar can fill?

ATFLIR vs LITENING III - Winner ATFLIR (just I will conceed and some will disagree but SH A-G capability is mature so I will say SH)

Its really the ATFLIR vs Litening III and Pirate.

MIDS vs Typoon Datalink - Tie (link is link, don't you think?),

I thought they had the same MIDS terminal! the 'low volume' whotyamacallit

JHMCS vs Typhoon HMS - Tie
JDAM vs PW IV - Winner JDAM again because it is mature and PW IV is not yet working

The Typhoons EOC1 and EOC2 (AIUI these have now been replaced by a future capability contract cp210), These included Paveway II, III enhanced Paveway II, IV LGB, other PGM's Inc JDAM. another tie

Not to mention the other Typhoon weapons you mentioned:
Stormshadow vs JASSM - Winner JASSM (yes it might not work yet, but niether does stromshadow on Typhoon)

If they both don't work, why isn't it a tie? :\ , so can we agree if they were both working?, advantage Typhoon!

Brimstone - Winner Typhoon, but I don't think the Red Army is much of a concern these days Brimestone isn't integrated yet, again its a EOC1+2 thing, IIRC the FCP was signed in December 06, the actual details are still secret, with some items shuffled forward for the UK requirement for a more robust AtoG retirement.

ASRAAM vs AIM-9X - Winner Typhoon. Yep I'll give you that one but again this is replacing the F-111 not the F-18A which does have ASRAAM. We want A-G capability here.

As I understand it the Typhoon is a much better fighter than the Hornet, if they are doing the self escorting then thats an advantage to the Typhoon even if AtoG is the main function, if the range figures that are public are to be believed the Typhoon has a greater range, with conformals (offering a 25% increase in range and a near 50% increase in fuel) and storm shadow to well over 1000nm.

As I have said before you need to decide what the primary missions are, and what has produced the 'GAP' we are trying to fill.
We could try to argue each system, but this is ultimately futile as the capabilities are for the most part restricted information. even in matters where you assert the AESA of the Hornet is superior and I agree this is pure conjecture on my part, a side by side free access comparison may surprise us both!.

So far the two big reasons given are the demise of the Pig and superior fighters being procured in our region, therefore the three main things we are looking for to fill the 'GAP' should be range, air superiority and AtoG.

Comparison of Typhoon vs the F18E/F
Range - Typhoon advantage which will remain post 2010
Air Superiority - Typhoon advantage which will remain post 2010
AtoG SH advantage today and is equaled or surpassed in 2010-2012

This has turned into a one of those technical arguments, with severe thread creep away from the original cost benefit competition that I think was vital so we don't get screwed.

I still think there are alternatives - I know a lot less about the Rafale, but it might actually fit the bill better than the Typhoon especially in this case due to the AtoG weight you've assigned. and these may actually outweigh its obvious drawbacks.

In conclusion - I think the 'knee jerk' action of buying the SH, does not give Australia the best bang for buck, when you include capability offsets, work share, and interoperability with foreign operators.

Its complicated question thats for sure.

cheers

jwcook

23rd Feb 2007, 20:54

http://www.house.gov/pitts/initiatives/ew/050713-CRS-hornet.pdf

This makes interesting reading!, touches on some of the pro's and cons of the SH.

Cheers

señor_jones

24th Feb 2007, 03:06

I don't think any person or group should take on these decisions blindly and without reference to what other people may say or think, merely because they believe that they have the "qualifications". The people who are making these decisions have been appointed to that role because of the experience they bring – it is not a case of individuals throwing their hands up merely “believing that they have the qualifications”. They are hardly going to ignore input from external references – they are accountable for their recommendations, but you’d be naïve to think that the motivation to get them right ends there.

If you believe that combined decades of operating fighters is insufficient experience to make smart choices about the platform that will replace, and ultimately expand upon the capability provided by these same aircraft, you’re an idiot.

Now, if you want to argue that the best thing for Australia to do is to persist with JSF with no fixed price, on a schedule which means buying a lot of aircraft out of LRIP at $100m a pop, and that above all this decision must not be re-examined, go ahead. Don’t put words in my mouth, I’ve said nothing of the sort.

And whatever your secret desires may be, the Mr Jones comment had nothing to do with anything of the sort, but maybe you do have many contacts out there among the lumberjacks.
Great comeback champ.

JWCook,

The people making acquisition decisions have data available to them pertaining to a type’s performance, tactical employment, etc. that isn’t available on Jane’s website. Making public the exact criteria by which these decisions are made may reveal details of the intended capability that should not be common knowledge. I’m sure you can appreciate that.

No harm in being inquisitive and enthusiastic about the future of our air capability, but I don’t think you’re going to get the answers/arguments/comparisons that will satisfy you.

Magoodotcom

24th Feb 2007, 03:59

Have you compared the range of the SH to the competition?, and is it my imagination or does the toe out on the wing tanks look excessive and a wee bit draggy on the SH? If it is that angle is there any reason why?.
Hey JW
The toe out was a result of early separation testing. I'm told it reduces the aircraft's range by about 2% with four jugs and two AAMs up.
Cheers
Magoo

jwcook

24th Feb 2007, 08:49

Ola Señor

As I've said before the decisions that need questioning may be a tad higher than the air force procurement, look at this briefing by Director General New Air Combat Capability Air Vice-Marshal John Harvey

we needed to do something if they looked like there'd be too much risk of a transition gap there at all.
And when the JSF was considered in the context of First Pass, Government looked at the options and they asked us to flesh out one of those a bit more; which was the Super Hornet option. So, we're providing more detail on that and Government will make the decision on whether or not they think that's required in the near future.

Granted I may be reading more between the lines than is called for in this one statement, but according to this the government only ask for one to be 'fleshed out', thats my gripe, and I don't think either of us has Janes as a primary source.

BTW thanks Magoo for the info..
Cheers

Gnadenburg

24th Feb 2007, 10:51

As I've said before the decisions that need questioning may be a tad higher than the air force procurement

It would seem that the Howard government, is understandly concerned about the capability gap that the air force may face after 2010. It was this government, who in a diplomatic gaffe, alluded to a first strike policy in Asia.

With delays plaguing more than a few projects, Nelson has demanded a bridging option as an insurance policy against an overly optimistic and JSF myopic Brass and bureaucracy.

The RAAF has enthusiastically recommended the Super Hornet. With tankers, Wedgtail and cruise missiles, on paper it seems to satisfy government policy quickly and convincingly.

jwcook

25th Feb 2007, 03:49

Revell or Airfix?;)

DESPERADO

25th Feb 2007, 12:51

JW Cook. Not sure where you got all your enthusiasm for Typhoon from. I see that you live in Oz so I am sure that you have the best interests of the RAAF in your thoughts.

I am certainly not going to delve into the realms of the classified here, but I would say that much of the information being spouted here by a number of experts is out of date wrt Typhoon.

EOC 1 & 2 no longer exist as such - with the name changes have been other changes.

If the RAAF needs a Multi/Swing - Role platform, with modern weapons capable of engaging a variety of A-A & A-Surf targets - and it wants this to be fully operational by 2010 then the SH (or F-15E) would be the answer. Typhoon, I have said before, is a superb aircraft, but..............Remember, in all procurement decisions it is about Performance, Cost and Time. With 2010 not that far away for the aircraft to be operational - Time will be the critical factor and may well outvote whatever we may think about the relative merits of Typh v F18F.

jwcook

26th Feb 2007, 02:22

See PM Desparado

Heres a link for more info on SH

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/aw022607p2.xml&headline=Navy%20Details%20New%20Super%20Hornet%20Capabilitie s

Cheers

Ghostflyer

26th Feb 2007, 03:52

The national variants of the Typhoon and JSF will differ in capability due to the quality and integrity of the software on-board. The RAF have a dedicated MSC supplying the required parameters and software. Do the Aussies have the mission support and data aquisition capabilities to run either the F-22 or Typhoon?

Joker89

6th Mar 2007, 03:27

Looks like 24 SH are confirmed
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/6b-fighter-plane-deal/2007/03/06/1172943419483.html

But at $6 billion for 24 of them, thats AUD $250 mio each!!! or about USD $200 mio. Surely we get more than just the Airframe + engines for that amount of coin?

Millski

6th Mar 2007, 03:49

Yeh, another invoice for the weapons :rolleyes:

jwcook

6th Mar 2007, 08:43

Bah humBUG!!! :)

jwcook

18th May 2007, 02:34

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/17/costly_flaws_found_in_navys_top_jet/

WASHINGTON -- Engineers have uncovered a flaw in the Navy's top fighter jet that could reduce by half the aircraft's advertised service life and potentially cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in repairs, according to Pentagon documents and military and industry officials.
Article Tools

A mechanism inside the wings of the F/A-18 Super Hornet, manufactured by Boeing Co. , is wearing out prematurely, prompting the Navy to order the company to make changes in the plane's production as well as retrofit several hundred planes already operating off the decks of Navy aircraft carriers, according to a Navy official.

Cheers

ORAC

18th May 2007, 10:12

Navy, Boeing Downplay Alleged Super Hornet Problems

U.S. Navy and Boeing officials were quick to respond to a Boston Globe story May 17 that alleged “costly flaws” in Super Hornet strike fighters could cut their lifetime flight hours in half.

“The Boston Globe article has many misstatements,” said Patricia Frost, a spokeswoman for Boeing Naval Systems in St. Louis. “Boeing and the U.S. Navy expect the Super Hornet and the EA-18G to meet or exceed their 6,000-hour design life.”

The Globe story reported that “a mechanism inside the wings of the F/A-18 [E and F] Super Hornet … is wearing out prematurely” — a problem that, if uncorrected, “would drastically shorten the $50 million aircraft’s life span from 6,000 hours to 3,000 hours.”

Boeing and the Navy acknowledged that problems have been found with the aircraft, but said the situation described in the Globe story dates from four years ago. Fixes already have been incorporated into new aircraft and will be retrofitted into older planes, Boeing and the Navy said.

“The U.S. Navy has identified a pylon fitting in the wing of the F/A-18 E and F model Super Hornet where fatigue could potentially shorten the wing’s expected service life and is implementing a corrective measure,” said Chuck Wagner, a spokesman with Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, Md. “The fitting is part of the lower wing spar and is used to reinforce the area where stores attach to the wing. The potential problem was identified through an engineering analysis in 2003 and subsequent testing in 2005, which are part of our routine risk-mitigation processes for the aircraft’s development. The Navy and Boeing worked together, a fully-funded project is underway, and today every aircraft coming off the production line is being delivered with the solution that corrects for the potential future fatigue. A retrofit solution on those aircraft already in the fleet is planned for 2009 and will correct the identified wing area prior to those aircraft reaching the flight-hour threshold in which fatigue could potentially be experienced. The Navy is confident it has selected the optimal proactive response which in no way compromises the readiness or performance of the aircraft’s mission.”

Asked whether the situation affected new EA-18G Growler electronic countermeasures aircraft — which are all converted on the production line from two-seat F models — Wagner said the problem did “not influence them at all, because the solution is already incorporated into aircraft coming off the production line. The solutions were incorporated before the first G was delivered.”

Fixes and modifications to aircraft in series production are not unusual, Frost said. “They’re part of the normal life of an aircraft,” she said. “If something comes up you go out and fix it in a timely fashion before it becomes a serious issue.”

LowObservable

18th May 2007, 16:30

The Globe story appears somewhat overblown. Right, there are some aircraft that have chronic primary structure problems that can't be fixed cheaply, but this doesn't seem to be one of them. And the "sources" for the intrepid reporter include regular rent-a-quotes and someone who has been on an anti-fighter crusade for years.

jwcook

18th May 2007, 22:12

I just thought it was somewhat ironic.. the SH is the low risk option according the the Australian government.

GreenKnight121

18th May 2007, 23:46

Well, it is an in-service, combat-proven aircraft, and this problem is the type of thing that often cannot be found until after the aircraft has been in use long enough for such defects to start to show.

An aircraft that has been only in limited use (F-22, Typhoon) probably has some of these "glitches" still undetected... waiting for a few hundred more flight-hours on the airframes before they appear.

Basically unflown aircraft (F-35) are even more likely to have these hidden flaws.

Therefore, the F/A-18E/F really is a lower-risk option.

jwcook

6th Aug 2007, 05:09

http://www.theage.com.au/news/investigations/probe-likely-into-defences-super-hornet-purchase/2007/08/05/1186252546263.html
THE HOWARD Government's controversial decision to go against the advice of Australia's air force chiefs and buy 24 Super Hornet fighter jets is likely to be investigated by the Commonwealth Auditor-General.
Ian McPhee said he would consider examining the circumstances surrounding Defence Minister Brendan Nelson's decision to spend $6.6 billion on the Super Hornets. If he did investigate, it would be in the 2008-09 financial year.
In response to a request for an investigation from Opposition defence spokesman Joel Fitzgibbon, Mr McPhee said the Super Hornets were a major defence aquisition. If an investigation were held, it would focus on governance issues related to the decision to buy the jets.
Last November, Dr Nelson stunned RAAF chiefs when he told cabinet's National Security Committee that Australia needed to buy an interim fighter to ensure a "capability gap" did not emerge between the 2010 retirement of the F-111 fighter bomber and the 2013 arrival of the Joint Strike Fighter from the US.
Just weeks earlier, the nation's two most senior air chiefs said an interim aircraft such as the F/A-18 Super Hornet was not necessary.
Adding to the controversy was Dr Nelson's decision not to follow the Government's rigorous procurement protocols for large defence purchases.
Hmmmmm... :}
cheers

antipodean alligator

6th Aug 2007, 11:58

Dr Kopp and the Goon show have proof that we've jumped onto the wrong bandwagon....Surely if Dr Nelson had seen this video late last year we'd have signed up for Su-35! ;)
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-060807-1.html

jwcook

6th Aug 2007, 23:45

Re the Carlo Goon show -
Listen very carefully I shall say this only once :- LOL its like reading the script from "ello ello":}

After reading this I didn't feel less secure in Australia.. just hungry!!

Cheers

L J R

7th Aug 2007, 14:42

Just checking my calendar, No, it is not April 1....

Chronic Snoozer

8th Aug 2007, 06:50

Not that the boys at 3/77/75 would be complaining, but it does seem that there is quite a difference between the attitude of the 'RAAF chiefs' and the Defence Minister.

This is nothing unusual, but to spend $6.6bill after 'Dr Nelson was subject to a strong sales pitch from defence contractor Boeing', without following procurement protocols is questionable. Not without precedent undoubtedly, but questionable all the same.

Anyone on the inside got the scoop?

ORAC

16th Aug 2007, 08:44

DID updates (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/australian-air-power-controversy-f35-and-super-hornets-under-fire-03065/) on the SH purchase...

Aug 9/07: Australian Senator John Faulkner rises to make a speech that highlights the minister – department relationship, and the decision process behind Australia's Super Hornet purchase. He says:

"Evidence provided during Senate Estimates Hearings in February this year confirmed that there had been no specific Defence recommendation to the Minister on the Super Hornets – so without doubt, both the CDF and the then Secretary to the Department of Defence Mr Rick Smith, must have been stunned at the Minster's actions at that NSC meeting.

There is much we do not know about what happened at that strange meeting, but it was clearly a remarkable – possibly unique – occasion. The NSC decided to buy a new fighter without advice from Defence or the RAAF. I have been told by very reliable sources that neither the Secretary nor CDF even knew the issue was on the agenda, let alone what their Minister was going to propose…"

Aug 6/07: Australia's The Age newspaper reports that the Auditor General may investigate the F/A-18F purchase decision. From "Probe likely into Defence's Super Hornet purchase (http://www.theage.com.au/news/investigations/probe-likely-into-defences-super-hornet-)":

"Ian McPhee said he would consider examining the circumstances surrounding Defence Minister Brendan Nelson's decision to spend $6.6 billion on the Super Hornets. If he did investigate, it would be in the 2008-09 financial year. In response to a request for an investigation from Opposition defence spokesman Joel Fitzgibbon, Mr McPhee said the Super Hornets were a major defence aquisition. If an investigation were held, it would focus on governance issues related to the decision to buy the jets."

jwcook

1st Jan 2008, 09:10

Well I'm really glad that the the new Australian government is going to look at this as mentioned by myself and others in this thread, that the SH deal looked very different to a well thought out planned purchase.:hmm:

Mr Fitzgibbon had promised to honour the $6.6billion Super Hornet contract for 24 planes but said last week few of the previous government's decisions were as controversial as its decision to buy them "without proper due process or capability justification".

Source http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/articles/1154045.html

I still think this story has legs.. it will keep on running.

jwcook

13th Jan 2008, 00:11

More news.. I wonder who would be suitable for the review??, anyone what to put their hand up?

The Canberra Times
12 January 2008 - 9:56AM
Fresh eyes needed for jet purchase review
David McLennan

An independent expert with no involvement in past decisions ought to conduct the Government's review of Australia's future air combat capability, a leading defence lobby group said yesterday.New Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon's review is expected to focus on whether the still-in-development Joint Strike Fighter is the right option as the long-term replacement for Australia's aging F-111s and F/A-18s and whether Australia needs 24 Super Hornets, ordered for $6.6 billion by the last government, as a stop-gap option in case the Joint Strike Fighter or F-35 Lightning II is running late.
Australian Strategic Policy Institute analyst Andrew Davies said that even with "the best will in the world" it was difficult for people involved in past decisions to "step back and start afresh".
"For that reason and to provide a measure of protection against the inevitable furious lobbying that will follow the release of any report the review should be headed up by a well-credentialled independent analyst with experience in the aerospace industry," he said.

Not Carlo PLEASE!!!:eek:

The review's first priority was to consider what the air force was expected to do and in what circumstances before looking at the details of each plane.
"At the lower end, the RAAF might be called upon to neutralise the threat from a handful of aircraft operated by a regional air force without the assistance of an Airborne Warning and Control System or air-to-air refuelling," he said.
"At the upper end, operations against a major regional power in the next decade could be opposed by hundreds of capable aircraft backed by AWACS and an integrated air defence system."

The Government would need to decide which threat scenarios were credible and how much it wanted to spend on the capability. If the review reconsidered the F-35 purchase, the new minister ought to formally ask the United States whether it would sell Australia its F-22 Raptor aircraft which is banned for export to determine definitively whether it is an option instead of the F-35.
Many experts say the F-22 is a better aircraft for Australia's needs, although it is more expensive and detractors say it does not have the strike capabilities of the F-35.
Other options include the F-15 Eagle, Dassault Rafael, Eurofighter Typhoon and Saab Gripen.

Australia is expected to make a decision on final approval of the project late this year, but Dr Davies said there would be "little downside of deferring that decision until later".

How long can Australia wait?...

However, a decision needed to be made sooner on whether the Super Hornet order should be cancelled because the cost of such a decision would increase with time.
"As a matter of priority, the review should examine hard data on relative performance much of which is not public and decide whether the Super Hornet is a viable bridging capability that will allow time to develop a long-term solution," he said.
Mr Fitzgibbon has been highly critical of the process behind the Super Hornet purchase.
Critics have said it is not advanced enough to combat more modern aircraft in the region, such as the Russian-made Sukhoi Su-30 Flankers.

Cheers