RAAF Orders 24 Super Hornets?

[Gnadenburg]

Bit of excitement in the press- will try and find the link. In an about face on the interim fighter policy, reports that government negotiating a 24 aircraft Super Hornet buy.

Makes sense. Shame the F22 wasn't available in those numbers. If you have the biggest mouth in Asia, you need some reasonable air capability.

[Gnadenburg]

Defence spending 'a mess'
December 15, 2006

LABOR has labelled Australia's defence acquisition program a mess, as the Government considers spending $2 billion on aircraft as a stop-gap measure while it waits for the new, high-tech joint strike fighter (JSF).

Australia may buy a squadron of 24 F-18F Super Hornet fighter jets as back-up amid growing concerns over delays in the delivery of the JSF.
Fairfax newspapers reported that Defence Minister Brendan Nelson had confirmed that the Government was in discussions with the US government for the purchase of the Super Hornets.

The aircraft are likely to cost about $90 million each.

The move is an apparent about-face for the government, which has repeatedly said there would be no need for a stop-gap to fill the hole between the phase-out of the RAAF's fleet of aging F/A-18 Hornets and F-111s and the introduction of the JSF.

Labor Leader Kevin Rudd said today that while he had not seen the report, the Government's defence acquisition program was "a mess".

"It is full of waste and inefficiency. It's a massive defence budget we have got and it's a budget that has been badly spent on so many projects."
Mr Rudd said Labor would hold the government accountable on waste and mismanagement in defence.

The possible purchase of Super Hornets comes amid fears that countries in the region are buying new Russian aircraft considered far superior to Australia's F/A-18s and F-111s.

Australia's F-111s have been flown for 40 years and are likely to be grounded after 2012, but the first JSF is not due to be delivered to Australia until 2013.

In Washington this week to sign a memorandum of understanding of Australia's commitment to the JSF, Dr Nelson signalled the Government still intended to buy up to 100 JSFs at a total cost of about $16 billion.

But Dr Nelson said he would not leave Australia with a fighter aircraft capability gap.

"We remain 100 per cent committed to the JSF," Dr Nelson told Fairfax.

"But I am not prepared to take the risk of allowing a capability gap to occur."

Plans call for the Super Hornet to be delivered in 2010, though the first planes might arrive in 2008.

The deputy chief of the air force, Air Vice Marshal John Blackburn, all but ruled out the need for a stop-gap jet in October.

"We are confident that, with the program as it is currently progressing, we shouldn't need an interim solution," he said.

"However, as with most things in defence we are looking at contingency plans ... However I don't think there is any likelihood of that having to be before us and we have full confidence of the program delivering the JSF on time," he said.

[ScottyDoo]

You reckon there're gonna go to the green machine do you, PAF?

Is this because AJs are training on the Hawk at the moment (according to the other thread)? I thought the Hawk training was just to get them thinking fast enough to operate the advanced technology on the ARH....

Army fast jets??? Would be a world first (I think)....

[ScottyDoo]

I think I know the purchase you're talking about but spoke to a few people and no tender process has been heard of or funds appropriated.

Bit harder to sneak in a completely new a/c type than it is with a new gatt or helmet or some such item.

Actually having re-read your post I think you're talking about tac fixed wing transport?? Sounds like TWO more new types for the army, then. In the rumour mill, at least, if not reality.

[roamingwolf]

I have to laugh about KR's comments about defence budget and the mess ...was it not Labour that ordered the collins class sub

[Captain Sand Dune]

The same Labour party that ruthlessly screwed Defence during its years in office:mad:

[griffinblack]

Army fast jets??? Would be a world first (I think)....

Army are definitely not going down that line – that is most assuredly RAAF core business.

Army are looking at purchasing more CH47 in the very near future. The only discussion is what model D or F.

.. and to put Tiger in perspective.. it's supposed to be a recon chopper. Army just managed to get an Attack chopper through the process.

Recon and Attack are not mutually exclusive. Army Aviation had all sorts of problems convincing army that it was not getting too big for its boots. This culture is changing and making decisions along Corps lines are no longer the issue it was. RAAF was also opposed to army having the ability to deliver (meaningful) ordinance from the air (as opposed to the Hueys).

It's just more Army empire building at work..

No – It’s a capability gap. I assure you army would rather not expand more than already planned at the moment – they are very stretched. If RAAF give away their tactical air lift (re the ‘Bou) can the capability be filled by CH47 alone? How many? Or do army need to go out on their own and purchase a FW tactical lift aircraft?

As to the Super Hornet purchase – sounds like insurance.

[Flight Detent]

Captain Sand Dune....

Just continuing your thread for a moment..

remember in 1975 when Labour changed DFRB into DFRDB after ran off with the entire DFRB Pension Fund, without so much as a 'thank you'.

Cheers, (well almost), FD :mad:

[Gnadenburg]

Anyone know why the RAAF cancelled it's Cobra gunship order in the 70's?

They got as far as an A16 designation etc. Was it the inter-service rivalry?

Seemed like a more valid capability to have than much of what the RAAF has maintained for the last 30 years.

But if having an attack helicopter capability, meant losing the Roulettes, RAAF Balloon, RAAF Big Band etc- then I'm glad we put parades ahead of killing people! :\

[oldpinger]

What's that sound???

yes, it's half the ADF crewrooms across the country saying "told you so!" :ugh:

['aveagoodknight]

A16 designator...


Mmmm! Lockheed Hudsons...

[Gnadenburg]

A16 designator...


Mmmm! Lockheed Hudsons...


A16 was a pre-1961 series ( and you are correct it was allocated to the venerable Hudson ).

The RAAF ordered 12 Cobra gunships in the 70's, designated A16, but cancelled them. Probably due some of the inter-service rivalry you see at play here.

[Gnadenburg]

From this week's Flight International. Doesn't seem as though Nelson has the same faith in JSF as the RAAF leadership does





Australia eyes Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornet squadron as JSF stopgap
By Graham Warwick

Defence minister confirms interest in F/A-18Fs to replace F-111s F-35 will be too late

Australia has asked the US Navy for price and availability data on 24 Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornets to replace its General Dynamics F-111s from as early as 2010.
The green light for further discussions with the USN was given at the November cabinet national security committee meeting that also approved Australia's participation in the next phase of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme.



Canberra has requested pricing for 24 Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornets from the US Navy

Defence minister Brendan Nelson's office confirms that Australia has asked the USN for data on the purchase or lease of one squadron of two-seat Block 2 Super Hornets, because its JSFs will be delivered from 2014 - too late to replace the F-111s, which are to be retired between 2010 and 2012. Only the F/A-18F is being considered for the stopgap requirement.

The minister's office says Australia is looking for early delivery of aircraft from Boeing's current production line in St Louis, Missouri. This would mean the navy giving up delivery slots, as the US Air Force did to enable expedited delivery of Boeing C-17 transports to Australia.
The office says a decision on whether to proceed with the Super Hornet deal is expected early next year. This could coincide with finalisation of the 2007-8 budget in February.

Nelson signed the JSF production, sustainment and follow-on development memorandum of understanding in Washington DC in mid-December, along with Canada, the Netherlands, Turkey and the UK. Australia has a requirement for 100 new fighters, but it has not been decided whether any Super Hornet acquisition will reduce the number of F-35s purchased. The minister's office says the F/A-18Fs are required to avoid a capability gap, and could eventually be replaced by F-35s if Australia buys the full complement of four squadrons.
The Royal Australian Air Force already operates F-18A/Bs, which are being upgraded, and would be the first international customer for the F/A-18E/F, although Malaysia has been discussing the purchase of Super Hornets for several year.

The USN, meanwhile, is believed to be close to announcing that it needs up to 200 more Super Hornets to fill a fighter shortfall caused by delays to the JSF programme.

[control snatch]

Hmmm very interesting.

Pity the F-15E is not being considered.

Guess they will be based out of 6 Sqn HQ???

Training overheads?

Bunch of F-111 guys to convert over?

Any scope for present hornet dudes to roll in.:E

[Gnadenburg]

Price has blown out already according to the Murdoch press- now a 3 billion dollar defence stuff up? ;)


$3bn for Super Hornet fighters

By Patrick Walters
December 20, 2006 02:00am
Article from: The Australian

DEFENCE Minister Brendan Nelson intends to ram through a $3 billion purchase of 24 F/A-18F Super Hornet aircraft, amid concerns Australia may lack a fully deployable air combat capability early next decade.

Dr Nelson has accelerated plans to buy the upgraded Hornets through a US Defence Department purchase from the US navy.

His swift action came as a surprise to senior defence officials on Russell Hill.

The decision to buy an expensive interim fighter will generate a major rethink of the 2006-16 defence capability plan, with the prospect of a cut in the 100-strong Joint Strike Fighter fleet planned for the RAAF.

Senior defence sources said Dr Nelson wanted to run no risk of an air combat capability gap, with the F-111 strike force due to retire in 2010.

A key concern is that the Joint Strike Fighter, destined to become the RAAF's new frontline combat aircraft, may be subject to congressional budget cuts, leading to production delays.

On current plans, the first JSF squadron will enter operational service in Australia in 2014-15.

Acquiring a full squadron of Super Hornets from 2009-10 will enable the RAAF to retire its 22 operational F-111s in 2010 without the need for a further costly extension of their service life. It would also mean the air force could reduce to 42 the number of aircraft taking part in the full $1.5 billion Hornet upgrade program.

A decision on an interim fighter solution was expected early in 2007, but Dr Nelson chose to go public with the Super Hornet plan during his visit to the US last week.

The F/A-18F has been in service with the US navy since 1998 and has recently seen service in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Dr Nelson decided to opt for the Super Hornet without a detailed study of alternative aircraft types such as the US air force's F-15 Eagle or the European Typhoon. The Super Hornet offers some commonalities with the Australian air force's existing Hornet fleet and a relatively easy conversion for air crew, air force sources say.

Andrew Davies of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute said the planned purchase raised serious cost and capability issues. "Its another fourth-generation aircraft. It's not the quantum lift that JSF gives you," Dr Davies said.

"Either something will have to give way in the defence capability plan, or the Government will have to supplement the defence budget."

[Gnadenburg]

qfcainer why is australia going down the path of a single engined fighter jet again after the lessons learned with mirages. it obviously isn't a huge air force and when one of the engines go out on the jsf, its a hull loss more often then not, something us not being american, we can't really afford.do the big wigs not think it is a better idea to go for an all f18e/f fleet or a f18e/f fleet with a few f22's mixed in?

Jet engines are more reliable these days. And I imagine knuckleheads are more precious than ever, and like to drop their bombs from the flight levels, negating the insurance policy of a second engine over a battlefield.

24 Phantoms, 24 F111's & now 24 Super Hornets. 24 is a magic number for the RAAF. Why were 24 F22's never seriously debated as an F111 replacement? 24 F22's & 48 JSF's would make for the most capable air force in the region for the next 30 years!

Although the F111 & F22 are poles apart in roles & capability. In terms of raw deterrence in Asia, the F22 is the aircraft that would do what the F111's did in the 70's & 80's. No Asian air force would every want to have a skirmish with an F22 equiped RAAF. F111's destroyed air forces on the ground, F22 can do it in the air -aswell as having enough strike capability( coupled with upgraded F18's ) to see the RAAF through until JSF available.

The drawbacks of the F22 for the RAAF - the one billion US dollars Australia would have to spend to make the aircraft suitable for export.

And secondly, the F22 too capable for any potential regional adversary to structure itself around- for example, Indonesia would probably move toward asymmetric capabilites, to negate any future air campaign Australia could wage against it's interests ( much the way Iran & Syria invested in Hezbollah in countering Israel's air dominance ).

Perhaps, Defence planners see merit in, granting Indonesia some delusional 'face', in investing vast amounts of money in unarmed and hard to maintain Russian fighters, as opposed to an army structure airpower could not negate.

[Buster Hyman]

Well, how common are the different Hornet versions? Is it that much to preclude the F15E?

As for training/conversion, if the F111 crews are to be used, does it really matter the aircraft type? It'll be new to them either way. If they convert current Hornet crews, well the F111 chaps will still need to learn the old Hornet....

:confused:

[Gnadenburg]

Buster

The Americans are still making the Super Hornet for themselves in large numbers. The F15E line is probably just idling along for the Singaporians & Koreans. It is probably too late and too expensive to order the F15E.

This sounds as though Nelson is panicked by what could develop and has overrided the RAAF Brass. Who only a few months ago, denied a requirment for an interim jet. The Super Hornet is probably available very soon. If a C17 like deal can be struck.

Some press reports the aircraft going to Tindal & Amberley. It won't be like the F4E arrangement. Where the aircraft was used in a limited capacity as a bomber until the F111 arrived.The Super Hornet is to bridge the startling obvious capability gap between F111 retirement and F35 IOC.

A fair old cock up. But well done to goverment for not being blinded by JSF pie in the sky.

[ScottyDoo]

The drawbacks of the F22 for the RAAF - the one billion US dollars Australia would have to spend to make the aircraft suitable for export.

They found a billion dollars to give away, pretty easily after the tsunami a couple of years ago.

Perhaps, Defence planners see merit in, granting Indonesia some delusional 'face', in investing vast amounts of money in unarmed and hard to maintain Russian fighters, as opposed to an army structure airpower could not negate.

What are you talking about, can't make sense of it with your weird grammar and punctuation. Sorry.... :rolleyes:

[Gnadenburg]

Listen ScoobyDoo. I like long sentences-so go easy on the grammar.....


The point I was making regarding Indonesia, is if they continue to focus a considerable amount of their defence budget on capital equipment that they can not arm, operate or maintain. This is a passive victory for defence planners in Australia.

If Australia was equipped with the F22, the Indonesian Air Force is virtually doomed to eternal obsolescence. With a view to their budget and access to technology.

A RAAF with the F22, and say later the F35, becomes the undisputable dominant air force of the region. Indonesia will probably learn the lessons of Hezbollah, in countering and exploiting the limitations of airpower. An airpower savvy, mobile and well equipped Indonesian army, would not be in our best interests- nor would a few other unnamed countries in the region.

Drawing a long bow? Well we are a country who deliberately didn't operate tankers with F111. And avoided at all costs, the introduction of cruise missiles in the region. I don't think we ever worried about offending the Indon's by not introducing these capabilites. More a policy of not having them structure their defences in countering their vulnerability to airpower.

So, just a thought. F22 has been avoided not because of it's prohibitive price, but because it could create a paradox. Forcing potential regional adversaries to concede their vulnerability to airpower, and restructure and address it.

While Indonesia spends billions on unarmed Flankers, or submarines that are used for cocktail parties, or surveillance aircraft used for moving loot for generals around the archipelago, there is little to worry about.

However, if the Indonesians concede the loss of face in the air, and invest in asymmetric capabilities, this is much more difficult a prospect for defence planning.

[maralinga]

[QUOTE=ScottyDoo;3029051]They found a billion dollars to give away, pretty easily after the tsunami a couple of years ago.

Perhaps it saved us many more times this number in defence spending? ;)

[Whizzwheel]

Gnadebrg - wow, some big, and pretty bloody interesting thoughts there - nice work.

F/A-18A to F/A-18 E/F conversion? 4 hours. Half spent practicing saying," mate, stop touching my sh*t. I'll tell you when I want you to press the buttons" to the pax.:}

3...2...1 aaaaand bite!!!;)

[control snatch]

SJM111: No need to get defensive dude. I was just prompting speculation about the training requirements required to convert two squadrons of dudes over. I was implying nothing about the relative merits of pilots from either wing.

Its not a pissing match dude. We can turn it into one if you like though....

In the USN i believe the conversion from the classic to the super is 5 hours on type and an IRT.

[luvmuhud]

Control Snatch,
With a "Dude per Sentence" rate of 50% in your last post, you sound like a septic!!!!

Don't be too harsh on SJM111 - deep down, they all know we're better than they are!! (I've got the reel ratchet on, just in case I'm snoozing when the bait is taken!!).

[wessex19]

I thought the Indonesians swapped palm oil for "Weapons Platforms" with Russia!!

[Gnadenburg]

I thought the Indonesians swapped palm oil for "Weapons Platforms" with Russia!!


The Thais have tried chickens for Flankers with the Russians ( pre & post bird flu ). They'd have had more luck with ladyboys IMHO.

[Buster Hyman]

If only they could hook up a "ping-pong" ball delivery system to an underwing pylon on those Flankers! My word, what a weapon!!!!:eek:

[Captain Sand Dune]

oooooohhh.......you are awful!:E :E

[Point0Five]

Be careful, you might lose an eye :}

[Gnadenburg]

Yes. One of the finest feats of marksmanship I have ever witnessed, was in Bangkok. This young lass, beat all of us in darts, and we were throwing them....... :eek:

And only one of her darts went off the side of the boot- so to speak.

[lowerlobe]

The problem with buying expensive and ultra sophisticated fighters is that in the end they are still limited to how many you have.If you have a technologically advanced fighter which can lock on and shoot down “X” number of enemy aircraft at once it is great for the academic argument.However what happens when the enemy has more than “X” number of aircraft it can put into the fight at the one time.

You might have a superior fighter but they might have more “cannon fodder” aircraft they are willing to sacrifice to achieve victory.

We should be looking at aircraft that we can afford to buy a larger number of rather than a few ultra capable weapon platforms that are so expensive we can only afford a handful.

[luvmuhud]

Lowerlobe:
You can either get a small number of fighters that are capable of shooting down 'x' number of aircraft, or a large number which, due to their limited capability, are also only capable of shooting down the same 'x' number.
Also, the RAAF will struggle to fully man the number of JSFs they are proposing anyway............we've always found it hard to maintain the required manning in the squadrons, and that trend will certainly continue with JSF.
Apart from the standard retention issues, there are recruiting problems - believe it or not, it's hard to recruit the quality and numbers required. There seems to be less kids knocking down the doors who are willing to sign on for the RAAF package (almost 15 years service, below par pay and conditions etc)
lmh

[lowerlobe]

luvmuhud,
I understand what you are saying about actual numbers of people in the armed services but my main point was that if you have an sophisticated weapons platform that we have 22 of and they are capable of knocking down 250 enemy fighters and the opposition puts up 350 fighters we lose.

If they have a cheaper and less sophisticated fighter but have more of them that we can shoot down then all the money we have spent is in vain.

If the we keep developing more and more sophisticated and complex systems that are by their very nature more expensive then by the year 2050 or whatever we will have an airforce consisting of 10 fighters.

I think during one of the many middle eastern conflicts involving Israel the average life expectancy of a fighter was such that our entire RAAF would be lost in less than one day.

[Buster Hyman]

At the outbreak of WW2, the Germans most definately had the edge in technology but the sheer weight of Allied numbers eventually won through. Notwithstanding the quality of equipment such as the Spitfire, Hurricane & P51...to name a few. If the Germans had the Me262 in greater numbers & designed for fighting, not bombing, one can only wonder what affect it would've had on the outcome.

Of course, it wasn't just limited to airpower. The sheer weight of numbers in the infantry also had an effect on their war effort.

I agree with your point Lowerlobe but, how many millions of Wirraways & Boomerangs would we have needed to beat those Zero's???;)

[luvmuhud]

lowerlobe,
Your logic is correct, however, the Government doesn't go shopping for fighters with a certain amount of money in it's wallet, and then trade off numbers for quality.
The numbers of fighters required (for a myriad of scenarios) is carefully analysed, and Defence will look at the various capabilities out there and make a case for each one, with a recommendation. It wouldn't matter if we were buying JSF, F-15E or Rafael - the numbers we'd end up with would be fairly similar to provide Defence with the required flexibility and capability to carry out the possible forecast operations. We are lucky that in the present environment, the Government generally takes Defence's advice on the best capability and writes the check for it. (Obviously the Government has to be satisfied we're getting value for money).

If we bought 300 fighters, it wouldn't make any difference - we'd still only fly the same number due to personnel numbers. I guess you could make a case for war stocks, but I think you'd be drawing a pretty long bow in trying to convince Government that we need to account for the mass attrition of fighters in a protracted air war!

[lowerlobe]

Buster and luvmuhud,
I agree with both of you but I didn't mean to buy 300 fighters especially poor ones at that.

All I meant was that maybe we should look at a cheaper alternative so that we can buy more if the need arises as you pointed out with normal attrition for example or accident repacement .

Buster I know what you mean with how many Wirraways we would have needed but there should be a compromise between numbers and most advanced.

I just get the feeling now and again that little Johhny is buying the best things from his favourite shop becasue his uncle George owns it.

[Gnadenburg]

Quality vesus Quantity?

A small air force like Australia's should opt the quality option. And it traditionally has. 24 F111's for example.

In terms of numbers, Defence is running with a concurrent operations concept for the RAAF. The ability to deploy and contribute to a number of air campaigns simultaneously- say fighting on the Korean Peninsula and contributing to a coalition effort in the Middle East. This is the thinking behind a 100 aircraft fleet of fifth generation fighters.

This seems more a misguided foreign policy, than a realistic force structure for Australia. How do you crew a one hundred fighter fleet? Maintenance? Munition war stocks? Tankers?

The Arab-Israeli wars was raised as an argument for large numbers of fighters. The most relevant lesson of those wars for the RAAF, were the instances of very high Israeli attrition ( despite having American equipment and veteran pilots ) due inadequete electronic self-protection. A modern air campaign ( and ground war ) was almost lost within days, before the Americans could fly in the neccessary gear.

[Buster Hyman]

It seems we are in heated agreement!;) I guess we could always but Flankers at the equivalent price & end up with, perhaps, double the fleet & double the manning issues. At least then we'd know it would be sheer airmanship that would see them through!;););)

Anyway, a safe & happy Christmas all!:ok:

[wessex19]

the following clip although not super hornets is still impressive!!! A re-jigged version from an old A-4 clip. Enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUDPjsvjRkA

[Gnadenburg]

As for how do you crew 100 fighters?? Are you really suggesting we cannot crew 100 fighters in a country of 20+ million people?

No I wasn't. It is well within Australia's means to provide quality aircrew for a 100+ JSF fleet. Western European nations with half our populace, have maintained similar with the F16.

My point was that the 100 JSF fleet seems to be a folly. Crewing issues- both air & ground- was one factor of a Defence Force facing personnel and financial resource constraints.

Does anyone seriously believe the following will occur for the RAAF politically? In 2010, the F111 retires. The RAAF operational Hornet fleet will be between 30 and 40 aicraft. Until 2015+ this small, tired fleet will have all bombing and air fighting responsibilities- why no missile on the P3 BTW?

If lucky, JSF will be in numbers of around 50 toward 2018. So between now & 2018 the RAAF is nowhere near a 100 number fleet of fighters.

But government and the brass have us believe the RAAF will ramp up in 12 years time toward a 100 aircraft fleet! Doubling numbers, crews, flying hours etc. Based on what threat assessment or budget?

It's Pie in the Sky!

I don't understand why we don't have a more compact structure for the RAAF. Two aircraft, overlapping roles to avoid the capability gap of 2010. Smaller numbers, but with all the add ons to go to war with.

A small purchase of F22's now. And JSF; when it's evolved and mature enough to replace the F18. Say 24 F22's & 40 JSF's.

Nobody in Asia is going to want to fight a RAAF equiped as such. So deterrence, waivers a requirement for a concurrent campaign capability.

And if we want to play expeditionary Crusaders with America. Those numbers are sufficient to provide the traditional RAAF contribution since 1950's Korea- never more than a squadron.

[pkd1]

Found this - interesting... looks like things are progressing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Hornet

[Gnadenburg]

Wikpedia as good as pprune for a wind up.


Defence sources[citation needed] have revealed that the F/A-18F will be crewed along the 'two-pilot' Royal Malaysian Air Force model. Newly graduated fighter aircrew will spend 12-18 months as rear-seat co-pilots, gaining experience and systems knowledge, before being posted to a single-seat squadron and eventually returning to the Super Hornet as a captain. This policy will provide training and operational efficiencies and allow for the seamless transition of former F-111 pilots to the new role.[citation needed]

There must be a fair and equitable redundancy package for F111 navigators. 80% of those backseats should be theirs!

[Going Boeing]

(August 23, 2007) -- An important milestone has been achieved with the recent completion of the first centre barrel replacement for Australia's F/A- 18 Hornets.

The centre barrel replacement program will allow the life of the Australian Hornet fleet to be extended to 2018 and potentially beyond.

The F/A -18 Hornet is a key element of the air combat capability employed in the defence of Australia. Other users of the Hornet; such as Canada and the United States Navy, are undertaking similar programs for their Hornet fleets.

The centre barrel is the major structural element of the aircraft to which the wings and main undercarriage are attached. The centre barrel is susceptible to structural fatigue from wing and main undercarriage mechanical loads.

The prototype aircraft was disassembled in Australia and shipped to Canada where the centre barrel was successfully replaced. The initial low rate production of nine aircraft will continue in Canada following the successful prototype.

The prototype aircraft has been returned to Australia for reassembly by the Hornet Industry Coalition at RAAF Base Williamtown, near Newcastle.

Full rate production is planned for up to 39 aircraft in Australia once the Hornet industry Coalition has developed a mature supply pipeline and industrial capacity, and has recruited and trained additional skilled workforce.

The prototyping activity demonstrated the complexity of the centre barrel work, with up to 25,000 replacement spare parts required for each centre barrel replacement. This has emphasised the need for a specialised workforce, facilities and equipment.

Disassembly and reassembly work will continue at Williamtown. Importantly, the requirement to conduct additional aircraft work in Canada has no impact on the current Australian workforce.

The centre barrel replacement will ensure the Hornets continue to perform at their peak until withdrawal from service.



Source : DoD Australia

[scran]

How did we decide on "about" 100 F-35's?


Easy - 75 Hornets plus 24 F-111's = :eek::eek::eek:

[Going Boeing]

(Washington, October 4, 2007) -- The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Australia of weapons for 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 $617 million.

The Government of Australia has requested a possible sale of 43 AIM-9X SIDEWINDER Missiles, 50 AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapons (JSOW), 18 AN/ASQ-228 (V2) Advanced Targeting Forward-Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) Pods, 24 AN/ALQ-214 Radio Frequency Countermeasures, 90 Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems (JHMCS), 32 AN/PVS-9 Night Vision Goggles (NVG), 16 Multifunctional Information Distribution System-Low Volume Terminals (MIDS-LVT), system integration and testing, software development/ integration, test sets and support equipment, spare and repair parts, publications and technical documents, U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $617 million.

Australia is an important ally in the Western Pacific. The strategic location of this political and economic power contributes significantly to ensuring peace and economic stability in the region. Australia's efforts in peacekeeping and humanitarian operations have made a significant impact to regional political and economic stability and have served U.S. national security interests. This proposed sale is consistent with those objectives and facilitates burden sharing with our allies.

Australia recently purchased 24 F/A-18E/F aircraft, notified to Congress under Section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act on 6 February 2007. These weapons systems will be integrated on Australia's F/A-18E/F aircraft. The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

Source : US Defense Security Cooperation Agency

[empacher48]

I wish we had some fast jets over this side of the Tasman (well we do, but they're still in storage!). :confused:

The only chance we get to see them, is when you guys come over here to fly around our mountains and glaciers, dodging us guys in GA 8s, Porters and squirrels.. We know that you just want to do a scenic flight at 400knots plus, at the tax payers expense.

I do miss the sheer terror of hearing fast jets heading into the local live firing zone, drop their weapons, dodge us guys in our aerodrome circuit, and bug out.

It doesn't matter what you guys get over there, Super hornets would be pretty cool, and the new JSF would be great to watch too.. As I say, I wish we had some over here. :{

[Buster Hyman]

That report doesn't mention how many steak knives we're getting GB....:confused:

[ozbiggles]

last I heard and continue to hear is
THE USA WILL NOT BE GIVING ANYONE F22s
LET IT GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you want to play with the big boy in their networked war its the JSF.Like it or not, you cant have the F1 model in the V8 class.

[Going Boeing]

Buster, I'm sure that there are "sweeteners" hidden in the deal somewhere.

I'm glad that they are buying the total package instead of just buying the aircraft and not having the capability to do anything with them.

[Gnadenburg]

ast I heard and continue to hear is
THE USA WILL NOT BE GIVING ANYONE F22s
LET IT GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you want to play with the big boy in their networked war its the JSF.Like it or not, you cant have the F1 model in the V8 class.

You have jumped in on the end of an old discussion. Almost 12 twelve months old in fact.

A lot can happen in twelve months. So winding forward and I reckon the RAAF will order another batch of Super Hornets- especially if Labor gets in. :)

[Flyingblind]

As you say Gnadenburg a lot can happen in 12 months, heard around the traps (sorry no link) that there are strong rumors that DOD are ordering another batch of SH.

As for the F22 in RAAF colours, well i guess it all comes down to a couple of questions;
a) why would we want it, what threat is there locally that demands such an exorbitantly priced response ?
b) what would a Democratic (US) President gain from selling it to us?
c) how the hell could we afford it in any meaningful numbers,
D) what would the neighbors think?......that they need to acquire more Flankers and whatever next 5th Gen fighter the Russians have up their sleeves and then blame us for the regions next arms race?

Interesting times.

[Going Boeing]

Boeing Awarded Singapore MoD Contract for Additional F-15SG Aircraft

(St. Louis, October 22, 2007) -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] today announced that the Singapore Ministry of Defence has exercised an option to purchase eight F-15SGs and has ordered four additional aircraft. The option is part of the original contract for 12 F-15SG aircraft announced by Singapore in 2005.

"We are proud that Singapore has chosen to acquire additional F-15SGs. The Strike Eagle is a combat-tested fighter with the most technologically advanced systems, and we are confident the F-15SG will meet the defense needs of Singapore," said Chris Chadwick, vice president and general manager, Global Strike Systems.

The Boeing F-15SG is a derivative of the U.S. Air Force F 15E Strike Eagle, the world's most capable long-range, multi-role fighter. It can simultaneously perform air-to-ground and air-to-air missions during day or night, in virtually any weather. It carries significant payload, reaches speeds in excess of Mach 2 and incorporates some of the most advanced military technologies. Integration and flight testing of the F-15SG will be performed at Boeing facilities in St. Louis and Palmdale, Calif., beginning in November.

Source : Boeing

[Gnadenburg]

Coincidence or a little "Chinese Face" that the Singaporians increased their F15 order to 24? Same-same but different numerically as the RAAF Super Hornet buy.

They have come a long way and with considerably less funds than the RAAF. The Israeli-US fusion in their equipment has given them a proven each way bet. Former Israeli military specialists ( including pilots ) on the books as consultant civilian contractors a novel way to buy corporate culture.

We introduced the F111 and they the F5E. 30 years later and respective capabilities coming to parity. :ugh:

[Jet_A_Knight]

4 Corners will be broadcasting their article on the process.


"FLYING BLIND" – 4 CORNERS MONDAY 29 OCTOBER

Next on Four Corners: Missing their sting…? Are the new $6.6 billion Super Hornet jet fighters up to the job of defending Australia?

"If you think about all the planes that are available as being puppies in a litter, the Super Hornet is the runt." – US aviation analyst James Stevenson

For more than 30 years Australia has rested its security on the seemingly ageless wings of its F-111 fighter fleet.

But in aviation circles these days there are doubts and rumblings. Some experts fear Australia is set to give away its crucial air superiority in the region.

The reason, they claim, is that decision-makers have made the wrong choices about the planes that will replace the F-111s.

Critics fix their sights on the US-made F/18-A Super Hornet. Australia is the only country outside the US to have bought the Super Hornet – 24 of them.

"I cannot believe that we would waste $6.6 billion of the taxpayers' money on an aeroplane that has no practical use against any modern new generation fighter coming into our arc of interest to our north," declares a former RAAF commander.

A growing squadron of critics - including a recent senior Defence insider who now breaks his silence to Four Corners - claim the still-to-be-delivered Super Hornets will be no match for the cheaper, faster, Russian-made Sukhoi fighters bought by Indonesia, Malaysia and China.

Four Corners traces the chain of multi-billion dollar aircraft deals that are beginning to spark concerns about the nation's future defence capability.

Andrew Fowler's report tells how in 2002 the world's top aircraft makers dug in for a long, exhaustive examination by Australian defence experts who were after a plane to take over from the F-111s. It would be worth it, the nine companies reckoned – after all, billions of dollars were up for grabs. But eight of them were reeling when it was suddenly announced that Australia would spend $16 billion buying up to 100 Joint Strike Fighters from America’s Lockheed Martin. The JSF existed only on paper at that time but was due to be delivered by 2014.

Fears soon emerged that the JSF could be late. Defence brass gave public assurances that the F-111s could be kept flying to cover any gap in air defence. But behind closed doors new doubts were being raised about the F-111s' longevity – and then the news was sprung that Australia would spend another $6.6 billion buying the Super Hornets to fill the gap.

Government officials and pilots who have flown the Super Hornet insist that the plane is being unfairly and dangerously underestimated. It’s stealthy and nimble, and any other plane that gets into a dogfight with it is in for "a very rude shock" says group captain Steve Roberton.

But these assurances carry little payload with specialists who say national security is being put at risk. Four Corners evaluates the process leading to these multi-billion dollar decisions. Will they leave Australia "Flying Blind"? Four Corners, 8.30 pm Monday 29 October.

This program will be repeated about 11.35 pm Tuesday 30 October; also on ABC2 at 9.30 pm Wednesday and 8 am Thursday.

Four Corners
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/

[BombsGone]

Would the specialists that are complaining be the same ones that have been side lined by the process? Seems that there has been a whole gravy train that has been sidelined by the rapid purchase of the C17 and Slightly improved hornet. Be interesting to see who the new "insider" is. Wonder if he has more credibility than Roberton who has actually flown the aircraft.

[Gnadenburg]

Without dismissing the potential threat of the Russian fighters. The Indon's didn't buy any bullets to go with their jets and one has to wonder what kind of package deal the Malaysians got- the Russians put a Shiekh in space as a kind of steak knives bonus deal. And the Chinese sent shivers down the spines of the Taiwanese recently; they expanded their command and control capability to co-ordinate a regiment of Flankers. They can now put together a squadron size fighter package.

[ozbiggles]

The usual brigade (and note there only a couple) of people who will appear on this show have about as much cred as former Prime ministers (and there is nothing sadder) coming out and saying what they would do now, when they did nothing of the sort when they were running the place.
None of theses OFs have any real idea of the capabilty of these aircraft then what they have read in a book, there knowledge includes the capabilites of the Matra(I'll have the check the spelling) missile and stuff they have heard in a mess after a few ales having last flown a jet 20 years ago.
They have another agenda, this is just there excuse. It will be a good show to watch however for a laugh.

[Flyingblind]

A show delivered to the masses concerning a subject that very few people have any a real insight to (me included), wonder why now?

I do believe however that questions should be asked about the reason why JSF was selected.

ABC really should have contacted me prior to choosing the name of the story though!

[ozbiggles]

To avoid wasting my beer by throwing it at the TV on Monday I've decided to have a little drinking game during it. Any advice (only helpful advice!!!!) will make the game even better.
The rules I have so far.
Any mention of the F111 staying beyond 2010.The Carlo Kopp memorial drink- single scull.
Any mention of buying Eurofighter - 1.
Any mention of buying F22 despite not being allowed too. The master warining no cred drink - 2.
ALP buying more than 1 F22 for the ADF. The Westralia, Kanimbla, Manoora, Seaspite drink 1 + 2 = 3, see above rule.
to avoid excess drinking, you may substitue milk!!!!

[Flyingblind]

What about any mention of our 'Northern neighbours engaging in an arms race' and their all buying 'the worlds most potent fighter' and we are buying a lemon.

2 (alcoholic) drinks.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Be interesting to see who the new "insider" is. Wonder if he has more credibility than Roberton who has actually flown the aircraft.

That'd be a hard stretch. Zed was my CO and is held very high in my esteem ratings. :ok:

I just hope people in the RAAF involved in the decision are allowed to bite back (no, not you CAF), instead of being told to bend over and take it up the ar$e by the Minister's office as usual. :ooh:

Should be a good laugh anyway!:hmm::hmm::hmm:

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

DEFENCE RESPONSE TO FOUR CORNERS

Defence rejects claims to be aired tonight by the Four Corners program that suggest Australia is conceding its crucial air superiority in the region by purchasing the F-18F Super Hornet.

Defence Spokesman Brigadier Andrew Nikolic said: “Defence rejects any assertion that our air superiority would be compromised. The Super Hornet is a true multi-role aircraft that spans the air combat spectrum, including maritime strike that is so vital for Australia.

“The acquisition of 24 Super Hornets will ensure Australia’s air combat superiority well into the future and will enable us to maintain our edge in all aspects of air combat as the Air Force goes through the transition from the F-111 and Hornet to JSF.”

Group Captain Steve Roberton, Head of the Defence Air Combat Transition Office, reinforced the capability edge offered by the Super Hornet.

As one of Australia's most experienced fighter pilots, he said: “If a Super Hornet was to meet a Su-30 in the next 5-8 years and I had to bet my life on the outcome, I'll sit in the Super Hornet F-18F cockpit every time. Any pilot who has flown the new Block II F-18F with AESA radar would do the same.

“The Super Hornet will test any modern air defence system. The airframe is designed for signature reduction and the aircraft is built around the most advanced radar in any non-fifth generation aircraft in the world.

“Its advanced radar, weapons and electronic warfare suite make it a superb dogfighting system and it can defeat an enemy’s ability to shoot before the Super Hornet,” Group Captain Robertson said.

Brigadier Nikolic reinforced the importance of a complete capability package to support any advanced fighter aircraft. He said: “Reliable, sustainable logistics support, the best training and a full air combat system of command and control is required to defeat modern threats. No other aircraft can meet this requirement and complement Australia’s existing air combat system better than the F-18F Super Hornet.”

At least they're letting Zed have a swing. :ok:I wonder if Cut...ummm, I mean, 4 Corners interviewed him to balance out Kopp and co?!?!? :hmm:

[Capn Bloggs]

Peter Chriss never was REAL fighter pilot! :}:E:D

[ozbiggles]

Wasn't he the one removed from his job?
2 drinks for him

[Roller Merlin]

ABC.net website:
Australia 'will lose air superiority' with new jet fighter

The Federal Government has been accused of putting Australia's defence at risk with the $7 billion purchase of the Super Hornet jet fighter to replace the ageing F111 aircraft.

Cabinet decided to buy 24 Super Hornets as a stopgap measure until the new Joint Strike Fighter is delivered in 2014.

Tonight's ABC Four Corners program has revealed that the decision to buy the Hornets was based on a critical mistake made during wing-tests on an F111 aircraft, that suggested they were unsafe.

Ex-Air Commander Peter Criss says the Super Hornets are no match for the new Russian Sukhoi fighters that the Indonesians and Chinese are buying.

"Contrary to the claims it's not a fifth generation fighter. It's not stealthy," he said.

"You can't have a stealthy aircraft when every bit of ordnance you have has to be carried externally.

"It's not fast. It can't carry a lot of weapons. It can't run. It's just vulnerable from the word go."

There are also claims that the temporary replacements to the F111s are substandard and will see Australia lose its air of superiority to the Indonesians, Malaysians and Chinese.

Defence Minister Brendan Nelson and Defence chief Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston both declined to record interviews for the Four Corners program.

But Group Captain Steve Roberton says the Super Hornet is better than some of its detractors make out.

"Very few aircraft are going to be able to get into a turning fight with this aircraft, they're not going to be able to get into that dog-fight zone," he said.

"But if they do, the ability of this aircraft to turn rapidly and use the world's most advanced multi-role radar and helmets to cue the latest US weapons, is going to give them a very rude shock."


The big question is why was the competitive acquisition process bypassed?
Defence did not ask for the F18F!!

Was it just that Brenden saw the powerpoint show and thought it was a good idea to blow $7 Bil before the budget surplus was sucked away by election promises at the end of the year?

[Spanner Turner]

At least someone had a test drive.


http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=48334 (http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=48334)


.

[Wiley]

"Very few aircraft are going to be able to get into a turning fight with this aircraft, they're not going to be able to get into that dog-fight zone," he said.What's the one common thread that links every high scoring fighter ace since WW1? The dictum "Never, never, never get yourself involved in a turning dogfight."

Even if the F18 jocks wanted to ignore this sage advice, they'll never get the chance to do so if the other side is equipped with a superior fighter with a long range missile.

[havick]

At least they are more or less buying off the shelf this time, unlike some of the other disasters lately that are still sitting on the ground pulled apart in pieces well after some of the first airframes were accepted..

[Sunfish]

There are a lot of ex F111 drivers that get quite emotional over that aircraft, you can hear it at RAAF formal dining in nights, I wonder if that has anything to do with this story?

But to me, the real issue is "Operational Sovereignty", as I think the British termed it.

What will Indonesia's aircraft be armed with, and will they actually work as advertised if Mr. Putin (or one of his successors) decides they shouldn't?

Same with ourselves and the JSF, will its weapons systems work if, at some time in the future, the US Government decides they shouldn't?

I seem to recall being told that an Iranian fighter pilot flying a Tomcat got a rather nasty surprise some months after the Shah was deposed.

[Buster Hyman]

'Tis a double edged sword Sunfish. I recall what the Exocets did to the RN during the Falklands...

[ScottyDoo]

you can hear it at RAAF formal dining in nights

Name-dropper.... you've been to a few have you? The Edos dining-in? :p

Ex-Air Commander Peter Criss says the Super Hornets are no match for the new Russian Sukhoi fighters that the Indonesians and Chinese are buying.

"....It's not stealthy," he said.

And the Su-27SK or Su-30MK are stealthy? WTF???

the ...replacements to the F111s are substandard and will see Australia lose its air of superiority to the Indonesians, Malaysians and Chinese.

Air of superiority? Who writes this ****??? This is not correct Mil terminology; an air of superiority is what a Rat captain has about him... :ok:

And rightly so... :rolleyes:

[sage]

About the only person's cred which has been savaged here ozbiggles is your own, and by your own hand with an entirely unsubstantiated acccusational and ad hominem post.
Let's run through a few things you said shall we?
The usual brigade (and note there only a couple)
Well, given the immediate repercussion such a stand invites, (eg: Mills on this issue; Wilkie, former government intelligence analyst on the Iraq pretext and subsequent mess) or potential for career free fall to anyone speaking out from within, that's entirely understandable.
of people who will appear on this show have about as much cred as former Prime ministers (and there is nothing sadder) coming out and saying what they would do now, when they did nothing of the sort when they were running the place.
Discredit the credibility of the opposing view with ad hominem attack. Of course, without any specific allegation or even base substantiation for your accusations denying opportunity of rebuttal.

As for cred. Hmmmm...Let me see now. A former Air Commander Australia with the balls to risk reputation and 'club membership' by appearing publically on a program like 4 Corners, ....or the anonymous unfounded rhetoric of ozbiggles? ....:rolleyes:
None of theses OFs
Says pretty much a lot about your perspective? Would you call the current ACA an "OF" too?

And you're first hand familiar with the Su's avionics, weps, handling and specific force doctrine of real and potential operators with the Su27 -> 30 through 37 family and sub-variants et al are you? ...other than, like most of us, what you might have "have read in a book".
They have another agenda.
Since you make the degoragtory accusation, you might spell out the specifics you believe it to be for us lesser mortals to understand. The only "agenda" I see is that the truth of the matter regarding the Super Hornet acquisition be revealed so our pilots lives aren't encumbered with a sheep dressed up in wolf's clothing.

The abundantly obvious was confirmed by the process not only not going to tender, but the representatives of contenting competitors not even being 'received at court'. Smacks of, our (then) next boat, "Collins class" type political considerations over-riding sound decision making.

[Going Boeing]

NGC Achieves Two Major F-35 Production Milestones, Continues Record of On-Time, On Cost Performance

(Palmdale, Calif., October 26, 2007) -- Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC) today completed the center fuselage for the first weight-optimized Air Force F-35 Lightning II aircraft -- a conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) variant designated AF-1.

The milestone comes just 24 hours after the company officially began the first phase of F-35 low rate initial production by starting the fabrication of a single-piece, all-composite inlet duct for the Air Force's first production F-35. That duct is being produced at Northrop Grumman's composites manufacturing center in El Segundo, Calif.

The company celebrated the AF-1 production milestone with a ceremony at its F-35 assembly facility in Palmdale, Calif. The ceremony, which coincided with today's sixth anniversary of the awarding of the original F-35 system development and demonstration prime contract, was attended by Northrop Grumman employees and executives from Lockheed Martin and the U.S. Department of Defense's F-35 Lightning II Program Office.

"The completion of the AF-1 center fuselage on schedule and on cost reinforces Northrop Grumman's commitment to help our customers field the most reliable, versatile and affordable 5th generation fighter," said Janis Pamiljans, F-35 program manager for Northrop Grumman's Integrated Systems sector. "Our disciplined production and assembly processes help ensure the quality and reliability of this multi-role aircraft for U.S. warfighters and our international F-35 partners."

The AF-1 center fuselage is one of 19 center fuselages Northrop Grumman is producing for the current system development and demonstration (SDD) phase of the F-35 Lightning II program. To date, the company has delivered center fuselages for six F-35 aircraft, including AA-1, the first F-35 aircraft to fly; and BF-1, the first F-35 short take-off/vertical landing (STOVL) variant. BF-1 will be the first F-35 to be delivered to the U.S. Marine Corps.

"Meeting these key program production commitments on time helps ensure that the F-35 Lightning II will enter the U.S. Air Force inventory as scheduled in 2013," said Major General Charles R. Davis, the Defense Department's F-35 Program Executive Officer. "The F-35 will provide the service with a powerful, multi-role fighter that will dovetail seamlessly with the versatile F-22, allowing the Air Force to continue operating effectively and decisively in high threat environments against increasingly sophisticated enemies."

Source : Northrop Grumman Corporation

LM F-35 Program Achieves Critical Milestone - STOVL Variant Completes Successful "Power On"

(Fort Worth, Texas, October 26, 2007) -- Electrical power was applied to the Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] F-35B Lightning II for the first time Thursday night, initiating a series of ground tests that will lead to the inaugural flight of the short-takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) stealth fighter next spring.

"The successful 'power-on' demonstrates that the integration of this unique aircraft is progressing to plan. It signals that production of our first F-35B Lightning II is on track for first flight next year, a key step toward realizing the aviation future of the U.S. Marines, the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy," said Dan Crowley, Lockheed Martin executive vice president and F-35 program general manager. The aircraft is scheduled to roll out of the factory in December.

The F-35 will be the most electronically advanced aircraft ever built, with capabilities unavailable in current multi-role fighters. The F-35B's power-on is an incremental process of testing the aircraft's circuits, electronic components and wiring.

"This event is one of the major milestones in the life of the STOVL aircraft and we have eagerly anticipated it for some time," said Maj. Gen. C.R. Davis, F-35 program executive officer. "The F-35 has the most complex electrical system of any fighter to date. We had great success with the first jet we flew, but that jet taught us some very important lessons about its electrical system and those lessons have been incorporated into the jet we powered up today. So congrats to the team and on to first flight."

Source : Lockheed Martin

[soldier of fortune]

i guess we will have to wait and see, when in a few years the RAAF's FA18F's take on the RMAF's SUK's when both aircraft are operational in exercisers -if the rumoured results of when the IAF suks took on the USAF latest F15's is anything to go with,i guess will find if the FA18F is all that its cracked up to be. according to 4corners it will be a slaughter.

good luck boys

[wessex19]

Looking at that US navy pic above by "Spanner Turner" I think the winner is Air Marshal Geoffrey Shepherd, he got to do something no RAN pilot can ever do these days, the CAT launch and TRAP.:ugh:
Here's a couple more of him on the roof of USS Kitty Hawk
http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/webphoto/web_070717-N-8591H-059.jpg
http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=48333

[SemperFly]

Now I really don't have a dog in this fight one way or another , but I watched this program lat night and came away with the feeling that it was just a big beat up on Boeing and they struggled to make a coherent point on the other stuff.

Yes Boeing tried to sell Oz new airplanes, that is what they do. However, they also have the contract to maintain the F-111s.

What other point were they trying to make, that the F-111 is better to plug the gap for the next ten years while we wait for a new aircraft that may never arrive?


Cabinet decided to buy 24 Super Hornets as a stopgap measure until the new Joint Strike Fighter is delivered in 2014.
...
Ex-Air Commander Peter Criss says the Super Hornets are no match for the new Russian Sukhoi fighters that the Indonesians and Chinese are buying.And the F-111s are?????? I know which plane I would rather go against a Su in, one with an Air-to-Air radar and a BVR weapon.

"Contrary to the claims it's not a fifth generation fighter. It's not stealthy," he said.
No it is not, neither is an F-111, that is why we are buying JSF. What the?

There are also claims that the temporary replacements to the F111s are substandard Substandard as compared to what???

Plus, in their first hypothetical they had F-111's going downtown to Jakarta in response to militias attacking troops in East Timor. Hardly a likely response, taking out radars and comm facilities in Jakarta is hardly going to have a big impact on militia troops in East Timor, I would think Close Air Support would be a more likely response.

Then in the second hypothetical they had 16 Super Hornets going against a wall of Su-30s. Well how do you think 6 or so serviceable F-111s are going to go against a wall of Su-30s. Again I think I would rather have the Air-to-Air radar, and BVR stand-off weapon.

[victor two]

Lets face it. The Hornet is a small aircraft with limted capability. Same goes for the newer models. Australia has been flying them for ages now, they have only ever gone overseas in anger once and all that really involved was menial flying about in circles miles from any real threats or hostile forces. The Americans allowed them to drop a few bombs on sand dunes to make them feel like they were involved in the campaign, the hornets returned, the pilots got a different coloured flying suit smothered with ridiculous macho "Operation Tactical Desert Eagle Sabre Deny Intercept" badges to remind them of their stint in the sandpit and the hornets purpose in life now is to fly around the occasional airshow or car race as a PR exercise.

If Australia was involved in a hostile campaign to hold the best display at a car race then our hornet pilots would be streaks head!

[ftrplt]

Quote:
"Very few aircraft are going to be able to get into a turning fight with this aircraft, they're not going to be able to get into that dog-fight zone," he said.

What's the one common thread that links every high scoring fighter ace since WW1? The dictum "Never, never, never get yourself involved in a turning dogfight."

Even if the F18 jocks wanted to ignore this sage advice, they'll never get the chance to do so if the other side is equipped with a superior fighter with a long range missile.

And does anyone not think that the ABC selectively pulled short snippets from what was a long interview to support their story??? They effectively sidelined Roberton as an influence on this story with their editing. (Not the first time they have done that to a RAAF officer mind you)

Interesting how they didn't show anything from him that attempted to explain the leap in capability driven by the new weapon system (primarily derived from AESA)


-if the rumoured results of when the IAF suks took on the USAF latest F15's is anything to go with,i guess will find if the FA18F is all that its cracked up to be. according to 4corners it will be a slaughter.


Dont take anything from an exercise you weren't involved in or know nothing about; there are always limitations placed on one or both sides in these exercises to generate the training outcomes that are desired from these exercises. You will also find US forces exercising with some foreign forces will intentionally hand-cuff themselves for security considerations (i.e release of information restrictions)


As for cred. Hmmmm...Let me see now. A former Air Commander Australia with the balls to risk reputation and 'club membership' by appearing publically on a program like 4 Corners, ....or the anonymous unfounded rhetoric of ozbiggles? ....

The same Air Commander that was sacked from his job as Air Commander; whose 2IC at the time just happened to be the current CAF


And you're first hand familiar with the Su's avionics, weps, handling and specific force doctrine of real and potential operators with the Su27 -> 30 through 37 family and sub-variants et al are you? ...other than, like most of us, what you might have "have read in a book".

Any current RAAF fast jet pilot would in fact have access to significant amounts of information. Much much more than Criss, Mills, Kopp and Goon.



The abundantly obvious was confirmed by the process not only not going to tender, but the representatives of contenting competitors not even being 'received at court'. Smacks of, our (then) next boat, "Collins class" type political considerations over-riding sound decision making.

Dont confuse the political issue over the aquisition decision; with the issue of capability. Just because the process may have been flawed, doesn't automatically make the aircraft any less capable.

Oh by the way, the Collins is now the best non nuclear sub in the world at the moment


Victor 2; don't be a complete idiot


Chris Mills - never heard of him in my 15 years in the fighter world

Kopp and Goon show - most people when they get ignored for years tend to fade away; points for persistence for these two.

What 4 Corners did not show was Roberton explaining the difference between FA18E/F (original version) and the FA18E/F Block II.

The Block II is only now in production, so to compare it to the Hornet of the 90's is irrelavent. The AESA radar is the difference here, when combined with data links, jammers, HMS and a revised cockpit set-up make then two versions uncomparable. Throw in AEW&C and AAR then our northern neighbours are no-where near us.

Soviet aircraft in service with our northern neighbours have a history of major serviceability issues.

We are talking 1990 Commodore compared to 2007 Commodore, effectively same in name only.

[Track Coastal]

all that really involved was menial flying about in circles miles from any real threats or hostile forces. The Americans allowed them to drop a few bombs on sand dunes to make them feel like they were involved in the campaign, the hornets returned,the pilots got a different coloured flying suit smothered with ridiculous macho "Operation Tactical Desert Eagle Sabre Deny Intercept" badges to remind them of their stint in the sandpit and the hornets purpose in life now is to fly around the occasional airshow or car race as a PR exercise.

If Australia was involved in a hostile campaign to hold the best display at a car race then our hornet pilots would be streaks head!
Mate - that is as classic a presented 'fly' to Nomex PpruNe Trout as I've ever read.

PS I think you've already got one. Is there a bag limit? Catch and release?

[Eaglet]

Watching that Su-30 manoeuvring was impressive. Considering most of our Asian neighbours have these, I can't help but think you could do a lot worse and purchase these for the RAAF!

[control snatch]

Yes I agree. It would be awesome for airshows!

And every western air force would be wanting to come to exercises in Aust

[control snatch]

Also according to Dr Kopp their weapons are heaps better. The AMRAAM is clearly outclassed by the Alamo

[ozbiggles]

Sage, sorry about the late reply...took a long time to recover from the hangover.
Standby MY original thoughts.
Everyone anti government, anti RAAF....sorry anti super hornet had an axe to grind. Libel laws probably prevent me from saying what I believe they are but most people in the company know what they are.
Note, except the American guy, don't know where he came from but probably the same idea as the French guy. Good excuse to go to Paris and Washington for a 10 second grab on the show....and the ABC has a go at defence for wasting money?
Rule 1, annoy the boss and you won't be invitied back....GOOD!
I thought ftrplt gave a good run down on most of the points.
The war gaming wasn't rigged at all either was it.
OFs are reserved for people who haven't been in the know for years but pretend they do when they have other agendas because they believed they have been wronged. What grates is that instead of tending to that they embark on attempts to discredit the whole organisation.
And they wonder why they got the flick?

[scran]

ftrplt - to give you the background on Chris Mills - he is an ex Mirage pilot - but having said that, I never saw him fly during my time involved with Mirages (1976-1985) - so somewhat dated.
;);)

[ftrplt]

yeah, heard he last flew very early 80's???

Which just makes me even more angry at 4 Corners - nothing like even querying the credibility of your so called experts.

I thought he must have been an F111 guy, but almost choked when I saw him wearing a 3SQN hat.

I have heard that he has now definitely been 'blackbanned':D

[Bobster]

Almost as bad as seeing the ex-engineer PG with old style flying jackey complete with ARDU crest.

[sage]

And does anyone not think that the ABC selectively pulled short snippets..
Of course they did. Television interviews always do that. But are you suggesting that somehow we're not as bright, or prejudiced (?), as you that we're neither aware of the fact nor took it into account? Purveying that particular line also happens to coincide with your own "we didn't a fair opportunity to present our version of events" cover.

It didn't serve the supporting viewpoint any cred that certain people 'declined' the opportunity to appear to do just that. Also noted by those with a working synapse or three.

The same Air Commander that was sacked from his job as Air Commander; whose 2IC at the time just happened to be the current CAF
Please don't try and support your argument by smearing people This is the prevailing tenor of posts by yourself, ftrplt and some others presenting as somehow specially annointed by association with the service. Ad hominem only detracts from any semblance of validity you may be trying to establish. In effect it says, "I don't have any real or substantive message with which I can support my own argument, so let's attack the character of the messenger in the hope that unearthing a certain skeleton of human falliability will create the illusion by association the message must be false/invalid too". Like most jingoism, that tactic works well enough on the simpler people, but not on those intelligent enough to see through the mirage. And yes, I would like to hear what Roberton (sp?) had to say, as I would all parties, but on their own merit and without prejudicial edit or character assassination from either side.

Oh by the way, the Collins is now the best non nuclear sub in the world at the moment
Presumably in contradiction of what you were actually seeking to achieve with that statement, with it you've confirmed a predilection for willing self-delusion. Methinks you should exercise greater prudence before putting virtual pen to paper. Although you accuse others in your now so predictable style of exactly the same offense, you are clearly talking way outside either your area of expertise or knowledge, but in terms of what you would prefer to believe. An dangerously unaffordable indulgance in the profession of arms...if you wish to survive at the sharp end of events should the real shootin' start.

With my direct source someone close who is currently and has been actively involved at managment and trials levels in the Collins project since its very inception, a serving 'occifer' shall we say, formerly having spent 'a considerable period', in Oberon class submarines who has spent the entire time since involved in the project of trying to turn the Collins subs into the best silk purse they are capable of being for the sailors who have to fight in them, I can assure you that the fantasy you purport here doesn't quite represent 'the whole truth'.

Just because the process may have been flawed, doesn't automatically make the aircraft any less capable.
Although you will mind me saying so, that argument is infantile if it's supposed to somehow support either the Super Hornet's capability, which it doesn't, or suggest that bypassing the conventions formerly observed in the acquisition process should ipso facto be sufficient evidence that it deserves an uncontested tacit nod of approval.

I comprehend your belief in and passion for Hornet considering you flew 'em for so long (implied). But don't let your closeness and understandable affinity close down perspective. And I'm not confusing with usual public romanticism re capability in a turning fight versus the contemporary realities of today's BVR battle either. Nor the fact that we're talking about the block II, although Super Hornet does sound a lot more impressive.

Oh, and I may have missed it, but just how many Su-30M and Eurofighter hours did you say you had? :p

Although it goes beyond the scope of this thread, political indications are that the next 'fight' our Super Hornet engages in won't be against the same numerically inferior low calibre threats we have been engaging recently as an particpant state of the 'coalition of the willing'. BVR ordnance expended, bracketed by surviving numerically superior multiples, I know I'd want to be able to dictate the terms of disengagement, or if forced to engage, with at least something resembling performance parity. As for deep penetration AG strike capability? The concept of successful egress subsequently being dependent upon rendezvous with a probably terminated AA refueller?

As the drivers of a previous gen found out in Vietnam when the harsness of reality collided with what seemingly sound theory of the early '60's belief in a tactical superiority technology presented by advances in AA missile capability and supersonic design resulting in the 'we don't need no guns any more' concept conceived from an ideal, it was flawed in practice.

By all means present your case, but leave your prejudice behind and avoid ad hominem if swaying people to your perspective is truly your objective. Otherwise, it appears just a poorly camouflaged vendetta like vent.

[ftrplt]

could you get any more big words and convoluted phrasing in there sage? <yawn>

[ftrplt]

I wasn't going to bother, but what the hell.

Quote:
And does anyone not think that the ABC selectively pulled short snippets..

Of course they did. Television interviews always do that. But are you suggesting that somehow we're not as bright, or prejudiced (?), as you that we're neither aware of the fact nor took it into account? Purveying that particular line also happens to coincide with your own "we didn't a fair opportunity to present our version of events" cover.

I wasn't inferring anything; I was responding to the quote by another poster. By inference, they (and many others on different sites) were implying that the message they got from Roberton was that 'doesn't matter if our aircraft is inferior, we will be OK because we can dogfight better'.

If you are smart enough to realise there is selective quoting, good for you. However, are you saying it's OK for 4 Corners to interview Roberton, have him provide his counter the their argument, and then not show it??


"we didn't a fair opportunity to present our version of events"

He was given a opportunity to present his version of events, they just didnt show it. I am led to believe his interview was around 90 minutes long.


Quote:
The same Air Commander that was sacked from his job as Air Commander; whose 2IC at the time just happened to be the current CAF

Please don't try and support your argument by smearing people

Not 'smearing' anyone; its fact and its relevant as 4 Corners (and 7:30 report and 60 minutes) have relied on his tenure as Air Commander to provide his credibility. If he was subsequently removed from this post because of his performance then that goes directly to his credibility. If 4 Corners knew this and ignored it, then that is a failure on their behalf. If they did not know this, then that is also a failure as the facts are in the public domain.

I am also quite sure the diplomats and strategic division guys spat their drinks when they showed us planning to bomb Jakarta; poor form by Pete Criss who should have known better; and 4 Corners not very clever also. Any guesses what led to him getting fired at the time??


And yes, I would like to hear what Roberton (sp?) had to say, as I would all parties, but on their own merit and without prejudicial edit or character assassination from either side.

Well ask 4 Corners why they chose not to show it then?


I comprehend your belief in and passion for Hornet considering you flew 'em for so long (implied). But don't let your closeness and understandable affinity close down perspective. And I'm not confusing with usual public romanticism re capability in a turning fight versus the contemporary realities of today's BVR battle either. Nor the fact that we're talking about the block II, although Super Hornet does sound a lot more impressive.

I don't have a passion for the Hornet; I just understands its strengths, and its (many) weaknesses. I also understand the progression of its development and am aware of the capability improvement present in the Block II. My point is that once again, 4 Corners chose to ignore this side of the RAAF's case.

Trotting out some American analyst to comment on the runt of the litter was irrelevant to the story - the 90's version of the Hornet bears no semblence to the Super Hornbet Block II.

For someone who is so fond of preaching, you're last comment in the quote above ticks all the boxes that you have just had a go at me for.


BVR ordnance expended, bracketed by surviving numerically superior multiples,

Oh really?? numerically superior - :rolleyes:


As for deep penetration AG strike capability? The concept of successful egress subsequently being dependent upon rendezvous with a probably terminated AA refueller?

Your last name isn't Mills by any chance?:}

The rest of your stuff is just dribble.

[ftrplt]

P.S: My 'sources' tell me the Minister was willing to be interviewed, but he would only do it live.

He was not willing to be subjected to an edited interview; and I don't blame him.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Almost as bad as seeing the ex-engineer PG with old style flying jackey complete with ARDU crest.

It's my understanding that 'sage' knows PG VERY well indeed. In fact, he sees him in the mirror every morning! :eek:

P.S: My 'sources' tell me the Minister was willing to be interviewed, but he would only do it live.

He was not willing to be subjected to an edited interview; and I don't blame him.

This is correct, especially after what 60 Minutes did to him back in March. :=

Do these shows write the catchy title first, and then shoot/edit the story to match the title? :hmm:

[OhForSure]

An innocent question from an intrigued observer (and wannabe :{):


I do understand the merits of the Block II Super vs older generations, and understand it to be a GREAT all-rounder. But is there a logical reason why the government bypassed the usual tender process? What of the F-15E/I/K??? I realise that others (Euro/Grippen/Su etc) were never gonna get a look in for obvious reasons... but why not the F-15? I would have thought that as far as range/payload/performance capability it would exceed the Super II (standing by to be corrected!). Perhaps apart from AESA, what other advantages would the Super II have over the F-15, being a purpose-built long range fighter/bomber? Slightly newer tech? Costs (either acquisition or operating)? As alluded to earlier, I'm personally not convinced with the notion of "commonality" being responsible for reducing costs, as the baby hornet and Rhino IIs are vastly different.


Is it likely that the Super II was chosen due to being the best deal available on very short notice and that the US have being trying to export them to every man and his dog for the last few years?


Interested in your insights... :ok:

[ftrplt]

my opinions only as an outsider:

F15E (variants)

- is a fantastic acft and does a lot of things better than the F18E/F; however doesn't have a pure maritime strike capability (can be done but not optimised)

- USAF is putting its development funds into JSF and is only maintaining its F15E capability; possible support and development issues???

F18E/F

- I don't believe it would have been a go-er in its original form, however Block II makes it viable

- 5 day conversion for F/A-18A pilots; if F/A-18 serviceability becomes a problem (I am in no way saying it is or will be) then the logistics for a surge capability are there

- as you alluded to; it meets the timeframe. 3 years is not a long time to introduce a new capability in an organisation that is extremely tight for manpower.

Yes, the acft systems are different (A and E model) but there are still economies of scale in operating two different versions of the same airframe from a logistics, manpower and weapon system employment


Trying to introduce soviet acft; impossible in less than 3 years and expect it to integrate into RAAF Command and Control; i.e AEW&C. The logisitics would be horrendous and the RAAF doesn't have the manpower to get its head around a totally foreign acft type, systems and support structures. How easy do you think it would be for the aircrew to learn completely new systems and weapons?? It is just ludicrous that people even believe this is a valid option for an INTERIM capability, or for that matter a permanent capability.

As far as the politics of the acquisition; I can't comment as I don't know. However, as I tried to say previously, just because the acquisition may or may not have been flawed, it doesn't automatically make the acft any better or worse.

My only comments on the process; if you want the acft in service starting mid 2010; you probably are behind the time-line already in 2007. Can you afford a tender process??

Also, as the acft is only an interim capability, can you argue there are grounds to bypass the tender process also?? Maybe.

I don't believe the fact that US have been trying to export them previously, and been unsuccessful, would have had any influence on the decision.

[Flyingblind]

Understand i am treading water out of my depth here, but didn't Switzerland hold a peoples vote/referendum to chose their fighter/interceptor many moons ago and come up with the F-18C?

I am aware that their style of Government differers greatly from our own, but should in a democracy like Australia's (snigger) let the people choose?

Anybody who can get up off the floor after hearing such a daft question may care to answer, after all, we all have to make quite complected choices in our daily lives, why not be presented with the facts and let the tax payers decide?

Any takers?

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Understand i am treading water out of my depth here, but didn't Switzerland hold a peoples vote/referendum to chose their fighter/interceptor many moons ago and come up with the F-18C?

I am aware that their style of Government differers greatly from our own, but should in a democracy like Australia's (snigger) let the people choose?

According to the book 'Hornets Down Under', the Swiss government chose the F-18C as the most appropriate aircraft in 1988, and announced the downselection. There was subsequently a reassessment over Switzerland's security situation but the choice of the F-18C was re-affirmed. The referendum was over whether or not to spend the money, rather than on the actual choice of aircraft.

[Buster Hyman]

The referendum was over whether or not to spend the money, rather than on the actual choice of aircraft.
Thank gawd for that! Could you imagine what we'd get if the tree huggers got in & did that? We'd be relying on the RNZAF for air defence!!!:eek:

[control snatch]

Some of you guys write way too much crap, do you honestly think the average reader actually gets past the third line? If you are going to write 10 paragraphs and want your point to be heard then write an executive summary.

And WTF is ad hominem?

Just a bunch of literary wanking...

[Going Boeing]

OhForSure
Perhaps apart from AESA, what other advantages would the Super II have over the F-15, being a purpose-built long range fighter/bomber?

Your question is valid

Boeing Selects Raytheon to Provide AESA Radar for U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles

(St. Louis, November 1, 2007) -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] has selected Raytheon to provide a next-generation Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar for U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagle multi-role aircraft.

Boeing selected Raytheon following a rigorous source selection competition. The Air Force plans to develop and incorporate the AESA radar under the F-15E Radar Modernization Program (RMP).

Boeing and Raytheon share more than 35 years of success on numerous generations of F-15 radar, beginning with the delivery of the first APG-63 radar in 1972 and the incorporation of the world's first operational fighter AESA radar with the APG-63(v)2. This legacy, along with shared experiences on the F/A-18E/F APG-79, ensures the AESA-equipped F-15E will remain a force multiplier for decades to come.

"Raytheon's AESA radar is the best choice for the F-15E Eagle," said Mark Bass, Boeing F-15 vice president and program manager. "The AESA radar greatly improves the F-15E crew's situational awareness, targeting range and accuracy. The AESA radar will ensure that the combat-proven F-15E continues its multi-role supremacy for decades."

Source : Boeing

[ftrplt]

F15 and AESA: the question is when will it be in service?

[Like This - Do That]

Boeing and Raytheon share more than 35 years of success on numerous generations of F-15 radar, beginning with the delivery of the first APG-63 radar in 1972 and the incorporation of the world's first operational fighter AESA radar with the APG-63(v)2. This legacy, along with shared experiences on the F/A-18E/F APG-79, ensures the AESA-equipped F-15E will remain a force multiplier for decades to come.

Gawd they go on with some crap, these corporate marketing depts, don't they?

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

F15 and AESA: the question is when will it be in service?

It actually already is - there's a squadron of ANG F-15Cs in Alaska flying with APG-63(V)2s already, and the (V)3 is flying on a couple of F-15Es at Edwards. The (V)3 array baiscally bolts on the the APG-70 backend, while the (V)4 will be the (V)3 front end bolted to the APG-79 backend, and it's only really been a matter of budgetry funds being released to do the upgrades, not one of any integration issues.

However, this is not to say the F-15 is right for Australia. On the for side for the Super - low risk was the order of the day - we already have deep relationships with Boeing and the US Navy, are familiar with the general layout of how a Hornet is built and maintained (despite there being a less than 5% commonality in components between Super and Classic), and there is a general familiarity in flying characteristics between the two. Despite what Kopp, Goon et al claim, the Super is an order of magnitude stealthier (hate that word) than anything else bar the F-22 and F-35, and the level of integration of its avionics, sensors and weapons systems is awesome! It's a true stepping stone to the 5th gen gear we'll be flying in a decade.

On the against side for the F-15 - yes, it's ballsier on paper, but the F-15 is a 35 year old design. The US has not built an F-15 for itself for six years and is unlikely to build any more. Both Korea and Singapore operate multiple and overlapping fast jet types and have much higher GDP defence budgets than Australia, so they can afford to swing their F-15 big dicks in their strategically sensitive environments and still have other types to back them up. Their F-15 programs are being funded by those countries, not the US, and the ADF does not want to be beholden to these countries for any kind of support for upgrades or groundings. Boeing or the USAF would say, "sorry guys, you're on your own!" Anmd while the AESA upgrade is great, there will still be little integration between this and other systems, thus the cockpit will be a much busier environment.

[OhForSure]

Picking up where Going Boeing left off:

Following my previous post I did some in-depth research on the two (which I regret not having done so BEFORE posting!).


Apparently the F-15"E" has been available with the AESA for a while now... the K model a/c that the Koreans have taken delivery of came with them installed and the Singaporean T model aircraft now do too. There are various other advances the new model Strike Eagles come equipped with such as, InfraRed Search and Track (IRST), Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS), updated cockpit and communications and all the new stand-off and JDAM weapons. These include the Harpoon, which indicate that the F-15 may indeed be capable of maritime warfare (apparently the F-111 wasn't designed to be a maritime strike a/c anyway, as it was the RAAF who enabled it to launch the Harpoon). Finally, the new model a/c are equipped with 30,000 lb thrust engines... an increase over the "E" model.


All in all, I just found it to be an extremely interesting read. Apparently, despite the fact that the (original) F-15 was designed with "not a pound for air-to-ground", the airframe is actually equally, if not more suitable for air-to-ground warfare than air-to-air. Furthermore, the aircraft was designed specifically to replace the F-111 in US service, and apparently it has done so far beyond anyone's expectations. The F-15E was selected after beating the F-16XL ("bent-arrow" design - - - VERY COOL!) in a tendering program by the USAF.


When compared to the Super Block II the (newer) Strike Eagles, climb faster, carry much greater payload, over nearly twice the range, at far higher speed (M 2.5 v M 1.8) and are overall better Air-to-Ground AND Air-to-Air fighters. The USAF expect to operate the F-15E beyond 2025.


In summary (and taking into consideration that I am certainly no defence analyst), from where I'm sitting the Strike Eagle would seem a better aircraft to replace the F-111 (as it was indeed designed to do so) and aside from lower observability, there are no obvious advantages to choosing the Super Block II over it.


Alas, I'm sure the real reasons the government chose the Super II are based on economics and availability, rather than all out potency. I spose if I knew the real answers to this stuff, I'd be earning a better wage than I am at the moment!


What do you guys reckon?

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Apparently the F-15"E" has been available with the AESA for a while now... the K model a/c that the Koreans have taken delivery of came with them installed and the Singaporean T model aircraft now do too.

Negative. The K models are fitted for, but not with AESA, as this is not yet releasable to the Koreans. The Singaporean F-15SGs will be the first 'E+' models fitted with AESA.

These include the Harpoon, which indicate that the F-15 may indeed be capable of maritime warfare

Nope, no Harpoons on Eagles anywhere. SLAM-ER in the Koreans' case, and the Singaporeans haven't selected a stand-off weapon yet.

[OhForSure]

FA:

Stand corrected with regards to the Korean models and AESA... misinterpreted my information. I stand by the harpoon remark though, I read that in a couple of places... to be available on newer models(?). At any rate, I'm hardly an expert in this case. Certainly not pretending to be. I'll take your word for it!

P.S. - I really liked the "Originally posted by:" names... very nice. :ok:

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

No worries - was taking a friendly dig without wanting to take the pi$$ too much as is the usual PPrune manner, although this thread has been surprisingly tame of late - good to see!

Re Harpoon, the umbilical, bussing and many other elements for Harpoon Block II/III and a SLAM-ER are identical, although the Harpoon is a lighter weapon. At this time, the Harpoon has not been cleared from the F-15, but I don't imagine it would be a major program to do so.

With the SLAM-ER qualified on the F-15K, there is certainly scope to field Harpoon Block II/III in the future, although there is much cross-capability between the two missiles. As far as I am aware, the Harpoon fielded by Singapore is the Block I ship and sub launched variant.

[HotPants]

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=68007&page=2

[Gnadenburg]

At this time, the Harpoon has not been cleared from the F-15

An assumption the Jap's are going to come over the Johor causeway again? :}

[Whiskey Oscar Golf]

Scuse my ignorance here people who know more than me, but I've a few questions with the super vs others. Is the super a replacement for the pig or is it the gap filler? What is the big boy stand off it will carry if it is to be a replacement for the pig? Is that where the gap is and has it been filled?

I watched the report and while not being au fait with the mechanics I was a touch sceptical on the outcome. While the stats put the 27 in a higher speed, alt, turning light, the tech and abilityof the Su's to reach out and "touch" seemed to be lacking. While I believe the supers could reach their tactical targets, could they do what they needed to do once there?

Sorry if I've rehashed I'm just a late starter.

[ozbiggles]

Interesting thread on the military....thread on the F15. If the cause is confirmed it shows exactly why Life Of Type is a hot topic for the F111.

[Going Boeing]

(Dubai, November 12, 2007) -- BAE Systems has completed Design Verification Testing for the crew escape system for the Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant of the F-35 Lighting II.

This series of tests has provided important risk reduction on the escape system to make sure F-35 pilots can eject safely and is an important milestone in the path to first flight of the first STOVL aircraft in Spring 2008.

BAE Systems F-35 Lightning II Crew Escape IPT leader John Thornton said: "We had some significant technical challenges to overcome in the design of the escape system, including providing enhanced neck-load protection during ejection. This is required because the F-35's state of the art helmet is heavier and has a bigger frontal area to accommodate the visor mounted display. In addition, we also have the challenge of designing a system that can accommodate various sizes of pilot. The F-35 ejection seat is already a design classic. It is the most sophisticated and capable seat in the Western world - and it's still in development."

Source : BAE Systems

[Shlonghaul]

Pull out of jet deal, Govt urged
December 9, 2007 - 2:42PM
Source: ABC

A Liberal backbencher says the Super Hornet can not compete with Russian-built fighters being deployed in Asia.
A Liberal MP says party leader Brendan Nelson made the wrong decision in his previous role as defence minister when he ordered 24 Super Hornet jet fighters for the RAAF.
Western Australian backbencher Dr Dennis Jensen, a former defence research scientist, says the Rudd Labor Government should try to get out of the $6.6 billion deal.
Dr Jensen told the National Interest program on ABC Radio National that the Super Hornet can not compete with Russian-built fighters being deployed in Asia.
"There've been numerous comparative analyses that have been conducted overseas and where ever the Super Hornet's been in the competition it's lost," Dr Jensen said.
"The problem with the Hornet is it is slow, it is sluggish in acceleration and its payload range capability is limited.
"And as such the threats that are emerging in the region will effectively fly rings around it."
Dr Jensen says the jet's manufacturer Boeing did a very good sales job on Dr Nelson when he was minister.
"I've seen another slide presentation that Boeing gives and it looks very, very convincing," he said.

[noip]

With regard to the Liberal Backbencher ....

I would not like to be in the Russian Built Fighter with the Super Hornet in the area ...



Maybe there is a reason he is a backbencher ..................


N

[virgindriver]

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like to be caught in a Super Hornet any distance from home either.
From what we are being told by the analysts:
- lacks range (needs inflight refueling support)
- not stealthy (they will be waiting for it)
- lacks top end speed (will be run down by current Russian fighters)
As a taxpayer, I really hope we can get out of this costly raw deal.
I would really like to see the F111s patched up to bridge the gap until our next generation aircraft arrive.

[ozbiggles]

These idiots that come out with this stuff ALWAYS neglect to mention this.
1. The US DO NOT sell the F22 to anyone else, therefore you can not try to plan for the future of the ADF with that FACT. They are even less likely to do that now with the gutless act of running from Iraq.
2. The F111 is dead. It is old, its expensive. NO ONE else operates it so we have to foot the entire bill for few aircraft on line. Using parts from the desert that are 20 years old proves this point. If Fitzgibbon and this goose get the super hornet deal scrapped then if anything should happen after 2010 THEY ARE RESONSIBLE
3. They always say the F18 will get thumped by all theses hundreds of eastern bloc aircraft....they mention how the pig would go. We wouldn't even send it to Iraq against what they had.
JSF is the way of the future, it will probably have a few teething issues so the superhornet is a good interim. Labor know it, that won't change it despite the song and dance. They will probably try and buy fewer.

I love the pig, it looks awesome, it was the big stick of the day but its day has gone. Its like putting up a wirraway agianst zeros when you should have a P51.

As for the motives of this backbencher, interesting he waited until after he didn't get a portfolio to bring this up again. He was asked last week to chat to the ABC but waited to see if he would get a spot first.

[Track Coastal]

The RAF are an Air Force that gets into combat so maybe their opinion is worth something?

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=303045

a defence scientist has more cred than a Tassie GP IMHO (Nelson) when it comes to defence.


(Senior Officer with procurements and Aus Defence civilian alickadoo visiting Fawlty Towers on the corporate gold card)...

Sybil: BASIL! Don't bring up ADATS, Collins Subs, Abrams Tanks or Sea Sprite helicopters.

Basil: Yes dear.

[ftrplt]

a defence scientist has more cred than a Tassie GP IMHO (Nelson) when it comes to defence.

why?

do you know what his expertise was in defence science??

[Ned Parsnip]

Quote:
a defence scientist has more cred than a Tassie GP IMHO (Nelson) when it comes to defence.
why?


Self evident isn't it?

Defence scientists study defence.

Medicos study coughs, colds and pimples on your willie.

Nelson's panicky and disastrous off the cuff Super Hornet decision stands as a tribute to his lack of expertise in fighter/bomber capabilities in the current environment.

His decision has been almost universally condemned and the only people who appear prepared to defend it are embarrased RAAF members who have just woken up to the fact that Australia is now facing a yawning and ever widening bare-@rsed air superiority gap.

do you know what his expertise was in defence science??

Yes, Nuclear Science and especially Regional Air Superiority.

Next.

Ned

PS Your Caps Lock key appears inoperative - but if it actually does work please keep away from operating any more complex machinery for the time being. HTH.

[BombsGone]

Not all defence scientists have expertise in Air Power.

No the F18F is not seen as a disaster by anyone at the coal face, only by commentators outside the decision.

Yes the F18F has limitations but given the options available it is more than likely the best decision.

No I am not privy to all the facts needed to make such a decision but I trust the professional judgement of those advising the minister from within the RAAF.

Retaining the F111 beyond 2012 always had disaster written all over.

The best 4 corners could dredge up to condemn the decision has been widely derided as a weak politically motivated hatchet job.

[Trojan1981]

I read in [I]The Australian[I] on Saturday 8th of December (sorry I can't find the article online) that not only will the Rudd Govt most likely proceed with the F-35 purchase, but they are likely to aquire 'significantly less' than the 100 aircraft proposed by the Howard Govt.
Considering the F-35 is intended to replace all of the RAAFs combat Jets when it enters service, would this represent a major capability loss and the end of the RAAF as an effective combat force?

I have heard varrying opinions, mainly negitive, but I would like to know if anyone hear has any further insight.

[Flyingblind]

If we cant get the F22 from the Americans, how about pitching our RD tent alongside these guys?

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/12/07/asia/AS-GEN-Japan-Stealth-Fighter.php

[Like This - Do That]

Don't bring up ADATS, Collins Subs, Abrams Tanks or Sea Sprite helicopters.

:oh:here we go again .....

With what would YOU have replaced the Leopards? You're on top of HNA are you? C'mon Track, you can do better than that ....

[Track Coastal]

A tendering and bidding process as opposed to a just an "I'll have those ones"?

I'm not an ex-tankie but maybe the Leopard 2 could have been examined?

Its mainly the tendering and bidding thing - $50K+ leaves my house (never gets in the house really) a year in taxes and defence leaves a bit on the nose for transparency and bang for my buck IMHO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams

[scran]

I could tell you the Leopard 2 vs ABRAMS saga..........


but I'd have to kill you after.....:cool:

[Track Coastal]

So the Leopard 2 was considered and evaluated? Not by tender as far as I'm aware (??).

[Like This - Do That]

OK cheers gents .... I thought we were heading down that "they're too heavy; there aren't any bridges; they've bought them so we can help invade Iran; etc etc" horsepoop.
:ok:

[Frazzled]

While we are at it, can we put tiger and MRH90 onto the list behind the seasprite?:ugh:

All I want for Xmas is a Mike model Blackhawk! looks like an S70, easy for tradies and aircrew to transition too and at least battle proven.

Please uncle Kevin, it's not too late

[control snatch]

A tendering and bidding process as opposed to a just an "I'll have those ones"?
If we had used this process then we may have AH-64 in service right now as opposed to the bumfight that is Tiger.
"I have an idea......no, wait..... hear me out on this......lets put an american missile on a french helicopter!" Alarm bells anybody?
Singapore is pretty good at "I'll have those ones" and as a result of not piss-farting around they now have the capability edge in the region. (Although we will never admit it).

[Gnadenburg]

I can't see a problem with the Super Hornet as an interim capability or insurance policy.What else was there ? Only one aircraft comes to mind and that would be the F15E.

Wouldn't the RAAF be urgently needing a capability to drop bombs? With the age of the F111 and its debatable ability ( in the public forum ) to operate independantly- I thought it was hamstrung way back in the first Gulf War due a lack of electronic defences.

But sure. A great platform for spanking those in the Third World. But aren't we being told there is a third world Flanker threat so significant we will potentially lose air superiority? F111 is vulnerable.


Anyway. What happend to Labor's F22 promise?

[FlexibleResponse]

We decided to purchase the F111 in the mid to late '60s. They were delayed due to centre-wing box failures. We rented 24 F-4s until our F111s could be rebuilt and then delivered.

We decided to purchase the F-18 Hornet in the early '80s. We took delivery over the next decade.

The F111s are pretty well stuffed after 40 years and mega-expensive to keep flying. The F-18s have been used in two Gulf Wars and are pretty well worn out after 20 years and we don't have the replacement F-35s yet, nor are they on the foreseeable horizon.

It would be hugely irresponsible and a tremendous threat to the nation not purchase a replacement fighter-bomber to fill the gap until the long-term solution replacement arrives.

And already the new socialist Government is talking about reducing numbers of the F-35 to defend our country.

Thank heavens we have something in the form of the Super Hornet order to maintain the balance of power and maintain some semblance of peace in our part of the planet until commonsense once again reigns supreme (but don't hold your breath).

We need highly skilled fighter pilots in modern fighter aircraft right NOW and ready to deal with any situation that the our elected politicians land us in. Not some air-head's wet dream about some paper aircraft fighting distant wars somewhere in the future on cloud-nine!

[Track Coastal]

Hang on a minute.

I'm not going into your veiled anti-Rudd inference.

The Libs came to power in 96 so no one told them we need something credible in 10 years? No one told them that the life-of-type of the pig is limited?

A mere handful of years ago, the Tassie GP (hi Mrs Smith is your foot hurting again?) pumps 9 figures of tax payer money into a cardboard fighter/bomber, the JSF. Memories of the Collins.:ugh:

[Taildragger67]

Where are the news reports that Labor is planning to reduce air capabilities? Can anyone give me a link to read? Thanks

And without wanting to defend any individual, there have been a number of defence ministers who were not previously members of the services.

If you could only rise up your silo, then given the job description of the GG,it's always be filled by a constitutional lawyer. It sometimes is; but the incumbent is doing a pretty decent job.

We've had PMs who have been in previous jobs ranging from engine driver to lawyer to farmer (and indeed fighter pilot). Likewise defence ministers (and other ministers) have had diverse backgrounds. It's their job to make sure the advice they get is the best available.

[scran]

Control Snatch:

We do have occassional "I'll have those ones" moments.

That's how we managed to buy F-111G's..............


and ABRAMs M-1 tanks :eek::eek::eek:

[Gnadenburg]

So what are the Super Hornet nay-sayers suggesting ? Worn out F18's with complicated structual upgrades and F111's which without a risky upgrade are facing obsolescence. What was the options ?


RAAF Brass and government took a high risk decioson to build the future of the RAAF around a JSF fleet. With a requirement, which seems ridiculous to me in our foreign policy context, to fight in concurrent campaigns. Evidenced by the mooted 100 number JSF requirment.

The 100 aircraft 'dream fleet' plan is in tatters.

Where to from here ? A treaty here and there, a foreign policy shift here and there, a financial slowdown containing military expansion of our neighbours. We could end up with more Super Hornets and a small fleet of JSF's.

[Buster Hyman]

Mind you, it'd be cheaper to give the Yanks a base in the Top end (new Subic Bay?) & let them worry about the Flankers!;)

[Gnadenburg]

Excellent Buster.

And Darwin/ Katherine become whore and drug houses like Angeles City.

[virgindriver]

Buster probably has the best idea.
Mind you, it'd be cheaper to give the Yanks a base in the Top end (new Subic Bay?) & let them worry about the Flankers!
They can have Learmonth and it's money we don't need to spend.
Really, why don't we do this??
and
And Darwin/ Katherine become whore and drug houses like Angeles City.
Might offer some of the local population some gainful employment. The locals will never be as "friendly" as the Phillipinos...

[Buster Hyman]

And Darwin/ Katherine become whore and drug houses like Angeles City
At least they'll be getting paid for it....

[tartare]

Lads, isn't there a more fundemental issue here?
Modern air combat is all about engaging BVR.
With good AESA and a high speed long range lethal missile, surely you can kill just about anything.
The Flanker's superior high alpha performance, off boresight shoot and thrust vectoring don't mean jack if it gets whacked by something that's over the horizon?
My point being... if the F18F has enough grunt to carry a good BVR missile or two, and has a nice upto date AESA and targetting suite for the wizzo to use... then what's the issue?
It's not about trying to get on the other chaps tail any more...

[Track Coastal]

The Pig is a mud mover, The Super Hornet is mean't to be a stop gap replacement for the said Pig until the JSF is going to be ready to be all things to all men. Its about craters in the ground not Air to Air.

[Going Boeing]

Cameron Stewart | December 05, 2007

THE Pentagon is expected to pressure the Rudd Government for an early commitment to buy the controversial Joint Strike Fighter, despite the project being plagued by rising costs and technical problems.

Alarm is growing in US military circles about the cost of the JSF, or F-35, and the reluctance of any US allies, including Australia, to commit to early orders.

Australian and US officials have held talks on reducing costs, including a reduction of test flight aircraft and greater use of ground-based testing.

No country wants to purchase the early batches of the F-35s, due to start in 2009, because they will be prohibitively expensive compared with those sold in later years, when larger-scale production runs will reduce unit costs by more than half.

The Howard government's $15billion plan to place an order for up to 100 F-35s late next year for delivery in 2013 is now on hold, as the Rudd Government conducts a review of options for the air force.

The review will examine all alternatives in replacing Australia's aged F-111 strike bombers and F/A-18 fighters, including the feasibility of the world's most potent but expensive fighter, the F-22 Raptor.

However, the US is likely to seize the opportunity of a newly elected government to step up the pressure on Canberra to place early orders for the F-35.

Media reports this week from Fort Worth, Texas, where the F-35 is being built by Lockheed Martin, suggest the rising cost of the F-35 is deterring US allies from placing orders.

According to the Star-Telegram newspaper, Lockheed and the Pentagon have been talking with Australian officials and other JSF partner nations about placing orders.

However. a spokesman for the Defence Department in Canberra said that so far "there has been no pressure on Australia to buy earlier than 2013".

The review of military air power, under new Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon, comes at a time when the F-35 project is facing fresh problems. The 2008 US defence budget passed by Congress last month imposed a$US267 million ($305 million) cut in the program's already dwindling research and development fund.

The fund has been drained by major technical problems in the F-35's electrical system, which have caused the only test aircraft to be grounded since May. The test plane is due to make its first flight since then tomorrow.

Australia is one of eight partner nations that have invested millions in the development of the F-35, but if the first batches of the planes are too expensive, Canberra might be tempted to delay the purchase until later in the production cycle.

At present, the flyaway cost for Australia is estimated at $80million per plane, averaged over the planned purchase years of 2013-20.

But the early batches will cost substantially more, with the US air force estimating that the F-35s in 2013 - the year of planned delivery to the RAAF - will cost $US100 million each.

"Nobody is interested in getting their airplanes early unless we can help them mitigate the fact that the earlier airplanes cost more," the US F-35 program manager, Tom Burbage, said recently.

The F-35 was marketed as anaffordable fifth-generation fighter, but unless costs can be controlled the Pentagon risks a reduction in orders from its own military and from overseas buyers - a situation that would force costs up even more.

However, Defence maintains that despite all the recent setbacks, the F-35 project remains largely on track.

[Going Boeing]

Its about craters in the ground not Air to Air.

Prior to the order for the F-18F, I understand that the plan was to replace the F-111 with stand-off missile capability to be launched by F/A-18A's and AP-3C's with tanker and AEW support. Further research found that the inboard pylon stations on the F/A-18A would have to be strengthened to carry the large missiles (JASSM) and similar technical issues surfaced with fitting the AP-3C. Purchase of the F-18F alleviates these issues as the inboard pylons are already suitable for the missiles and the increased wing area gives better performance with a heavy load. Use of long range stealthy missiles will reduce the exposure of these aircraft to modern air defences while they are making craters in the ground.

[Jetsbest]

It's hard to make craters in the ground if you can't reliably fight your way through the enemy's ADIZ into air-surface weapon range.... And what of close air support? Do the pig-lovers really think an F-111 can do it better than an F-model?
Tell 'im 'e's dreamin'! :hmm:

[wessex19]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVdvTof186w
Whats the missile this super hornet is carrying on its centre pylon, starboard wing???

[Track Coastal]

Assuming for a minute that the fundamental deterrent factor of the Strike group is dropping a GBU into the living room of the president of Kamaria and maybe one onto the cabinet building.

What is the payload difference between the Super Hornet and the Pig? I understand the pig is around 50,000lb(yes/no?) and the F18F was only around 18,000lb (yes/no?).

Is this true? Isn't a 64% decrease in crater creators a problem?

If so, you now need 3 F18Fs to carry the payload of 1 F111

The ferry range of an F111 is just under twice that of an F18F.

So now you need 3 Fs for 1 Pig and twice the JetA1. Onya Mr Nelson:ok:

[control snatch]

Its about craters in the ground not Air to Air

No craters in the ground without air superiority dude!

[ozbiggles]

TC, I think you are using WWII Bomber command thinking there.
1 smart bomb is all you need per target...and exactly where are you getting your 8 F111s from to match 24 super hornets?
And your refuellers to provide their escort?

[Track Coastal]

where are you getting your 8 F111s from to match 24 super hornets?


Que? Where did I say that?

From the data 3 F models carries the same payload as 1 F111, and only half the distance.

I got the data from some books on my shelf (hence the question mark regarding veracity and the "is this true?").

1 smart bomb is all you need per target

Hmmm, which is why I wrote...

Assuming for a minute that the fundamental deterrent factor of the Strike group is dropping a GBU into the living room of the president of Kamaria and maybe one onto the cabinet building.


For every AMRAAM etc you carry, that is one less bomb, add to that drop tanks because your internal fuel range is crap, what does that leave? 1 GBU on your centre pylon??

Squandering tax payers money on sh!t, is a defence artform (even for the 2 decades I was in uniform and the taxes from a Def payslip), why should anything change now?
No craters in the ground without air superiority dude!
Are we parking 3s, 75s and 77s F18Cs as part of this fiasco?

[ScottyDoo]

Buster's got nothing, VD, he's mouthing rot. The yanks aren't gonna drop everything and fight any old war on our behalf. Did they step in during the Falklands?

If it doesn't affect their oil supply they'll just sit back, send us some ordnance and watch what happens.

The F-18s (sic) have been used in two Gulf Wars

Which two? GWII and...?

Singapore ..........as a result of not piss-farting around ....now have the capability edge in the region

They may (or may not) have a technology edge but anyone who's worked with them can tell you they lack another important element of a successful combat force:

Put them onto any sort of difficult task and they run out of HEART at a moment's notice.

[ScottyDoo]

PS:

1 smart bomb is all you need per target

Now I'm no knuck but I thought the latest fashion is to drop TWO LGBs onto a HAS... one for the roof and one for the pink mist inside.

[Gnadenburg]

No craters in the ground without air superiority dude!

RAAF hasn't been in a dogfight in 50 years.

And after all the money spent on the tactical fighter force over the years. The access to yank technology and training. The expensive force multipliers.

And some are fretting over export rated Flankers?

Maybe our guys really do need the F22. :confused:

[Buster Hyman]

Scotty, why do you insist on proving what everyone already knows?:rolleyes:

OAW, AAW.:D

[control snatch]

Scotty

Exercised with their Vipers lately?

[Going Boeing]

Scotty, if you only knew what the US did behind the scenes during the Falklands conflict. Your posts only expose your lack of knowledge of the matters discussed on this thread.

[Spaghetti Monster]

What is the payload difference between the Super Hornet and the Pig? I understand the pig is around 50,000lb(yes/no?)

Er... no. Not even close - with full internal fuel, 50000lb of payload would have you more than 20000lb over MTOW. Also, it's only got 4 pivoting pylons to hang stores from, which would make carrying 50000lb a bit awkward.

[Schwerpunkt]

My interest was aroused by some of the points made in the discussion over the last 3 pages. Not being of fighter/strike background, my recollection of the original decision to retire the F111 was that the planned withdrawal date (PWD) of 2012 was prior to the arrival of JSF in 2013, to release personnel numbers for training prior to arrival of the new platform.

The decision to bring F111 PWD forward to 2010 was dependent on a number of factors:
- existing F18s upgraded with Link 16, 'full weapons suite' including stand off weapons and satellite guided munitions
- Wedgetail, and
- AAR (dependent now on KC-30B arrival with imminent B707T retirement)
Then-CAF AM Houston stated that 'if any of the F18 enhancements do not arrive by 2010, we will extend F111 to 2012'. He subsequently also stated that 'if JSF is late we will keep the Hornet'.

The then-Minister for Defence Nelson's rationale for the Super Hornet purchase was due to possible delays in JSF arrival ... but given that JSF was bought to replace both F111 and F18 it didn't really specify whether Super Hornet was meant for the air-to-air or air-to-ground role (or indeed both!). The inference from the earlier extension to current F18 capability would be that it was the air-to-air role (in which case patching up F111s would be irrelevant, except from a pure numbers perspective). However, interestingly, the Minister's website cites rejection of the F15 due to 'lack of maritime strike capability', and its 2-seat configuration obviously puts a lot of people in the mindset that it's air-to-mud. Confusing?

So, my take on the situation is that ... the decision to purchase Super Hornet was simply a non-rational (not irrational, just politically motivated) one, and Air Force will just get on and make the best of it (a la F111G). Remember, flexibility is the key to airpower! I have to believe that the Super Hornet is a better capability than both F111 and current F18, so that any discussion in which Super Hornet is getting thumped would equally apply to the existing aircraft.

Track Coastal's discussion regarding payload, while true in terms of pure payload (weight) and range, is irrelevant in the face of the Air Force view that PGMs from stand off range is the way to go. That is, neither F111 nor Super Hornet will be used as a 'bomb truck' to go downtown badlands; in which case the number of hardpoints for PGMs is the limiting factor. The most telling factor is likely to be one of range, in which case AAR is a vital component to extend combat radius.

It will be interesting to see what the political/RAAF response is if either or both of Wedgetail and KC-30B start looking shaky for an initial operating capability of 2010 ...

[Track Coastal]

Whoops! You're right, Its 31,500lb (25,000 external and 6,000 internal?) I mean't to write 30,000 not 50,000.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f111_load.jpg

[Gnadenburg]

Exercised with their Vipers lately?

So not only are we fighting off hoardes of export Flankers in the region. We will be fighting the Singaporians?

This puts a strong case for the F22.

Of course. That said. Some RAAF Brass & Defence Bureaucrats should be shot at dawn. HTF have the Singaporians so efficiently and quickly snatched air capability dominace in the region? :ugh:

[FlexibleResponse]

I might have missed something here, but the last time I looked, the Singaporeans were on our side!

[ScottyDoo]

if you only knew what the US did behind the scenes during the Falklands conflict.

Other than send shedloads of 'L' model snakes to the RAF and FAA? Sounds like you have an inside story. Would be interesting to hear about anything other than intel assistance and -9Ls. (No googling....)

As you said - behind the scenes. That's a far cry from stepping in for us in some regional spat with any of the noodles to the north.

[Gnadenburg]

Stingers for the SAS, Com upgrades, the promise of a Tarawarra class carrier if the Invincible or Hermes sunk, NATO munitions stocks, arm twisting of the Chileans to ensure co-operation of clandestine activities from their soil, satellite intelligence, something to do with Shrike missiles and TPS-145 ( bar talk ) etc etc........

[Gnadenburg]

I might have missed something here, but the last time I looked, the Singaporeans were on our side!

I think it is in context to the fact that when F111 was introduced the Singaporians had a day fighter, cannon only capability.

Proceed to F111 retirement and they have evolved toward the most capable air force in the region. They have had early warning and tanking decades before the RAAF. Area SAM's. Numerically their F16's are at parity with our F18's- however they gave their A models to the Thai's. Their current F16's are a fusion of top line American and Israeli munitions and electronic equipment. Their pilots are very well trained now; American & Israeli trained and influenced. With close training ties evolving with the Indians.

JSF is an option if proven. But they have the F15E in good numbers as their insurance policy.

How much have the politically and business astute Singaporians paid for all this ? I don't reckon the Aussie taxpayers would want to compare- " Buy proven, buy American and buy a bargain- and the Jews will sell you what the Yanks don't".

[ScottyDoo]

I said no googling, go-gnads!

[Going Boeing]

Thanks Gnads, the carrier was sitting off Ascention Is for the duration ready for a RN crew if Hermes or Invincible were sunk. Re-taskinking of satellites (very expensive) can be added to your list. As Scotty said "shedloads of 'L' model snakes to the RAF" resulted in even the Nimrods sprouting an air to air capability as well as Harpoon anti surface missiles and probe & drogue refuelling. Phalanx CIWS were supplied in large numbers for RN ships (Sea Wolf was barely operational and was only fitted to two vessels).

The Yanks may be reluctant to get directly involved but they have a history of looking after their friends.

[FlexibleResponse]

Going Boeing,

You have a good memory!

[ScottyDoo]

:pYesss..... so it would seem!

[TCFOR]

All this background support the yanks gave the poms in the falklands is interesting stuff, especially as the Argentines still managed to inflict serious damage on the RN. So what went wrong? and can we learn anything from it? I have nothing to contribute personally, as I am not current or ex-military, but I have followed this thread with interest.

[Gnadenburg]

I said no googling, go-gnads!

Anecdotes from the bar Scotty. And there is enough technical inaccuraccy to suggest it done from hazy memory and first and second hand pi$$ talk.

Worked with a few Falklands vet's. Interesting yarns and plenty of unofficial American help. One bloke telling the story of a rush flight to pick up Stingers. Another delivering the precious cargo of heatseeker missiles from NATO stocks at an F15 base in Germany to the Ascension Islands- halfway through the flight the female loadmaster comes to the flight deck, proud of herself, with dozens of "remove before flight" pins taken off the missle cargo. A good yarn anyway!

Back on thread, did anyone come up with a viable solution or alternative to the Super Hornet? :)

[ScottyDoo]

Agreed, Go-Gnads. But all of that is NOT what Bustair was suggesting in renting out a piece of land to a stand-in American force who will do our fighting for us.

[Buster Hyman]

Truly staggering Scotty Poo, you are a mental giant amongst the proles.:rolleyes:

(no googling!)

[Gnadenburg]

No I didn't see that .

I thought Buster was referring to the deterrent value of having a couple of USAF squadrons based at Tindal or a Marine base in Darwin.

There is an obvious deterrence to our near neighbours.

The cost, to me, was social and demographic. As well as some foreign policy implications in Asia. And on the lessor side, perhaps, more a home grown terrorist risk with US forces so visible on our soil.

Anyway. Viable alternatives to the Super Hornet??????

A super dooper F111? Or a hotted up, westernised Sukhoi?

[Buster Hyman]

Well, at least someone got it!:rolleyes:

(The wink smiley was for the fact that it wont happen & was a little tongue in cheek...some people don't seem to understand the subtleties of smileys):ugh:

[Going Boeing]

(Fort Worth, Texas, December 18, 2007) -- The Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] F-35B Lightning II, the first fighter to combine stealth with short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) capability and supersonic speed, made its debut today amid customers from the United States Marine Corps, the United Kingdom's Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, and the Italian Air Force and Navy.

Attendees at the rollout ceremony in Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth assembly plant included Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway. "The flexibility that the STOVL variant of the F-35 will add to the contemporary Marine Air Ground Task Force is amazing," Conway said. "This generational leap in technology will enable us to operate a fleet of fighter/attack aircraft from the decks of ships, existing runways or from unimproved surfaces at austere bases. We find that capability extremely valuable."

The F-35B, designed to replace Marine Corps AV-8Bs and F/A-18s, is one of three variants of the Lightning II. Its first flight is planned for mid-2008, following a series of extensive ground tests. The F-35A conventional takeoff and landing version began its flight test program in December of 2006. The F-35C, designed for catapult launches and arrested recoveries aboard large U.S. Navy carriers, will make its inaugural flight in 2009.

"Think F/A-18 speed and maneuverability, AV-8B forward deployment, F-22 stealth, and astonishing avionics," said Dan Crowley, Lockheed Martin executive vice president and F-35 program general manager. "It's a combination of technologies that may seem like science fiction, but our abundantly-talented international team has made it science fact."

The heart of the F-35B is a STOVL propulsion system comprising the most powerful engine ever flown in a jet fighter, a shaft-driven counter-rotating lift fan situated behind the cockpit, a roll duct under each wing for lateral stability, and a rear 3-bearing swivel nozzle that vectors engine exhaust in the desired direction.

During vertical or short takeoffs, or vertical landings, doors above and below the lift fan open, and a clutch connecting the lift fan to the engine drive shaft engages. A dorsal auxiliary engine inlet opens to increase airflow to the engine. At the same time, doors beneath the 3-bearing swivel nozzle open and the rear nozzle pivots downward, deflecting engine thrust toward the ground. Roll ducts under each wing also are engaged, keeping the aircraft laterally stable. In this configuration, the F-35B can hover, land vertically, take off in a few hundred feet fully loaded, or take off vertically with a light load. When the aircraft transitions from jet-borne to conventional wing-borne flight, the doors close and the pilot can then accelerate to supersonic speeds. The system is completely automatic.

The Lockheed Martin X-35B successfully demonstrated the shaft-driven lift fan propulsion system in 2001, becoming the only aircraft in history to execute a short takeoff, level supersonic dash and vertical landing in a single flight.

The Pratt & Whitney F135 engine will power the first series of F-35Bs. The F136, an interchangeable engine under development by the GE Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team, will make its first F-35 flight in 2010. Rolls-Royce produces the shaft-driven lift fan, 3-bearing swivel nozzle and roll duct systems.

Source : Lockheed Martin

[GAS guy]

Sounds like Labor may knock the Super-Hornets on the head. From the SMH... THE $6.6 billion purchase of 24 Super Hornets as a stop-gap fighter jet could be jettisoned by the Federal Government as it reviews all aspects of the program to give Australia a critical edge in regional air combat capability. The Herald understands that Department of Defence planners have been asked to present an analysis on all the fighter jet options to the Federal Government and how they stack up against likely adversaries, the first time such a study has been done for at least five years. All projects in the $30 billion program will be scrutinised "with fresh eyes". That includes what aircraft are to be bought, how many, when and at what price. "Absolutely everything is on the table," a Government source said. Even if contracts have been signed, as is the case with the Super Hornets, the Government is prepared to break them if the case is compelling. This is a shift from previous Labor thinking. The air combat program is supposed to deliver air superiority in the region, long-regarded as fundamental to Australia's strategic doctrine given its large land mass and isolation. The coming year is looming as a critical one. A final decision must be made on the centrepiece of the air-combat project - a $15 billion outlay on up to 100 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, a high-stealth aircraft yet to be developed, has been troubled by delays and is at risk of big cost blow-outs. The prevailing view in the Government is that it makes sense for the entire air combat force structure to be re-examined at the same time. The Defence White Paper - outlining the nation's long-term strategic priorities and being developed next year - is also likely to guide the review. Writing in his local newspaper last week, the Minister for Defence, Joel Fitzgibbon, made clear his concerns with the Super Hornets, a purchase pushed through with great haste by his predecessor, Brendan Nelson, who is now the Opposition Leader. "Few decisions of the Howard government were more controversial than its commitment to spend more than $6 billion on 24 Super Hornets without proper due process or capability justification," he wrote in The Newcastle Herald. Dr Nelson sold the Super Hornet option to cabinet's National Security Committee this year without the co-operation of defence chiefs or undertaking the long due diligence and comparative analysis that usually precedes acquisitions of such scale and expense. Before his pitch, RAAF planners had said an interim jet was not required. Defence analysts say it is the wrong aircraft anyway, lacking stealth and power. The Herald understands that the Super Hornet contract - like those for all foreign military sales - can be abandoned, at a cost of about $300 million. If it is not dumped the Government may seek to renegotiate its terms, or buy fewer aircraft. Back to you, Brendan.

[jindabyne]

From a different thread.

In the four years up to 2000, the Australian DoD was provided with almost 100% of Typhoon's classified specification and the potential upgrades which would follow, including all those enhancements which are now starting to emerge. Yes there was much glossy-brochure stuff, but behind the scenes there was serious business. The Government (and the Opposition) was also offered some attractive and highly innovative purchase options, which would have made a 100-plus buy very affordable, at today's prices. At the time, there were more than a few senior players throughout the RAAF and DoD who were convinced that Typhoon might well have offered them a very viable multi-role solution, and in the right timescale. There was also a highly vocal element (mainly the US-centric and Pig fraternity - and how wrong the latter have been proved) that stuck their heads in the sand, and in some notable cases simply refused to listen. This latter group has done the ADF no favours, and I trust their like will be muted in the upcoming review process.

From an RAAF fan.

[rapiddescent]

I must point out that buying 'off the self' Super Hornets will be one of the best things Australia has ever done in the ADF.

C-17? A proven platform. A no fuss purchase in quick time with no 'red-tape'

The same applies to the Super Hornet. YES, the government made a quick decision - GOOD. About time they took responsibilty and did what we elect them to do - GOVERN and make HARD decisions.

We can argue about F111 and Hornets all day, but the F111 will not last forever and needs to be brideged.

The Typhoon - brilliant aerodynamically, but has useless ergonoics and avionics.

Anything French - I'd rather eat and drink French goods than strap my body to one!

Boeing is the correct decision - wait and see. Labour can 'sing and dance' all they want, but I bet they stick with the decision after making some inquiries of their own.

[Lodown]

Re: F22. Mentioned to me some time ago that one of the first episodes involving an F22 - it 'shot' down several F16s before the F16 group realized that something was nearby. Yanks still working out tactics and probably will be for some time. Concept of hooking up aircraft fault sensors with stores, spares, hangar is wonderful for serviceability and operational readiness. And no doubt the F-35 will be similar. Current calls in the USA to retire the F-15 fleet due to fatigue, age, serviceability and loss of superiority issues. Do we want to purchase a fighter that is also past its prime? Typhoon? Nice aircraft, works well in Europe, but if there was any spat, what would the Europeans be like in keeping up with the supply of spares? And is it just one step above an F111 when a leap is more desirable? Same concern applies with any of the Russian aircraft. One hiccup with Russian relations and we'd have museum pieces. The F111 was developed on the basis of a supersonic aircraft to deliver a nuke. RAAF has done a great job with it, but it's way, way out of its league now. Super Hornet is the way to go for the interim.