Super Hornets For RAAF

[WarmNuts]

$6b fighter plane deal
(http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/6b-fighter-plane-deal/2007/03/06/1172943419483.html#)
March 6, 2007 - 2:47PM




Australia will buy 24 Advanced Boeing Super Hornets for $6 billion, Defence Minister Brendan Nelson said today.
Dr Nelson said the acquisition of the Super Hornets would ensure a safe transition to the F35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) over the next decade.
He said the government was able to do this because of its solid economic management and budget surplus.
"The JSF is the most suitable aircraft for Australia's future combat and strike needs," Dr Nelson told reporters.
"Australia remains fully committed to the JSF. But the government is not prepared to accept any risk to air combat and strike capability during the transition to the JSF."
Under current defence plans, ageing F-111 strike bombers will be retired soon after 2010.
The Hornet will fill the fighter and bomber role until the arrival of the Lockheed F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter in the 2014-15 time frame.



http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/6b-fighter-plane-deal/2007/03/06/1172943419483.html

[Capn Bloggs]

They're going to be based at Amberley. But Amberley is a BOMBER base!! :yuk: :{

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Gee Bloggsy, the F4s were based there without upsetting the willietown knucks.

[Funk]

Novver waste of two engines and fuel :rolleyes:

But lets make sure the RAAF and DoD write a complex 'bound to fail' contract that results in 'off the shelf' aircraft being delivered at twice the price some 5 to 11 years after expected :ugh:

I luv driving on crappy roads whilst politicians and the military piss my taxes (yes I am in the sandpit but I still pay taxes in Oz) up against the wall :yuk:

[Ben88]

I can't wait for these new aircraft. The RAAF hasn't had a change in the "multi-role fighter" avenue for years. It should be good.

[Schwerpunkt]

Memo Cap'n Bloggs ... by 2010 Amberley will be a transport base! :)

[Ben88]

Is that definite?

[wessex19]

well they are a Navy aircraft, put them at Albatross, plenty of room there!!! Even better idea, replace the super Seasprites at 805 SQN with Super Hornets:ok:

[Ben88]

Sounds good to me!:)
Maybe we need some aircraft carriers too?

[Taildragger67]

Great quote from that SMH story:

Group Captain Steve Roberton (Roberton) said he recently flew the Super Hornet in the US.

"This aircraft is an absolute joy to operate and fly and the aircrew are going to love it," he said.

"For a fighter guy it is really nice having the extra fuel, the extra range and the extra endurance. They are yet to make an aircraft that has too many weapons, too much fuel or goes too fast."

Spoken like a true Knuck :ok: !!

[Chronic Snoozer]

If the figures quoted are to be believed.....

The unit price for a SuperHornet is around USD $56 for a USN delivery sans weapons. We're buying 24 so at that price and allowing for the exchange rate that would be 24 x 72 = $1.728b AUD.

What about the remaining $4.272 BILLION?

If no weapons are purchased thats a hell of a support budget - $427m a year to run 24 Hornets for 10 years. At roughly 250 hours per airframe per annum thats a tidy $71,000 taxpayer dollars per hour not including fuel.

I hope there are some weapons in that figure. I liked the $4 billion quoted last year more.

[Joker89]

Yeah I was wondering where they can spend $6 billion on 24 SH's when they quoted $16 bio for 100 JSF's, So JSF was almost $100mio per airframe cheaper.

How do they come up with these numbers???

[TheColonel]

Its Politicians.. they tell you what they want you to hear...

Again, Porkie pies!

[control snatch]

Its simple project management basics.

Initial acquisition cost represents a fraction of through life cost.

The 6bn figure makes sense to me.

[Milt]

The Super Hornet will be no match against the fighters that are becoming prolific to our north.

Can ANYONE challenge that statement other than those who discover it is the best thing they have ever flown?

At best the Super Hornets will become a good FJ trainer not much better than the Hornets the RAAF is already using.

[ftrplt]

Can ANYONE challenge that statement other than those who discover it is the best thing they have ever flown?

Yes.

Care to back up your claim Milt?

[request deferred]

From Friday's Australian Aviation section :
"One of the biggest advantages was that it was relatively easy for a pilot to switch from the Hornet to the Super Hornet.
But there were fewer advantages for maintenance and support staff, because the spare parts used were not interchangeable.
Dr Davies also said it had disadvantages stemming from its design to operate from aircraft carriers, for the Super Hornet had a stronger undercarriage, making it heavier.
And its wing design was really made for lower rather than high speeds.
"It is therefore behind the performance curve from the beginning when compared to land-based aircraft," he said in a recent report.
The Super Hornet also had poorer acceleration and a lower maximum altitude, he said."

[Captain Sand Dune]

The Super Hornet will be no match against the fighters that are becoming prolific to our north.
Such as? In any case the aircraft is only part of the equation.

At best the Super Hornets will become a good FJ trainer not much better than the Hornets the RAAF is already using
Bolleaux!

[Gnadenburg]

he Super Hornet will be no match against the fighters that are becoming prolific to our north.

I though the air threat relatively "benign" and the Super Hornets procured to meet a shortfall or capability gap emerging in the strike role ie: F111 retirement.

The threat to our north, at present, is best viewed in the context of recent tensions between Malaysia & Indonesia. The Indonesians deployed their entire operational F16 force to Balikpapan- four aircraft with limited weapons capability.

Their SU27's are unarmed. A recent follow on order may address this. Still, in terms of numbers, electronic and information technology, training, access to weaponry, the Indonesians are a long way behind the RAAF. Now throw in servicability to the mix.

Malaysia, by all accounts, is having serious problems with servicability too. Perhaps, the recent Sukhoi purchase, will be riddled with the corruption which left their Mig 29 fleet with servicability rates around 30%.

[Biggles_in_Oz]

Some views from both sides ;
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/nationalinterest/stories/2007/1861699.htm#transcript

[Buster Hyman]

The threat to our north, at present
...is Garuda! (with the greatest of respect!)

I think Gnadenburg has hit the nail on the head here...they're replacing the F111, not the F18's. If we were replacing the F18's, then that's another matter entirely.

On a side note, I'm not convinced they are, indeed, the best option but, I'm sure the Defence Dept. know what they're doing...:rolleyes::ugh::rolleyes::ugh:

[ftrplt]

The Defence Dept do in fact know they aren't the best option (which parameter defines best?); just the best option when time, availability, integration, manning, training etc etc are taken into account.

[Milt]

The RAAF seems to find itself mostly out of phase with its sharp end fighter assets when it comes to their operational use.

The first Oz fighter pilots had to stumble around in BE-2Cs and Caudrons in the ME in WW1.
WW2 found us with Wirraways versus Zeros and an initial belief that Japs couldn't fly very well. Many paid a high price
We were out of phase with Mustangs and Meteors in Korea and many paid a high price again.
We were better prepared with Sabres in Malaya but there was no worth while opposition.
We didn't want to risk our fighters in Vietnam and could have performed well with our Hornets in the last century.
There was no fighter opposition in Iraq.

Now we are about to throw away our premium deterrent to those who have an eye on our country's resources or impose on us a crazy religion and plug a capability gap with fighters which won't know what hit them when confronted by Sukhois 30s or better. The only equaliser will be advanced weaponry

As for the CO of the Wirraway pilots in WW2, if we have to use the Hornets and Super Hornets without adequate stings, the CO will have to repeat that well known message. "We, who are about to die, salute you."

[ftrplt]

Now we are about to throw away our premium deterrent to those who have an eye on our country's resources or impose on us a crazy religion and plug a capability gap with fighters which won't know what hit them when confronted by Sukhois 30s or better. The only equaliser will be advanced weaponry

Thought you might say something like this; anyone who believes going from F111 to F18F is a decrease in survivability, has absolutely ZERO idea. If an F18F will have no idea what hit them, how will an F111???? Premium deterrent - NOT!

[Jetsbest]

Re "We didn't want to risk our fighters in Vietnam and could have performed well with our Hornets in the last century."... Australia had Sabres, out of Ubon in Thailand, flying along the Loatian border doing Combat Air Patrol with live ordnance, Canberras in theatre, plenty of fighter pilots doing Fwd Air Control and, were it not for the French refusal to supply spares for Mirages IF they were sent to SE Asia, Mirages would have been there too.
And re "There was no fighter opposition in Iraq."... Really? I bet the 20+ pilots of Iraqi aircraft dispensed by McDonnell Douglas products (ie F15s and F18s) in the first gulf war might disagree. I have seen footage of numerous engagements in that conflict. All very real!
AWACS, smart weapons, air refuelling, aircraft system upgrades (a la F18 with Helmet sights etc), and good training & proficiency are all very good insurance against a non-optimum solution (and btw F111 is nowhere near optimum any more) Get a grip. :ok:

[Going Boeing]

We didn't want to risk our fighters in Vietnam

My understanding is that the French had inserted a clause in the Mirage IIIO purchase contract that enabled them to veto the RAAF sending them to the Vietnam contract - this was why we sent obsolete Canberra bombers instead.

As Jetsbest said in his post, Sabres were involved operationally during the earlier stages of the conflict.

[Joker89]

What is there to complain about? Replacing 40 yr old F111 with brand spanking new Super Hornets?

Isn't the Number one thing about the SH the multirole capablility. Surely whats good enough for the US Navy is good enough for us.

From Memory US Navy chose the Super to replace attack aircraft and the F-14 and declined on the F-22.

[control snatch]

The Super Hornet will be no match against the fighters that are becoming prolific to our north.

HORSE****E!!

Here we go with the hordes of Carlo Kopp worshippers again!!!

Just which fighters are you referring to??

Can you say with a straight face that they are becoming "prolific"???

From what basis are you saying we will be out gunned by the Su-27/30? Let me guess...you've seen it do airborne thrust vectoring on youtube!!!

Is anyone else in the region (in the near future, and apart from the chogies) likely to have a fighter with an AESA, LINK16, NVG, Helmet, AEWACS, AMRAAM, ASRAAM/Aim9X, Well trainied aircrew combination???

I know which cockpit I would rather be sitting in!!!

[lowerlobe]

To those who are unhappy with this purchase, if we didn't order the super Hornets what aircraft should we have ordered?

This isn't supposed to be a sarcastic question as I'm interested in ideas.

Does anyone know the delivery time of the new Hornets?

I guess there are a number of variables to consider when looking at new aircraft.

[Magoodotcom]

Does anyone know the delivery time of the new Hornets?

The first jets are due in early 2010, with the full fleet here by the end of 2011 and FOC achieved in mid 2012.

Cheers

Magoo

P.S Mods - what happened to the quote option for replies???

[ftrplt]

a submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade; Defence Sub-Committee

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/adfair/subs/sub13.pdf

[Dragon79]

I have a question on the way that defence procurement operates, and am hoping that someone with more knowledge maybe able to answer.

Going forward, within the ADF the number of suppliers for major assest seems to be getting smaller and smaller.

Boeing - F18, F18F, Wedgetail, F111 while its still around, BBj, Chook, C17
EADS - A330-MRTT, NH90, Tiger
Lockhead - C130, F35

My question is are each of the purchase for type treated as a one off purchase? Or are discounts sort out for multiple purchase from the one supplier.

I know from my job (telco Indusrty), that if I order in bulk and have a single source for the equipment I require, then I can receive great discounts.

[Buster Hyman]

Ah, but being a "public" institution, there can be all sorts of claims of impropriety if you stick with one supplier who is providing discounts to continue the business...as opposed to the current method, where there is ...umm...no way of proving it!:}

[Magoodotcom]

I have a question on the way that defence procurement operates, and am hoping that someone with more knowledge maybe able to answer.
Going forward, within the ADF the number of suppliers for major assest seems to be getting smaller and smaller.
Boeing - F18, F18F, Wedgetail, F111 while its still around, BBj, Chook, C17
EADS - A330-MRTT, NH90, Tiger
Lockhead - C130, F35
My question is are each of the purchase for type treated as a one off purchase? Or are discounts sort out for multiple purchase from the one supplier.
I know from my job (telco Indusrty), that if I order in bulk and have a single source for the equipment I require, then I can receive great discounts.
Depends...
With US equipment, there would likely not be any discounts for different equipment from the same manufacturer, as you're dealing through the US Govt (FMS) and its various program offices.
With the Europeans, who knows? Anything's possible there I guess!
Cheers
Magoo

[Like This - Do That]

Not that this helps today's dismal choice .... but think back to the choices confronting the RAAF in 1979 - 81 to replace the Miracle:

McDonnell-Douglas; Dassault; SAAB; Lockheed; PANAVIA; General Dynamics; Grumman; Northrop.

Or go back 15-20 years prior to that, the choices were vast; add to the above list English Electric; Republic; North American; Chance-Vought; Convair; North American; Hawker; etc etc

Consolidation in the industry might have been unavoidable, but one could argue it's gone too far.

[Dragon79]

The "public" institution didn't mind going sole source for the C17 (Great example I think) or the F18F(Undecided here) , and wasn't the competition non-existent for the F35 decision.

I have no issue with sole source as long as there is some form of oversight, independent or government, and most importantly the right equipment ends up in the right hands.

When dealing with the FMS do they simply act as sales agent, or do they act on behalf of the supplier in negations?

[Flyingblind]

Maybe i'm being a tad naive here but if your going to replace a mud mover with a potential high tech mud mover,shouldnt the 'stop gap' a/c be a superb example of current mud moving and a have the capability for a secondary role as a A2A missle carrier?

I.e. the Super (B)Eagle? F15R(AAF), i'm sure the Singaporeans & Korean contests were both different to our own requirements but it wouldnt hurt to operate an aircraft in line with some of our supposed allies. And who knows the RAAF may get to keep them after the lease expires and end up with a top notch F16A-B,SU-27 Killer.

Then again i guess Boeing may not be able to supply said a/c in our required price/timeline due to USAF requirements and our own Governments predilection for supplicanting themselves before the alter of Boeing/LockMart.

[Going Boeing]

L-3 Communications Link Simulation and Training to Build F/A-18 Tactical Readiness Trainers for Royal Australian Air Force

(Arlington, Texas, March 13, 2007) -- L-3 Communications Link Simulation and Training (L-3 Link) announced today that it has received a contract from Raytheon Australia to build three F/A-18 Tactical Readiness Trainers for the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF).

The F/A-18 Tactical Readiness Trainers are integrated with simulated controls, avionics, weapons and a flat panel display to view out-the-window visual scenes. These part task training devices operate on the same software as the three high fidelity F/A-18 Tactical Operational Flight Trainers that L-3 Link delivered during 2006 as part of the RAAF's Hornet Aircrew Training System.

"The Tactical Readiness Trainers will provide a low-cost, complementary training capability to the F/A-18 Hornet Aircrew Training System's Tactical Operational Flight Trainers," said Mike Wallace, Vice President of Air Force and Navy Programs at L-3 Link Simulation and Training. "These systems will offload some of the procedural training now being conducted on F/A-18 Tactical Operational Flight Trainers, enabling the high fidelity devices to support more complex warfighting scenarios. The Tactical Readiness Trainers have the potential to be integrated with the Tactical Operational Flight Trainers in support of larger scale simulation exercises."

The three Tactical Readiness Trainers will be delivered to the RAAF's two Hornet Aircrew Training System installations in late 2008.

Source : L-3 Communications

[Dragon79]

Has there been any suggestion, talk, speculation, etc etc, that the JSF deal might include any of the STOVL model to operate of the LHDs that are being purchased?

[Ben88]

I don't think there has been much or any speculation about purchasing the STOVL variant. However the first JSFs are supposed to be operational by 2014.
What does LHD stand for?
Regards
Ben

[Flyingblind]

Dragon79, I did see some rumblings in a few defence magazines a year or so ago but nothing since then, at least not in the public domain:} I doubt it would go down to well with our Indonesian etc friends to the North, would seem like we are acquiring carriers by stealth (force projection), any one fancy 'liberating' west Papua and then giving the whole island back to the New Guinean people,then again if our Deputy Sheriff has gone and signed a defence pact with the Japanease who knows?

Looks like johnie wants to side step Indonesia and our back yard and involve Australia in the big boys club of the Japanese/Chinese/North Korean/South Korean tensions.

If the federal bugets got as much money in it as the Government boasts, then lets do it properly and buy 2-3 LHD plus escorts equiped with a Sqn or two of Navy F35 STOVL plus those big Hovercraft the UCMC has for beach assults and a few more NH90's for LHD based air assult,and while were at it form the Royal Australian Marine Corps. :}

[Dragon79]

Ben88

LHD - Landing Ship Helicopter/Dock (found this on google http://www.amphib.com.au/), its the project that is going to be late and over budget after the AWDs. :}


Why is it that everything has to be considered, in terms of, will it upset our neighbours to the north. I know theres alot of them, but I didn't think they had the ability to move large numbers over such a large distance to come an visit?

Would seem to me that the LHDs are pretty much force projection and acquiring the STVOL version would be more force protection for the force projection, if you get my intention, along with the AWDs. And if we are getting involved with the big boys club, might be time to muscle up.

[Ben88]

Thanks for that and the website. I'll check it out.
Regards
Ben

[control snatch]

STOVL variant

Dreaming

2014

Again......dreaming

[Buster Hyman]

Oh goody! A Seasprite platform!:rolleyes:

[Dragon79]

Anyone else see the 7:30 Report, story on the Super Hornet last night, very interesting if the story was accurate, that it was Dr Nelsons call to purchase the super hornets and the RAAF did not request the air craft. $6 Billion for an aircraft that the RAAF don't want, sounds like another winner to me. Sure they could come up with other ways to spend the money if it was going.

But then again it could have been more anti-government rhetoric from the ABC...

[Buster Hyman]

Dragon, I'd be interested to see the pass & fail rate of RAAF selections vs Defence Dept. selections on aircraft. (Or other services & their military hardware)

I'm not advocating either way, but I think blind Freddy would see the value of the people in the service making the call. From memory (and I was but a wee Buster at the time) I think the RAAF quite liked the Phantom we had on loan & would've been happy with it remaining in place rather than the F111. (happy to be corrected) I'm a fan of the F111 and I think it has served Australia well so, I don't know whether that's a score for either side, perhaps a draw?:confused:

[Flyingblind]

The 7:30 Report was intresting in what it didnt say, they did not look at what the RAAF preffered or other flying credable options (yeah Flankers are great airshow stoppers but their not for the likes of us) , forget the F22 Carlo, it just aint gunner happen, at least for the foreseeable future!

Now that Nelson has buought the SuperBug, and the JSF rolls around on time and budget perhaps we can then keep the 'Bug and convert them to F18G's?

In an ideal world the perfect replacement for the Pig would be the FB22, but then again this is only a CAD aircraft, lets buy the best option for now and in 15 years time look at a mature aircraft mix F22/FB22 + JSF.

:= now I'M dreaming!

[Taildragger67]

Buster,

Don't let Milt hear you say that!

Flyingblind,

Flankers tend to be airshow-stoppers because you can't continue the flying displays with all those fire appliances and ambulances charging around... :eek:

Frozo,
Slide rules? What, the loads got too big and complicated for fingers and toes?! :E

[Buster Hyman]

What, the loads got too big and complicated for fingers and toes?
Can you get a Purple Heart (or equivalent) for Tinea???

[Dragon79]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21395829-421,00.html

6 billion here, 12 to 16 billion there. Serious coin being talked about being spent.

[whaet]

A quick question...

Does this mean they're likely to need another 24+ pilots in the near future????

whaet

[Angle of Attack]

Man with all these billions of dollars they are talking about that is a lot of dough... Why not purchase a few hundred thousand C152's launch them all together.. and man nothing's gonna get through that spiderweb of airframes! lol, and in the offensive mode well 1 C152 is pretty harmless just like a mozzie but times that by a 100,000 that might sting! lol!:}

[Going Boeing]

(Goleta, Calif., August 2, 2007) -- Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN) has been awarded a $24.4 million U.S. Navy contract to equip Royal Australian Air Force F/A-18F Super Hornets with the ALR-67(V)3 digital radar warning receiver.

The contract, representing the first international sale of the ALR-67(V)3 for the Super Hornet, calls for the delivery of 24 radar warning receivers to the RAAF. Raytheon was recently awarded a contract to provide 55 radar warning receivers plus spares for RAAF F/A-18A+ aircraft as part of the Australia Hornet upgrade program.

"Equipping the RAAF Super Hornet with the ALR-67(V)3 is another step forward in expanding our international business," said Roy Azevedo, manager of Raytheon's Electronic Warfare business area. "The ALR-67(V)3 and its new digital technology provide critical capabilities for self-protection of the F/A-18."

The award, a foreign military sale, originated with the Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md. Deliveries under the contract will begin in October 2009 and are expected to be complete by September 2010.

[control snatch]

2014

Te he he he!

Even funnier was that 2012 was still being banded around until less than 12 months ago.

[Going Boeing]

Steve Creedy | January 04, 2008

A PERTH company is pitching its aircraft structural monitoring system as a way of extending the life of the RAAF's F-111 fleet if the Government opts to scrap its controversial $6.6 billion order for 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets.

Last year the government decided to spend $6.6 billion on a stopgap replacement for the F111. Structural Monitoring Systems has written to new Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon expressing concern that the availability and benefits of structural health monitoring systems were not taken into account when the decision to retire the F-111s was made.

SMS's Comparative Vacuum Monitoring (CVM) technology uses alternating tubes of air and a constant vacuum to monitor structural health and detect cracks in aircraft before they become a problem.

It has already been approved for Australian Defence Force aircraft and is being evaluated for use on military aircraft in Britain, the US and Europe.

The Howard government decided to retire the F-111s early and buy the Super Hornets to bridge a gap that opened up because of delays in Australia's replacement warplane, the Joint Strike Fighter.

But SMS managing director Mark Vellacott, who has a military aircraft background, said he had been surprised when former defence minister Brendan Nelson blamed the decision to retire the F-111s on structural worries.

New ways of looking at structures and monitoring them "can actually reduce that risk quite considerably", Mr Vellacott said.

"And when he said he was worried about the fatigue tests, I was aware from discussions with people in the industry that the spec they had set for the fatigue spectrum was actually incorrect."

Mr Vellacott said he believed Dr Nelson had ignored advice from the industry, and that a range of issues had not been taken into consideration.

He said SMS sensors had been used on P3 Orions and Blackhawk helicopters in Australia and on Nimrods and Sea Kings in Britain, and that the company had ongoing programs in the US with C130s.

"We have a lot of experience flying CVM on military platforms and also we've had the director-general, technical airworthiness, in Australia accredit the technology to use on Australian military aircraft," he said.

"So we've got a lot of credibility and background and we've got a system that can be fielded at the moment with instrumentation that's ready to go."

Mr Vellacott said it was unclear whether the F-18 contract was a done deal with Boeing, and acknowledged it would cost millions of dollars to back out of it.

However, he believed the new Defence Minister should review the whole program and look at structural health monitoring as an alternative.

SMS, listed on the ASX since 2004, has been testing civilian applications for its technology.

[MDPE]

"SMS's Comparative Vacuum Monitoring (CVM) technology uses alternating tubes of air and a constant vacuum to monitor structural health and detect cracks in aircraft before they become a problem."

Will those tubes of air make the radar morph into an AESA, turn the cockpit NVG compatible, provide a fighter data-link or make the F111 able to carry slammers, 9X or JDAM?

I didn't think so. Who cares if the airframe is good to go for 100 years, it's all the stuff bolted to it that is crap.

[Gnadenburg]

Raptor for RAAF? From the Herald-Sun.

Israel, Japan and now Australia wants it.

THE Australian Government wants to include one of the world's most expensive fighter jets, the US-built F-22 Raptor, in its lineup of deadly weapons.

Russian-built Sukhoi and MiG fighters will also be on the table when Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon sits down with air force chiefs to review the nation's air combat capability.

Until now, US law has banned the export of the Raptor to any country, even close allies such as Australia, but Mr Fitzgibbon said he would take up the matter with the US.

"I intend to pursue American politicians for access to the Raptor," he said.

[Buster Hyman]

Well, without any basis in fact, I'm rather happy that, on appearances, the Govt. is pursuing the Raptor. Saying they'll look at the Russian kit as well won't do them any favours but, WTF. If the Flanker is the best kit in the region (the pilots manning them are another matter) and we can't get the US platform capable of outflying them, well, why wouldn't you look at them?

[Fliegenmong]

My sentiments exactly Mr Hyman...........(The pig isn't even on my new Defcredit Visa card nowadays :sad:)

[Guptar]

While we're at it, we should include the new B-1R. A mach 2.5 version of the B-1 Lancer. Able to deliver 25,000 kg of ordinance out to 2,500nm without refuling.

Now thats some big stick.

[Going Boeing]

(Amityville, N.Y., February 5, 2008) -- Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC) has begun production of major structural components for the first F/A-18F Super Hornet strike fighter aircraft for the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF).

On Feb. 5, GKN Aerospace-Monitor, a premier supplier to Northrop Grumman, began machining the first wing bulkhead, one of three titanium bulkheads that hold the F/A-18 wings in place. The government of Australia is purchasing 24 F/A-18Fs from the United States in the first international procurement of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

Northrop Grumman is principal subcontractor to The Boeing Company on the F/A-18 program. The wing bulkheads will be shipped to Northrop Grumman's state-of-the-art production facility in El Segundo, Calif., where the company produces the F/A-18E/F's center/aft fuselage section and twin vertical tails and integrates all associated subsystems. Northrop Grumman expects to begin assembling the first Super Hornet fuselage shipset for Australia in late March.

"This marks the beginning of a production process that will deliver unquestionable quality in a frontline aircraft to the Royal Australian Air Force," said George Vardoulakis, vice president of F/A-18 Programs for Northrop Grumman's Integrated Systems sector. "Our suppliers have always been an essential part of the Super Hornet industry team, and their outstanding performance is a key element of our success."

Bob Gower, vice president of F/A-18 and EA-18 Programs at Boeing Integrated Defense Systems, said starting structural component construction was the beginning of a process that would meet the requirements of the RAAF while delivering proven value and combat capability. "As production begins on the RAAF Super Hornets, Boeing and the entire Hornet Industry Team will continue our proven track record of delivering Super Hornets on schedule and within budget, while continuing to outdistance the threat," he said.

The F/A-18E/F is the U.S. Navy's combat-proven strike fighter with built-in versatility. Its suite of integrated and networked systems provides enhanced interoperability, total force support for the combatant commander and for the troops on the ground. The F/A-18E/F entered service with the U.S. Navy in 1999, and the Navy is expected to acquire a minimum of 460 Super Hornets through 2012.

"GKN Aerospace is proud to be a member of the Australian F/A-18F production team," said Jim Gibson, vice president of sales and marketing for GKN Aerospace-Aerostructures North America. "We are fully committed to meeting our customer's requirements and providing the highest quality assemblies."

Source : Northrop Grumman Corporation

& to hang off them!

Raytheon Completes Second Successful Engine Test of Joint Standoff Weapon Extended Range

JSOW-ER to provide warfighters with easily integrated, affordable, viable weapon

(San Diego, February 5, 2008) -- The Joint Standoff Weapon Extended Range missile moved one step closer to powered flight testing when Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN) successfully conducted a second ground test of the JSOW-ER engine at the facility of Hamilton Sundstrand, a United Technologies Corp. (NYSE: UTX) company, late last year.

The Raytheon- and Hamilton Sundstrand-funded test evaluated a flush inlet, engine and exhaust design. This test keeps the JSOW-ER on track for further functional ground tests, a captive carry flight test in 2008, and a free- flight demonstration in 2009.

JSOW-ER, which comprises a portion of Raytheon's response to the Air Force's request for information for alternative solutions to the Joint Air-to- Surface Standoff Missile, is a proposed variant of the combat-proven JSOW, with a price goal of $350,000 per unit.

"JSOW-ER provides the warfighter an affordable extended-range missile that is essentially a spiral of Raytheon's combat-proven glide JSOW," said Harry Schulte, vice president of Raytheon Missile Systems Strike product line. "It can be easily integrated onto any aircraft that can carry JSOW and will give the warfighter a 300-nautical mile missile with the same netted weapon capability and maritime interdiction capability currently in development for the JSOW C-1."

JSOW-ER's affordability and longer range can, in large part, be attributed to the weapon's 150-pound thrust class Hamilton Sundstrand engine. The engine, which is the same one used in Raytheon's Miniature Air Launched Decoy, will help keep the JSOW-ER affordable while reducing the MALD's(tm) cost per unit, thanks to economies of scale. JSOW-ER will also incorporate the same cost initiatives that reduced the unit cost of JSOW Block II by more than 25 percent.

Source : Raytheon

Plus
(St. Louis, February 13, 2008) -- LaBarge, Inc. (AMEX: LB) has been awarded a $2.2 million contract from Raytheon Missile Systems to continue to provide complex cable harnesses for the JSOW (Joint Standoff Weapon) system.

Currently launched by Navy strike aircraft, JSOW is a revolutionary glide weapon that uses global positioning satellite information to find its target. Designed to ensure a fighter's survival in combat, JSOW operates outside the range of an enemy's line of air defense. JSOW has been combat proven, most recently in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Source : LaBarge Inc.

[Buster Hyman]

Well, if KRudds going to cancel them, he'd better pull his finger out!

[Cap'n Arrr]

I agree with Guptar... bring on the Bone!

I'm just confused as to how the F18E/F is going to replace the F111. The F111 is a strike bomber, the F18 is a multi role fighter. Surely a newer strike bomber would be a better purchase?

(Forgive me, I'm not too much into military)

Arrr

[Flyingblind]

Reading that article i'd say that time might just be up to cancel the SuperBug, all depends on the contractual obligations i guess. Either that or Min Def is holding out for 'some other goodie' from Boeing if we dont cancel.

Would hate to see the pay out if we cancel downstream.

[L J R]

If we buy the BONE, we might scare the Indons, and we know that we can't do that!

[Cap'n Arrr]

True.. but then they're pushing for the F22, that would worry them more I would think. The B1 could go well past S Asia, but the F22 would be just the right range...

[Capt Wally]

........bit of a fast, very fast in fact diversion here. Heard today on the radio whilst enroute in sth e vic someone saying that they will be flying supersonic back from tassie over bass straight. Q is seeing as us meer mortals fly 'sub' everything do they need to ask permission to fly greater than the speed of sound or is it at pilots discression??

CW

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

...bit of a fast, very fast in fact diversion here. Heard today on the radio whilst enroute in sth e vic someone saying that they will be flying supersonic back from tassie over bass straight. Q is seeing as us meer mortals fly 'sub' everything do they need to ask permission to fly greater than the speed of sound or is it at pilots discression??

That'd be 3SQN's Tubs returning from Hobart after the weekend's 'boat show'. Unless it's a designated supersonic corridor, we have to NOTAM any intended supersonic jaunts.

While we're at it, we should include the new B-1R. A mach 2.5 version of the B-1 Lancer. Able to deliver 25,000 kg of ordinance out to 2,500nm without refuling.

Now thats some big stick.

Geez, I'd hate to be signing off on the manpower forecasts to man that squadron!!! Imagine a bigger, badder, more expensive, more unreliable F-111...ouch!

[Capt Wally]

Tnxs 'tub', just that you don't hear such things too often. Would love to see the LRN showing above a 1000 kts ! But I guess you only need to go about 750 to 'break' something !

CW:ok:

[Going Boeing]

NGC Completes Successful Demonstration of New Synthetic Aperture Radar Capability for F-22 Fighter

(Baltimore, February 14, 2008) -- Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC) has successfully demonstrated the capability to generate high-resolution, in-flight synthetic aperture radar (SAR) maps using the AESA (active electronically scanned array) radar being produced for the U.S. Air Force's F-22 Raptor fighter aircraft.

"The flight tests, on board a company BAC 1-11 test bed aircraft, have proved that the F-22 fighter's mission capabilities have expanded to include directly identifying and targeting enemy ground defenses and mobile forces," said Teri Marconi, vice president of Combat Avionics Systems at Northrop Grumman. "This is a hugely significant event for the F-22 program because it ensures that Raptor pilots will have access to critical detailed information about both air and ground threats before the enemy's radar ever detects the F-22."

Source : Northrop Grumman Corporation

And progress on the JSF

GE Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team Completes Successful Design Milestone

(Evendale, Ohio, February 13, 2008) -- The GE Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team has successfully completed its Critical Design Review, a major milestone in the F136 engine development program.

The F136 engine is a 40,000+ lb. thrust combat engine that will be available to power all variants of the F-35 Lightning II aircraft for the US military and eight partner nations.

During Critical Design Review (CDR), the US Government's Joint Program Office for the F-35 Lightning II validates and approves the design of the engine. During that review, every aspect of the engine design is analyzed and evaluated in order to proceed with the building of the first full development engines. The process involved 80 detailed component and module design reviews, involving technical experts from the JPO, General Electric and Rolls-Royce.

Completion of CDR is an important step that signifies the F136 program is moving from early design phases toward production.

"The CDR, held at the GE Evendale facility, was the culmination of over four months of detailed component, module and system reviews between the Fighter Engine Team and JPO propulsion teams. The F136 met the milestone requirements and this serves as an important step on the path towards a competitive engine for the F-35, which is on course to power their first F-35 flight by 2010. Challenges exist, but the F136 is well positioned to meet them," said John White, Director of Engineering for the Joint Program Office.

"This milestone demonstrates that two global leaders in propulsion can combine their experience and their best technologies, resulting in an innovative design and one of the most advanced combat engines ever created. The GE Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team has reached that goal while staying within its budget and staying on schedule," said Jean Lydon-Rodgers, President of the Fighter Engine Team.

"This represents a major achievement for one of the greatest engine design teams ever assembled, striving to provide the best engine to the warfighter. Now, we move on to delivering the first production configuration engine within a year, with first flight in the F-35 Lightning II scheduled for 2010," said Mark Rhodes, Senior Vice President of the Fighter Engine Team.

Source : GE Aviation

[Going Boeing]

(Fort Worth, Texas, US, February 19, 2008) -- BAE Systems has completed critical fuel testing on the first F-35 Lightning II short take off and vertical landing (STOVL) variant five days ahead of its schedule proving the maturity of both the aircraft and programme.

The important fuel checks of the design and build of the aircraft was led by BAE Systems and involved constant testing, 24 hours a day for 13 days, which checked the calibration of the aircraft's fuel gauging systems. Testing took place at Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth plant in Texas where the first STOVL aircraft, BF-1, is currently undergoing a series of tests in preparation of first flight later this year.

Tom Fillingham, F-35 Lightning II Managing Director at BAE Systems said: "It was a milestone moment in the programme. This is the first STOVL we've tested, and we wanted to make sure the designs worked and check that the fuel systems had been put together properly."

The BAE Systems team of engineers are based at Warton, Lancashire, and travelled out to Fort Worth to undertake the programme of testing.

Following the fuel testing the aircraft is undergoing structural coupling and ground vibration testing, as well as completing hydraulic testing of the doors and landing gear.

BAE Systems is responsible for the design and delivery of the aft fuselage and empennage for each of the three F-35 variants, as well as key areas of the vehicle and mission systems, in particular the fuel system, crew escape, life support system and prognostics health management integration. The Company also has significant work share in autonomic logistics, primarily on the support system side, and is involved in the Integrated Test Force, including the systems flight test and mission systems.

Source : BAE Systems

[Going Boeing]

(Linthicum, Md., February 19, 2008) -- Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC) unveiled a new company funded program to develop an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) at the Singapore Air Show. The Scalable Agile Beam Radar (SABR) will be a full performance fire control AESA derived from proven AESA technology for light tactical aircraft. SABR is being designed for retrofit to existing F-16 aircraft and can be scaled to fit other platforms and mission areas.

"SABR is the most recent development in a long line of Northrop Grumman AESA airborne fire control radars," said Chris Sheppard, F-16 Sensor Systems Program Development manager. "SABR will offer all the advantages of an active electronically scanned multi-function array, more than just a radar, but at a lower price than AESA fire control radars now available."

"We look forward to supporting the F-16 aircraft worldwide for at least 30 more years, and SABR is our investment towards maintaining the F-16's combat capability. SABR leverages investment in technologies derived from AESAs produced for the U.S. Air Force and our international partners," said Sheppard.

Source : Northrop Grumman Corporation

[luvmuhud]

As hard as I try, I can't see the Australian Government passing the acquisition of a capability which gives the 'bang for buck' of the F-22.....ie, a lot of bang for a much larger buck. Although you can't really continue to call the F-22 a 'niche air to air' capability, it is somewhat air to ground limited.

BUT.......I do hope we get it for one reason.........IT'S FREAKIN' FAST!!!!!!

The kinetics of the F-22 are often understated, but they remain the one area in which it's streets ahead of JSF.

An F-22 at M2.0+ at 80,000' won't need stealth to deny most tactical and some strategic SAMs - it's too freakin' quick to be in danger. Intercepting a fighter at these sorts of speeds and heights is also near impossible in practice, although theoretically armchair knuckleheads will disagree.

And this is not to mention the air to ground standoff capability achieved if supersonic release of guided weapons is capitilised on........you don't need to have fins and rocket motors on your bomb if you throw it fast enough from up in the menopause!

Anyways, I don't reckon it'll happen for the RAAF, but man, it'd be nice.

lmh

[marty1468]

I agree LMH,

What an awesome jet to have in our arsenal. Just having it is a deterrent to those who might want to have a go at us. even if it's A/G capability is limited.

I'm sure with Aussie ingenuitydown at ARDU (i believe it's called something else now?), we could have a decent A/G capability in the jet within a short time. Remember when we first got Pave Tack working so well that the yanks offered us 24 brand new F-111's as a swap for our ARDU one cos their targeting wasn't as accurate as ours??? We declined of course.

It has supercruise and i'm sure it would have the range of the F-111 and with the ability to fly to and from targets without detection would be a plus. I'm sure our adversaries would be able to detect any tankers that might be loitering and correctly guess that they might soon be under attack from JSF's. No need for that tanker (well not in a detectable range anyway) with the F22.

get's a big thumbs up from me :ok:

ps it's also a better looking plane

[Spaghetti Monster]

Remember when we first got Pave Tack working so well that the yanks offered us 24 brand new F-111's as a swap for our ARDU one cos their targeting wasn't as accurate as ours???

Errr...no. (And they might have had trouble finding 24 new ones in the mid 80's, seeing as the last F model was manufactured in about 1976.)

[marty1468]

Quote:
Remember when we first got Pave Tack working so well that the yanks offered us 24 brand new F-111's as a swap for our ARDU one cos their targeting wasn't as accurate as ours???
Errr...no. (And they might have had trouble finding 24 new ones in the mid 80's, seeing as the last F model was manufactured in about 1976.)

Admittedly it was a rumour at the time when i was in the RAAF :O

[TruBlu351]

And this is not to mention the air to ground standoff capability achieved if supersonic release of guided weapons is capitilised on........you don't need to have fins and rocket motors on your bomb if you throw it fast enough from up in the menopause!

They have Primrose oil injection to make them less angry up there ;)

It's a freaking beast of a jet. Had a crack on the display sim in DC...the avionics, radar, EW gear and performance are second to none....its' one mean MOFO I wouldn't want to pick a fight with.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

As hard as I try, I can't see the Australian Government passing the acquisition of a capability which gives the 'bang for buck' of the F-22.....ie, a lot of bang for a much larger buck. Although you can't really continue to call the F-22 a 'niche air to air' capability, it is somewhat air to ground limited.

BUT.......I do hope we get it for one reason.........IT'S FREAKIN' FAST!!!!!!

The kinetics of the F-22 are often understated, but they remain the one area in which it's streets ahead of JSF.

An F-22 at M2.0+ at 80,000' won't need stealth to deny most tactical and some strategic SAMs - it's too freakin' quick to be in danger. Intercepting a fighter at these sorts of speeds and heights is also near impossible in practice, although theoretically armchair knuckleheads will disagree.

And this is not to mention the air to ground standoff capability achieved if supersonic release of guided weapons is capitilised on........you don't need to have fins and rocket motors on your bomb if you throw it fast enough from up in the menopause!

Anyways, I don't reckon it'll happen for the RAAF, but man, it'd be nice.

80,000 feet??? :eek: Try 55-60 max! There's only a couple of birds that can hold 80K, and they're both black!

Sure, the F-22 is fast and yes, I'd love to strap one on and fly downtown anywhere! But, the F-22 runs on 386 processor chips and with only 190-odd to be built, I'd hate to have to fund a large percentage of any future hardware upgrades in order to stay compatible with the US fleet.

The F-22 will be far less relevant in the 2020s than the F-35 which, although not as fast or high flying, will offer far greater SA and ISR capability, and better A2A, A2G lethality in the years ahead.

[luvmuhud]

TruBlu351..........yes, it is the Black Falcon of the fighter world!!!

FoxtrotAlphaBallOnTheDeck.......386 chips maybe........but when JSF is suddenly unstealthed by the enemies big 'unstealthing' weapon, it's nothing but a fat ugly loafing Hornet........at least in the F-22 you can go fast!!!

[oldm8]

For anyone that thinks the JSF will be better than the F22 you are deluded.
The F35 will be to the F22 what the F16 is to the F15. Manufactured by the thousand and expendable.

The only reason you may hear stats and figures that may lead you to think otherwise is because they are trying to sell the JSF. They are not trying to sell the F22.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Manufactured by the thousand and expendable.

...using technology which is 15 years younger!

Do you honestly think Australia's defence leadership is dumb enough to get sucked into buying an "expendable" aircraft?

I've flown the sim, I've seen the numbers, and I'm excited.

[The PM]

I really would't worry. It would seem that most in the ADF will be out of a job in the not too distant future, and we will have a New Zealand style defence force.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/pm-to-slash-howards-defence-spend/2008/02/23/1203467452248.html

THE Federal Government will launch a major cost cutting assault on multi-billion dollar defence projects established by the Howard government, with the controversial $6.6billion Super Hornet jet fighters first in its sights.

Other defence white elephants in the Government's target include the Abrams tank, three massively expensive air warfare destroyers, two huge amphibious carrier ships, dud Seasprite helicopters, unnecessary flying drones and $16billion worth of undeveloped F-35 joint strike fighters.

Work will begin this week on the 2008 defence white paper, the biggest review of Australia's defence priorities since the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the US. It will reassess the Howard government's policy of spending $50billion to build a defence force that fits seamlessly into the US military machine.

Also just getting under way is a month-long inquiry into whether Australia needs 24 F/A-18 Super Hornets to plug a gap between the retirement of the F-111s and the arrival of the F-35s in 2014. It could cost $400million to cancel the order.

Professor Hugh White, head of Australian National University's Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, said many of these "white elephants were designed for major battles that Australia was unlikely to be involved in".

"The Abrams tank was designed to battle Soviet tanks pouring across Europe," Professor White said. "We are paying $2billion for two big amphibious transport ships which carry helicopters, 1000 troops, the Abrams tanks and were designed to invade with massive force. Where would we use them? We would do much better with four smaller vessels."

Paul Dibb, a former defence department chief, warned recently that defence chiefs had got what they wanted far too easily and big savings could be made in the projects.

"The only time a nation's defence budget should be untouchable is when there is a clearly and imminent military threat to the country. Evidently that is not the case now," Mr Dibb said.

The first multibillion-dollar white elephant to get the axe could be an $8.1billion navy plan to build three air warfare destroyers. They are designed to protect fleets, and Australia doesn't have one.

A similarly complex project to upgrade four Adelaide class guided missile frigates was labelled a "nightmare" by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. After four years and $1.4billion, the ships still can't be cleared fit for active service and have not been allowed to be deployed to risky zones such as the Middle East.

The two amphibious transport ships costing $1billion each could also be heading for the chop. The Rudd Government believes neighbouring nations would feel threatened as the ships could hold an invasion force.

[email protected]

Source: The Sun-Herald

[W800i]

Yes I too do not believe the F-35 will be expendable. Depending on whom you listen to the cost is either in then year 2002 dollars of $40 or $50 million dollars or north of $100 million per aircraft. Serious amounts in anyone's language.

It is true that the technology in the F-22 is older than the F-35. However if what I have read about the computing modules in the F-22 they are swap out in design. I would assume that the F-35 will use similar technology. So depending on upgrades some F-22's in the future may very well have higher capacity computing power than some F-35's and of course vice versa. I would imagine that the F-22 is being built in blocks and thus would have design changes and upgrades incorporated as the build progresses.

As far as numbers go the F-22 line is going to produce South of 200 Raptors. No more have been authorised and the current US administration have not as yet authorized further numbers for the USAF or any foreign country. Interestingly the line has not had money set aside for closure with one article speculating that the current administration is leaving the decision whether to close it or not up to the next administration. Complicating matters is the grounding of some F-15 models due to a manufacturing fault that lead to a mid air break up of one F-15. Not the sort of thing that one would expect to occur in the worlds pre eminent air force. So politically their may be pressure building to order more Raptors to replace ageing F-15's?

Gordon England wants the F-35 to fill this roll and of course that may be a prudent course of action excepting the fact that the F-35 is still a long way off being ready for squadron service. Politically having to wait a further 5 or so years before the F-35 starts appearing in any numbers is an eternity in politics. So as the previous writer stated, their are no further orders for the Raptor but I wouldn't be entirely certain that this wont change.

The MAIN risks still for the F-35 and of course all previous modern fighter bomber projects and no doubt all future ones as well are...
- POLITICAL- will a new administration fully fund the continuing development of the project?
- TECHNICAL- the software codex is huge due to the complexity, integration and highly advanced nature of the on board systems in the F-35. The F-35 has allready had its fair share of problems as all procurements do. It will be quite simply unheralded if Lockheed Martin can get the F-35 to squadron service without their being all sorts of issues and problems to sort through. This is normal. For me it was really strange that that the F-35 was chosen so early in its development by defence?

I am sure the previous writers experience of the F-35 and his flight on the simulator are genuine. I would say however that until RAAF air crew can fly the F-35 for real, test the claims of the manufacturer and fly aircraft with fully useable and operational software suites will I have my concerns allayed.
As a note the CDF mentioned recently that a RAAF exchange pilot is about to transition onto the Raptor. The impressions of one of our highly trained and experienced flight crew is one of the kind's of impression that we should base our procurement decisions upon. Hopefully this pilot will be a little more politically correct than one Raptor pilot was when describing ACM with other legacy fighters. He described it as similar to "clubbing baby seals".

So should we have the Raptor. Well that is a decision for the strategic leaders. These leaders set the priorities for the war fighters. The war fighters and civilian experts then decide what system or weapon can do the job. Where possible a tender process is followed with full competition of bids. If it is restricted or unavailable for export than political pressure is applied. The paperwork is correctly filled out and submitted.

My take on things is that the RAAF with a couple of squadrons of Super Hornets and a couple of Raptor squadrons is a very nasty future fighting force. Plus we then have aircraft from both US manufacturers rather than just one. If the Americans wont sell the Raptor then my hope is that the new Australian government will put this massive acquisition out to full tender.

The complication for the new Defmin is that if he cancels the Super Hornet contract then he burns $400 million for termination fees. He may be in quite the grumpy mood considering that it would appear that nearly a billion dollars needs to be re spent to purchase helicopters to replace the Super Sea Sprite fleet. I'm glad, I'm just a blogger.

[Buster Hyman]

The only time a nation's defence budget should be untouchable is when there is a clearly and imminent military threat to the country
Isn't that when it's too late?

[Like This - Do That]

The only time a nation's defence budget should be untouchable is when there is a clearly and imminent military threat to the country

Buster that utter **** Dibb must still think we'll have 10 years warning before any major conflagrations erupt.

And as for Professor White .... := he really ought to know better. The M1A1 wasn't bought for playing Rommel and he should bloody well know that.

[oldm8]

Do you honestly think Australia's defence leadership is dumb enough to get sucked into buying an "expendable" aircraft?

Are you telling me that aussie defence leadership has been on the money WRT major aquisitions.......come on dude, now you are taking the piss!

I've flown the sim, I've seen the numbers, and I'm excited.

What the one thats chock full of unproven capability? It's a sales pitch! Why do you think they produced a sim a decade before the aircraft? Training purposes?!!

[BombsGone]

"Are you telling me that aussie defence leadership has been on the money WRT major aquisitions.......come on dude, now you are taking the piss!"

Let me see:

AWACS: Late but will be the best capability in the region. Not such a bad decision.

C17: Had to bypass the system to get them but a bit of a no brainer given our current ops, a capability that was denied by the white paper process.

A330 TANKERS: Late but once again will be a fantastic capability and a better buy over the 767 tanker.

JSF: Only serious option. F22, Raphael, Burofighter all have serious flaws as a long term buy.

Super Hornet: If your serious about what capability you want available from 2010-2014 this a great buy and the only serious option. Will also be a useful capability until 2020.

Looks like the problems are in the project management side rather than the capability decisions. So tell how have the RAAF screwed up? Other than in the uniformed opinions expressed in this thread. The government of the day should look closely at all decisions, but once informed don't expect any huge change on the blue suit side of the show.

Yes in 20 years time we might look back and second guess all the decisions but right now things don't look to bad.

[marty1468]

Australia could buy US fighter jets


Sunday Feb 24 18:37 AEDT
United States Defence Secretary Robert Gates says he will investigate whether Australia will ever be able to buy the Lockheed F-22 Raptor jet fighters.
Currently an Act of US Congress bars any foreign sales of what is believed to be the most advanced combat plane in the world.
Mr Gates said he did not know if the Raptor would require design changes to make it suitable for export.
That would only be an issue for Australia should the current review of future air combat needs concludes the RAAF needs the Raptor to maintain air superiority.
Mr Gates, in Canberra for the annual Australia-US Ministerial (AUSMIN) talks held Saturday, said because of the sale ban, he had never delved into the matter.
"It is an issue, given the importance that our Australian friends attach to it," he told reporters in Canberra.
"It is in an issue that I intend to pursue when I get back, first of all in terms of conversations with our own people in the Department of Defence, and also with the Secretary of State, and see what the prospects are and what would be involved if we decided that we needed to go to the congress and get a change in the law."
The F-22 Raptor is US Air Force's most advanced fighter which is specifically barred from sale to any foreign country under a 1998 amendment to a budget bill moved by Wisconsin Democrat Congressman Dave Obey.
That reflects a view of some US politicians that the US should jealously protect its military advantage by not exporting its best technology, even to trusted allies.
Asked how realistic it was to expect Congress to change the law to permit exports, Mr Gates said he did not know.
"I just need to go back and get myself better educated on this, in concert with the Secretary of State, and decide whether this is a matter that we should pursue with the Congress," he said.
Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon said on Saturday he would write to Congressman Obey to gauge his views on a change in his law.
He said the government had no view on whether Australia should or should not buy this aircraft.
"It simply expresses the Australian government's determination that when we make these very important decisions that every area of capability available is part of that mix," he said.
Under current plans the RAAF's ageing F-111 will retire from 2010, with the new Lockheed F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) entering service about 2015.
To fill any capability gap in the period 2010-15, the former Coalition government opted to buy 24 Boeing Super Hornets as an interim capability.
Mr Gates said he believed JSF would arrive on time.
"Everything that I have been told indicates to me that the Joint Strike Fighter is now pretty much on schedule and is proceeding," he said.
"So I think that the timetable that we have been talking about is one that probably can be met."
Mr Gates said the Australia-US trade agreement, designed to facilitate sales of sensitive US military equipment to Australia, was now in its final stages before approval.
He said the Defence Department had been paring down the list of exclusions and exemptions.
"We now have a list that is essentially the same as exists for the United Kingdom and the Congress has asked that both of these treaties be submitted together," he said.
"It is our hope that it will go to the Congress for ratification perhaps in early March."

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/img/logo_aap.jpg


This from the ninemsn website

[marty1468]

And again today in news.com.au

AUSTRALIA could be trusted with the United States' Lockheed F-22 Raptor fighter, US defence secretary Robert Gates says.
Currently an Act of the US Congress bars any foreign sales of the Raptor.
The aircraft is the US Air Force's most advanced fighter and its sale is prohibited to any foreign country, under a 1998 amendment to a budget bill moved by Wisconsin Democrat Congressman Dave Obey.
Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon said last week he would write to Congressman Obey to gauge his views on a change in the law.
Last night, Mr Gates, who was in Canberra for the annual Australia-US Ministerial (AUSMIN) talks at the weekend, said it was inappropriate for Australia to make its case directly to Congress.
"I think it probably is at the end of the day not appropriate for Australia to make its case directly to the Congress, to change the law. I think that's my job and the job of the administration," he told ABC Television.
"The reality is we have a law that prohibits the United States from selling F-22 to any country.
"Others, such as Japan, want the F-22 and we are in a position - we can't sell them the F-22 either.
"So I think it's up to us to try and see if we can get this statute changed."
When asked if there was any reason why Australia could not be trusted with the F-22, Mr Gates replied: "Absolutely not."

[Buster Hyman]

When asked if there was any reason why Australia could not be trusted with the F-22, Mr Gates replied: "Absolutely not." "Its nothing that a US base in Australia wouldn't fix!" ;)

[BombsGone]

I think Greg Sheridans piece in Mondays Australian captures the situation nicely. It appears he may have been speaking to people who actually know whats going on. If your interested it's still available in the defence section of the Australians website.

[roamingwolf]

the problem is that if we get the nod to buy the 22's then israel will want em and then pakistan will want a squadron or 2 then south korea and before you know it nz will want one or maybe 2 plus a trainer to keep up with the mates across the pond (or in kiwi , the 'dutch' ).:E

the yanks will have trouble breathing if that happens but maybe we could play hardball with the yanks and tell em we will buy the latest vodka powered aircraft if they don't paint a few 22's with roo's on em,

[Buster Hyman]

nz will want one or maybe 2 plus a trainer
Yeah, but we could give them the F111's & tell em to add another 19 '1's.:}:ouch::suspect:

[kmagyoyo]

All things considered mate I would rather have the A4's back out of the hanger!

[Buster Hyman]

Ah, the venerable Skyhawks....what a beautiful aircraft...

aww geez, I'm getting all misty again!;)

[Flyingblind]

An amazing aircraft, must of been a tight squeeze to get into that cockpit though, i'm 6'4 and wince whenever i see photos of some of the taller chaps sitting in them.

God knows what an ejection would have done to them, i guess saying that there would have obviously been height/weight limits to potential drivers.

Anyone remember the figure?

my punt on height would be around 5'8 Max.

[Buster Hyman]

NFI on the actual figures. All I know is that I was also too tall (6'5") and was told by the RAAF recruitment chap that I was above the minimum clearance for the canopy...:(

I was shattered that day.

[kmagyoyo]

I'm 6' and fit ok (just).

In the RNZAF potential A4 Pilots were given a 'rail ride' before being posted to 14 Sqn, in other words the Gunnies disconnected the seat, attached a crane to the top of it, got you to strap in and then hauled you out of the cockpit (obviously the canopy was removed). It was supervised by an AVMED Doc who had to sign off on it and would stop the crane at various points to see how close things got.

Having said that the top of my helmet and left shoulder touched the canopy and the 'HUD stoop' pretty much screwed my back for a couple of years but it was the a effen great jet to fly!

ps a 6'2 ish Kiwi who must have gusted 90KGs punched out OK...left his seat pan somewhere in the Manawhatu but he was fine.

[wessex19]

http://www.gibstuff.net/a4_alley/RAN/bartels/John-Bartels-883-887--880-Flight-1.jpg

http://www.gibstuff.net/a4_alley/RAN/bartels/John-Bartels-line-1.jpg

http://www.gibstuff.net/a4_alley/RAN/bartels/John-Bartels-line-2.jpg


http://www.gibstuff.net/a4_alley/RAN/bartels/John-Bartels-line-4.jpg

http://www.gibstuff.net/a4_alley/RAN/bartels/John-Bartels-line-3.jpg

here is some of the RAN's A-4G / TA-4G's with the boys squeezing in!!!(in the day)
Pics via ex RAN A-4G driver John Bartels.
Now, what was it you guys were saying about super hornets???:yuk:

[Buster Hyman]

Sweeeet!:ok:

[TruBlu351]

Crusty Salty Dogs..............ARRRRRGH:ok:

[Maggott17]

Hot off the press:

We are getting SUPER HORNETS.

[Going Boeing]

Government approves fighter order

THE Australian Defence Force will proceed with plans to acquire Boeing Super Hornet aircraft ordered by the previous government.

Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon said the Super Hornet was an excellent aircraft capable of meeting any known threat in the region.

"It is the only aircraft which can meet the small delivery window created by the former government's poor planning processes and politically driven responses," he said in a statement.

Mr Fitzgibbon, releasing the first section of Labor's air combat review, accused the coalition of a lack of sound long-term air combat capability planning during the past decade.

The retirement of the RAAF's F-111 strike bomber fleet had been made in haste but was now irreversible.

"The cost of turning the F-111 back on would be enormous and crews and skills have already moved on," he said.

"The former government's decision to leave Australia's air defence in the hands of the Joint Strike Fighter project was a flawed leap of faith in scheduling terms, and combined with the quick decision to retire F-111 early, allowed an air combat capability gap to emerge."

Typical political spin - why couldn't he just say that thorough analysis confirmed that the decision to purchase the Super Hornets was correct.

[Flyingblind]

Watched the Minister tonight on the 7.30 report and his performance was less than stellar or convincing.

Methinks a quiet word was had to just buy the bloody things or else.

I think labor were of course just after Nelson, may have worked if it were Block I version RAAF were going to receive.

However Block II seems to be a very different beast and one that seems to best suit RAAF in the time frame available.

Amazing what a 'confidential brief' can do to alter a Ministers opinion!

[rapiddescent]

The minister was obviously'spinning it' up Labour style.

Good luck to him and all the F111 worshippers. In a few years they will all be gone and a distant memory.

Don't bend down when there's piggies around.......

[Kangaroo Court]

How many are on order? Has that been published?

[MDPE]

So, do all the piggies that end up flying the SH become knucks now?

Under the new flying pay review does a SH pilot get paid the same as a classic guy? I mean the SH pilot's job is way easier now with all the technological SA he has and the backseater keeping him honest. A single seat guy has to do it all alone.

One article in the Courier Mail suggested the RAAF was in the market for the Growler? Having our own jamming/sead platform is a great idea, but where do we get all these additional backseaters from?

[Keg]

Having our own jamming/sead platform is a great idea, but where do we get all these additional backseaters from?

Given they they're handing out the southern cross brevet these days to just about anyone that has even just seen an aeroplane then surely it won't be too hard to find someone who at least looks the part! :E

[TruBlu351]

So, do all the piggies that end up flying the SH become knucks now?

I thought they already were? That's the F in F111 :} The fleeting uncaged AIM9 as the blind bograt flies across the windscreen :E

[mmciau]

May I ask? Are the F-111s operational at the moment?

Mike

[Going Boeing]

Kangaroo Court
How many are on order? Has that been published?

24 Super Hornets have been ordered - all 2 seaters.

mmciau
May I ask? Are the F-111s operational at the moment?

Yes, the Super Hornets have been ordered so that there is no capability gap between the retirement of the F-111 and arrival of the JSF.

[MDPE]

Are they operational?

Do you mean...are they flying? Yes.

Do you mean...could they go and do the business they train for eveyday? Yes.

Do you mean...are our aircrew and maintenance working much harder than their US (and allied) counterparts to have the tools to employ the right weapons on the right targets if required? Absolutely.

Are our maintenance personnel forced to work much harder to keep the old girl airworthy? More than most would ever know.

The quality of personnel at Amberley in both maintenance and aircrew are worldclass. The SH will bring an exponential increase in overall capability to the RAAF. Everyone knows it. Except Carlo and Criss. That's why Labor couldn't fault the decision in the end.

I'll get off my soapbox now.

[Slezy9]

Do you mean...could they go and do the business they train for eveyday? Yes.



They can bomb SE QLD better than any one else!

[oldm8]

Don't bend down when there's piggies around.......

Coz they'll put a willy up your bum....

[rapiddescent]

They'll drop bombs, take nice piccies...

[control snatch]

f%^# some bottoms, s#$^ some dickies

[Cap'n Bunghole]

Piggies - they fly so low! :}

[oldm8]

they almost crash into the ground

[BombsGone]

ah knuckle heads

and when you get back from the diego op
your wife will be f@#king dr carl kopp

[oldm8]

yeah.....ya mum!

[air9000ph7]

Just to set the record straight - the unit cost for these aircraft is in the order of $53M USD - the RAAF won't get any cheaper than the USN! Compare this to the $120M unit cost of JSF today (and now up from $38M to $77M at the 1000th unit cost - its all about the cost curve folks)

The $6B cost includes not only the aircraft, weapons etc. but 10 years of operations and support (not inclusive of AVTUR and salaries). Lets see Lockheed provide a not to exceed price for the JSF!

[Going Boeing]

F-35C Stealth on the Carrier Deck Means High Performance, Low Maintenance

(Fort Worth, Texas, March 18, 2008) -- The U.S. Navy's version of the Lockheed Martin [NYSE:LMT] F-35 Lightning II is scheduled to make its first flight next year, but technicians have spent the last decade perfecting the aircraft's stealth design and materials to ensure they stand up to harsh carrier-deck and combat conditions with very little upkeep.

"The F-35C's stealth will bring a profound increase in capability to the Navy's fighter fleet. What it will not bring is increased maintenance," said Steve O'Bryan, a former carrier fighter pilot and director of F-35 Domestic Business Development for Lockheed Martin. "The Lightning II is a 5th generation fighter with supportable stealth that was designed into the aircraft from the very beginning. It will endure extreme abuse without degrading its stealth radar-signature performance."

The F-35 is a supersonic, multi-role, 5th generation stealth fighter. Three F-35 variants derived from a common design, developed together and using the same sustainment infrastructure worldwide, will replace at least 13 types of aircraft for 11 nations initially, making the Lightning II the most economical fighter program in history. The program is on schedule to deliver aircraft to the U.S. military services beginning in 2010. The first test aircraft has completed 35 flights and has exceeded performance expectations. The inaugural flight of the first short takeoff/vertical landing F-35B is on schedule for mid-2008. All 19 test aircraft are in production flow or on the flightline, and assembly has begun on the first two production F-35s.

The F-35 achieves its Very Low Observable stealth performance through its fundamental design, its external shape and its manufacturing processes, which control tolerances to less than half the diameter of a human hair. Special coatings are added to further reduce radar signature.

The package is designed to remain stealthy in severe combat conditions, and tests have validated that capability. After obtaining baseline radar cross section (RCS) measurements from a highly detailed, full-scale Signature Measurement Aircraft (SigMA), a team of Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman engineers intentionally inflicted extensive damage - more than three dozen significant defects - on the model. The damage represented the cumulative effect of more than 600 flight hours of military aircraft operations. RCS measurements taken after the damage showed that the stealthy signature remained intact.

"Even operating in harsh carrier-deck conditions, the F-35C will require no special care or feeding. In fact, its stealth adds very little to the day-to-day maintenance equation," O'Bryan said. "We've come a long way from the early stealth airplanes, which needed hours or even days of attention and repair after every flight. The F-35 not only avoids that intensive level of upkeep, it will require significantly less maintenance than the nonstealth fighters it is designed to replace."

Source : Lockheed Martin

[Thylacine]

The Federal Defence Minister, Joel Fitzgibbon, has signalled his interest in acquiring the United States fighter jet, the F-22 Raptor.

In February, Mr Fitzgibbon said Secretary of Defence Robert Gates would lobby the US Congress on behalf of Australia to secure a sale of the highly-advanced fighter plane.

The US Government has not made the F-22 available for sale, but some Australian defence experts believe it may be willing to sell a modified version.

Mr Fitzgibbon has told Channel Nine the F-22 might be a good option, given possible delays in the arrival of another fighter jet, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).

"I'm more than interested in having a look at the F-22," he said.

"Particularly when none of us know now when the F-35 - that is the JSF - will be delivered, is it now 2015 or is it now 2020?"

[Buster Hyman]

Best we could hope for is a Squadron or two of USAF Raptors stationed here. I doubt we'll see one with a roo on it in the near future...

[Gnadenburg]

American bases bring too many social problems. It won't happen here!

Reducing the size of the RAAF tactical fighter force would provide more budget scope.

Why do we need 100 fighters anyway? Who are we supposed to be fighting? And a modest fighter force will reduce personnel retention & recruitment strains in the RAAF.

I reckon 60-80 aircraft will come about under Labor.

[Buster Hyman]

have we had stationed heard
???:confused:

I'm just saying, that is probably the only way we'll see Raptors here...

[Gundog01]

Who are we supposed to be fighting?

Have you been watching the news or reading the paper for the last 5 years????????

And a modest fighter force will reduce personnel retention & recruitment strains in the RAAF.

I would suggest that we already have a modest fighter force for the area we have to cover (70ish hornets and a dozen pigs).

A smaller force wouldn't make a lick of difference to recruitment and retention. The personnel wheels will continue to turn regardless of the size of the FTR force.

[Gnadenburg]

Have you been watching the news or reading the paper for the last 5 years???????

Yes. And five squadrons of 5th Generation fighters was a RAAF pipe-dream.

And what of the threat analysis that dictates such a large fleet? Are we going to be fighting our biggest current and emerging trading partners ( China & India ) as they stage through the Indonesian archipelago attacking Australia?

Concurrent air capability I believe was the catch cry. We haven't needed that since WW2.

A smaller force wouldn't make a lick of difference to recruitment and retention.

I don't understand how it wouldn't. Crewing and maintaining a 100 aircraft fleet versus a significantly smaller number.

As a taxpayer I would be comfortable with a smaller fleet with all the bells & whistles. And overlapping airpower capabilities with emerging and current technology- missiles for the navy and missile equipped drones for the army for example.

Too much inter-service rivalry to facilitate an overlapping airpower doctrine?

[Milt]

Lessons Ignored.

I was too young to fly a Wirraway into combat just after their CO sent a message back to HQ "We who are about to die salute you." Oddly the Wirraways did get a Zero or two.

I was just old enough to fly the first RAAF mission into Korea in a Mustang. We had next to no time to hone our A/A skills from close to none to an ability to support each other in our battle formations. The early missions were flown by the very point of the sharp end of the RAAF's fighter capability in 1950. Soon we were subjected to friendly fire because anything with a prop was considered fair game by the friendlies. Our CO didn't have time to repeat the message because he didn't survive. Nor did 43 of my mates survive using inferior equipment. Despite that we became very effective in ground attack.

Somewhat older I assisted in improving the bombing capabilities of the RAAF's ageing Canberra and its crews for more effective ops in Vietnam.

The RAAF was then fairly comfortable for a while with souped up Sabres and Mirages

Older still I fought to keep the acquisition of the F-111C alive which resulted in the RAAF having, for a lengthy period, 2 squadrons of aircraft with more than enough potency to deter any aggressor.

Now we are being re-equipped with a fighter which is apparently no match against those which our neighbours are acquiring. Who knows whether another fighter squadron CO may resort to repeating the words of that historical message. Needless to say our young most skilfull aircrews will do their best by being very good at what they do.

If Oz DOD was to start making serious inquiries about possibly acquiring some Sukois then perhaps we may find that leased F-22s may become mysteriously available to fill our ever lengthening gap to the F-35s. We did fill a gap once with leased F-4s.

Think I had better equip my armchair with worry beads!!

[Buster Hyman]

Not that I was in the know but...wasn't there a push to keep the Phantoms at the time?:confused:

[Like This - Do That]

Glad someone said it. We had that knob Dibb tell us, effectively, that nothing will happen without 10 years lead time, so we will be able address future capabilities some time in the future. Is 8 years enough notice? That's 3 electoral cycles, so probably not. 5 years? Mmmmmmm nope - that's not much more than 1 election away! 2 years? Oh well, too late now - let's ask the UN to scold the Musorians - THAT'LL WORK!

All for about 2.6% of GDP (not sure - willing to be corrected) which of course was never reached.

I don't care if we don't have the threat imminent. How long would it take to build a force capable of GUARANTEEING air supremacy over a battlefield in which I and my soldiers might operate? Anything less is a betrayal.

I don't want to be part of the next generation of Australians killed or taken prisoner in a full scale sh1t fight because of a combination of disdain for defence spending and defeatism. We must equip the RAAF with ALL the tools needed in sufficient numbers (just so long as it's not at the expense of pussers or AJs :E )

Gnadenburg just how small would you make the ADF to solve retention? Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? Solve retention to man the required level - not the other way around.

[BombsGone]

Milt,
Don't worry, despite the bad press from a handful of outsiders, the Super Hornet is in no way comparable with sending Mustangs to Korea, or Wirraways to fight Zeroes.

[ftrplt]

Now we are being re-equipped with a fighter which is apparently no match against those which our neighbours are acquiring. Who knows whether another fighter squadron CO may resort to repeating the words of that historical message. Needless to say our young most skilfull aircrews will do their best by being very good at what they do.


All on the word of a retired officer who was sacked as Air Commander, and a few nutters who think they have a clue. Pete Criss has no modern knowledge of fighter capabilities, he was a Pig pilot, not a fighter pilot, and has been out of the loop for a long time.

How come their opinion is accepted over those with 20 years of current fighter experience, do you really think the the guys who will have to take it into combat would be fully supportive of an aircraft that is supposedly no match for the Sukhois and Migs?

[Barry Bernoulli]

WGCDR (later GPCAPT) John Lerew, CO 24SQN, sent six Wirraway trainers up from Rabaul on 20 Jan 1942, against a force of 109 Japanese aircraft including 47 Zero fighters. In the words of PVT Alf Price "The Wirraways performed a feat for which, search history as you will, you will find no parallel. (Five) Wirraways - frail, obsolete, cumbersome, but manned by men of a new order of heroes - took off in the teeth of the screaming devils which tore and roared and plundered about them. It was pitiful - it was magnificent. The pilots did not have a chance. They must have known when they went up what would happen to them. They went out in a blaze of glory in a death that comes to few men." (Actually, a number of them survived). No citations were awarded for this battle because no Japanese aircraft were shot down so "in the circumstances, it is not possible to submit citations for individual awards."

I would argue that the actions of the pilot of the last surviving Hurricance in the Siege of Tobruk were inspirational and heroic in the same vein.

On 21 Jan 1942, with the invasion of Rabaul imminent, John Lerew evacuated his two remaining Wirraways to Port Moresby and intended to use his other serviceable aircraft, a Hudson bomber, to evacuate wounded to Port Moresby. Lerew was, however, issued the entirely inappropriate order in the face of overwhelming odds "Rabaul not yet fallen. Assist Army in keeping aerodrome open. Maintain communcations as long as possible." This order prompted Lerew to send the response "Nos morituri te salutamus." HQ eventually figured out that it wasn't a coded message but the traditional salute of Roman gladiators, translated, "We who are about to die salute you." HQ then tried to relieve Lerew of his command, but he was not about to return to Moresby, as ordered, in the one remaining Hudson. He stayed in Rabaul to face his fate with the rest of the Lark Force while the Hudson evacuated wounded as planned.

This little publicised chapter of Australian history is about the deliberate sacrifice of Lark Force, the Rabaul garrison, by the Australian Government as "Hostages to Fortune" to the Japanese invasion of Rabaul for no strategic purpose. Lark Force comprised the entire 2/22nd Battalion, 100 men of the NGVR, around 100 men of the 17th Antitank gun troop, a RAAF contingent (primarily 24SQN) of 51 men and 22 personnel of the 2/10 Field Ambulance.

[Spaghetti Monster]

All on the word of a retired officer who was sacked as Air Commander
....and subsequently received a hefty payout for unfair dismissal.

he was a Pig pilot, not a fighter pilot
I understood (and stand to be corrected) that he previously did time on Mirages. And if he was actually a 'ftrplt' it might explain why he can be over-opinionated, pigheaded and annoying. :}

That said, I believe SH is a better bet than keeping the Pig going ad-infinitum. And as for Dr Kopp, his main contributions to the discussion have been 1. the use of words like 'paradigm' wherever possible; 2. innumerable 'copyright' diagrams of F-111s in different camouflage schemes, and 3. a proposal to turn all the F-111s into stealth aircraft by the application of sawtooth panels and, um, magic paint or something. All at minimum cost, of course.

[DutchRoll]

Fascinating topic.

I was having a few beers just the other day with a currently serving, highly respected two star Air Force Officer who stated quite matter-of-factly:

"We have two Air Forces within the RAAF. One which gets all the resources and funding. The other which is always deploying to fight all the wars."

[Booger]

Spaghetti Monster - touche, tou-frickin'-che..!!
(By the way - I'm a "Pastafarian" myself).

Perhaps this gem will re-inforce DutchRoll's Two-star quote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BzU1sYPjzo

"..smell my musk". Classic! :}

[Gnadenburg]

How come their opinion is accepted over those with 20 years of current fighter experience

I think there is a crisis in confidence in the RAAF fighter leadership at a political level.


Despite a parliamentary hearing where RAAF leadership stated there was no need for an interim fighter. Government bought Super Hornet a few months later out of concern of a capability gap RAAF assured could be covered.

And now, quite rightly, Labor is looking at all alternatives- including the F22. RAAF leadership seems to have been sidelined again. Or perhaps they have just toned down the JSF rhetoric.

And on Lockheed Martin their conduct must be closely monitored for signs of political favors, lucrative consultancy jobs and the like.

[Gnadenburg]

Gnadenburg just how small would you make the ADF to solve retention? Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? Solve retention to man the required level - not the other way around.

In a period of retention and recruitment strains, the old debate of quality versus quantity must surely come up.

I agree with your last point. But how realistic is it for Australia to crew ( in reasonable ratios ) a 100 fleet of fighters?

We would be ramping up from our present state of play. It would be expensive and there needs to be strategic direction to justify those numbers.

RAAF wants 5 squadrons of JSF, Navy wants a carrier, air warfare destroyers, amphibious assault ships and VTOL fighters; while army has tanks suited to the German plains- Defence seems rudderless, incohesive with each service pursuing a structure independent of the other.

Perhaps it is just an inter-service grab for big ticket funding. You would put money on Navy losing after recent debacles!

[ruprecht]

Booger.

That's gold.:ok:

ruprecht.

[Slezy9]

That is some funny s&#t Booger. It is so true.

[ftrplt]

I think there is a crisis in confidence in the RAAF fighter leadership at a political level.

so why is the next CAF a fighter guy who has leap-frogged at least 3 other contenders, and the strong rumour for DCAF is another fighter guy (both excellent operators by the way)

[Spin Arrows!]

The only reason Labour are talking about the F22 is because they have to be 'seen' to be doing the right thing....that, and it is an awesome platform.

Let's get some if we can.....but we CANNOT AT THE MOMENT!!

As for Pete Criss, they should send him to the bone-yard with the rest of the piggies...

[Gundog01]

But how realistic is it for Australia to crew ( in reasonable ratios ) a 100 fleet of fighters?

If you add up the curent fleet - 70ish hornets and a dozen F111's. It's not that big an increase. Add to that the fact you will need a 4 ship of JSF to drop the same payload and all of a sudden 100 JSF dosent look like it will replace the current capability let alone enahnce it. 100 a/c dos not mean 100 combat ready knucks. a/c flow through maintenance, upgrades, unservicablilities.

[ftrplt]

Add to that the fact you will need a 4 ship of JSF to drop the same payload

It is no longer about payload, its about accuracy - look up Small Diameter Bomb.

To have a 'current capability' involving F111 you need to have serviceability, operability and penetration - it struggles with all three!

100 a/c dos not mean 100 combat ready knucks

The JSF (NACC) program is looking at ways to achieve a valid manning ratio - fast jets in the RAAF have never been manned appropriately; this will be especially so with an incoming AAR capability. Crews are generally the limiting factor, not aircraft.

[Gnadenburg]

so why is the next CAF a fighter guy who has leap-frogged at least 3 other contenders, and the strong rumour for DCAF is another fighter guy (both excellent operators by the way)

Let's take the fighter out of leadership. It was a mistake. And gave great opportunity for semantics....

But I would suggest there has been a loss of faith at broad RAAF leadership on the issue of the new combat aircraft. How else could the radical actions of recent governments be explained? With the Super Hornet decision. Or even the political approach to the US on the F22; despite the aircraft being declared unsuitable by contemporary RAAF leaders.

JSF was a huge gamble taken almost 5 years ago. I am not suggesting the aircraft decision or procurement process was based on a sales brochure; but it was certainly unconventional and obviously risky.

Has anyone been held accountable for the JSF gamble?

Why did the RAAF dismiss the need for an interim fighter?

Interesting times. Not at least for the desired RAAF JSF structure being in tatters. But the elevated "politicalness" of the eventual air combat capability. For example, an F22 knock-back will have high profile questions being asked of the US alliance and consequential ramifications .

[Wingspar]

For example, an F22 knock-back will have high profile questions being asked of the US alliance and consequential ramifications .

That might very well be the Goverments motivation?

[Going Boeing]

News Category: [Defence-Air]

(Newtown, Conn., March 24, 2008) -- In a new analysis, Forecast International projects that fighter aircraft manufacturers will deliver 3,345 new fighters over the next 10 years. According to the study, "The Market for Fighter Aircraft 2008-2017," it is estimated that the total value of production for the fighter market during this timeframe will be worth $164.5 billion.

The study notes that many nations are in the middle of a major, long-term re-equipment cycle. While annual fighter production is set to average around 300 aircraft per year through 2013, it will increase to 400 aircraft per year in 2014 as production of Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II/Joint Strike Fighter ramps up later in the decade.

During the forecast period, the total value of annual production will fluctuate from $16.1 billion in 2008 to a 10-year low of $14.8 billion in 2013. It will then begin to grow in line with rising production levels, reaching $18.3 billion by 2017.

"Although fighter production will remain stable over the next few years, the U.S. military and allies of the United States are set to buy huge numbers of Lockheed Martin's F-35 to replace legacy fighter fleets in coming years," said Douglas Royce, Aerospace Analyst at Forecast International. "No other maker can look to such a potentially large market for its fighter aircraft."

Source : Forecast International Inc.

[wessex19]

Gnadenburg
RAAF wants 5 squadrons of JSF, Navy wants a carrier, air warfare destroyers, amphibious assault ships and VTOL fighters; while army has tanks suited to the German plains- Defence seems rudderless, incohesive with each service pursuing a structure independent of the other.


whats new about this, its the way its always been and probably always will be. The navy for example just want back what it has lost. When DDG's HMAS Brisbane, Perth and Hobart were paid off there was no replacement, the navy wants its air warfare destroyers back, a carrier would be nice but it won't happen in my life time and tomahawks on the Collins class, they have been talking about that for over 10 years now. Nothing new :)

[Like This - Do That]

...while army has tanks suited to the German plains...

And the Leopard wasn't? And the Centurion before that?

What about alternatives to Abrams .... Challenger; Leclerc; T-90 - all designed with European armoured warfare in mind.

We're all getting our knickers in a knot about Super Hornet / F-22 / F-111 / JSF .... I think many of us would agree that there is a lot of ill- or uninformed tosh being bandied about. The utter ignorance being displayed regarding the Army's employment of Abrams makes the fighter discussion appear sophisticated by comparison. :ugh::oh::*:=:{

Gnadenburg, my rant's not directed at you - more at the Army for not appropriately 'selling' the Abrams and its intended use to the taxpayer - sorry if you took it that way.

[Gnadenburg]

Bloomberg is a addictive. Makes one an FX and equities gambler.......

This popped up yesterday.




March 27 (Bloomberg) -- Australia may double its order from the U.S. for F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jets and cut A$16 billion ($15 billion) from its budget for the potential purchase of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, the Australian Financial Review reported.

The U.S. Navy has been in talks with senior Royal Australian Air Force officials about the purchase of 24 additional Boeing Co. Super Hornets since late last year, the Review said, citing unnamed military sources. Former Prime Minister John Howard agreed last year to pay A$6 billion for an initial order of 24 Super Hornets.

The option to buy more of the fighter jets comes after the U.S. government accountability office suggested Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter might be two years late and over budget, the Review said.

Australian Defense Minister Joel Fitzgibbon has also urged the U.S. to sell its most advanced fighter, the Raptor F-22, the newspaper said. The U.S. has a ban on foreign sales of the F-22.

[Gnadenburg]

Like This-Do That-

Gnadenburg, my rant's not directed at you - more at the Army for not appropriately 'selling' the Abrams and its intended use to the taxpayer - sorry if you took it that way.


There was one reference to Abrams. It was in the context of a force structure.

Abrams is a very heavy and capable tank that goes beyond just 'hardening the army' in capability. It goes beyond a requirement in capability in many scenarios the ADF may face.

But if we really do need a main battle tank in the ADF, we must need many other assets as well. For instance, a recon helicopter from France must seem a mistake now. If we need heavy armor, we must also have required the Longbow Apache - with overlapping and enhanced close air support from other ADF assets being procured for the future.

The original point was about a cohesive direction in policy by all three services in areas of capability and procurement to meet a projected threat.

And if Australia does need heavy tanks, amphibious assault carriers, air warfare destroyers etc etc to fight a threat in 2020 and beyond.

Then a long range, fifth generation fighter capability is a matter of priority. With an ability to project airpower from Australian or regional bases to areas where our "new" naval and army expeditionary forces may be operating.

No wonder there seems to be a murmured push a two-tier force of Super Hornets and possibly including the F22.

And bring on a White Paper, analysis or some sort of debate of the strategic picture for Asia in the future.

[PLE Always]

No wonder there seems to be a murmured push a two-tier force of Super Hornets and possibly including the F22.

My guess as an outsider would be 48/60 Super Hornets and 24 F/A-22's. Delivers all the capability/deterrent we need, proven, predictable budget and no project risk.

We'll see.

PLE..

p.s. It's a shame the YF-23 lost out, my vote for the most elegant aircraft out there.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Northrop_YF-23_DFRC.jpg

[Flyingblind]

Agree, beautiful aircraft. Did read that the aircraft was optimized for Interceptor rather than 'Fighter' ie more comfortable in the cruise BVR environment than the $120m + a copy currant winner is.

Must admit the nose section looks a tad small to shoe horn in a ASEA radar, still what do i know they may have had a cunning plan to change the whole profile once the contract was won.

As with the YF-17, would not be surprised to see this airframe resurrected and used as the basis for other forces needs.....Advanced UCAV?

[Going Boeing]

(Fort Worth, Texas, April 8, 2008) -- A newly released report from the U.S. Department of Defense shows that estimated acquisition costs dropped by nearly $1 billion from 2006 to 2007 for the Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] F-35 Lightning II program.

The Selected Acquisition Reports estimate that F-35 program costs over the aircraft's three-decade production run decreased by $981 million (-0.3 percent), from $299.8 billion to $298.8 billion. The F-35 cost reduction was attributed in part to lower material costs related to agreements made by Lockheed Martin and its subcontractors, and revised estimates of support costs.

"The F-35 program is intensely focused on affordability, and these numbers demonstrate that hard work on the part of government and contractor teams is achieving the desired result," said Dan Crowley, Lockheed Martin executive vice president and F-35 program general manager.

"The F-35 team is committed to protecting the program's affordability," said Maj. Gen. C.R. Davis, F-35 Program Executive Officer. "The team has placed the highest priority on cost management while building the world's most advanced multi-role fighter."

Selected Acquisition Reports summarize the latest estimates of cost, schedule and technical status. The reports are prepared annually in conjunction with the president's budget. The total program cost estimates provided in the SARs include research and development, procurement, military construction and acquisition-related operation and maintenance. Total program costs reflect actual costs to date as well as future anticipated costs. All estimates include anticipated inflation allowances.

Source : Lockheed Martin

[Buster Hyman]

Bit of a looker that YF-23!

Hypothetically, I wonder how it would go down if enough nations went directly to Northrop with an idea to reviving the concept as an alternative to the aircraft we cannot have??? I reckon I know the answer though...:rolleyes:

[Going Boeing]

(White Plains, N.Y., April 21, 2008) -- ITT Corporation (NYSE: ITT) today announced it has been awarded a $111 million fixed-price contract and authority for full rate production of the AN/ALQ-214(V)3, an integrated countermeasure system that provides self-protection capability to the U.S. Navy's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet tactical aircraft. The contract is part of the Integrated Defensive Electronic Countermeasures System (IDECM) from the U.S. Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, Maryland.

Under the contract, some systems will be delivered to the Royal Australian Air Force for their F/A-18 E/F platforms, representing the first international sale of the system.

"ITT is pleased and privileged to be a provider of these important self-protection systems," said ITT Electronic Systems President Chris Bernhardt. "We look forward to continuing production of these electronic countermeasures systems supporting U.S. and allied forces."

Source : ITT Corporation

[Going Boeing]

(St. Louis, April 24, 2008) -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] today delivered a detailed, 7,000-page proposal offering its advanced F/A-18E/F Super Hornet to the Indian Air Force as part of India's Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) competition.

"Our proposal team worked diligently to fully understand and meet the requirements set out by the Indian Ministry of Defense (MOD). We are offering India the best-value, most advanced and proven multirole combat fighter in production today," said Jim Albaugh, president and CEO, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems (IDS).

India issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for 126 new multirole combat fighters in August 2007. Boeing completed its proposal before the initial March 3 deadline, which the MOD rescheduled for April 28.

"Boeing's strategic goal has been to seek a long-term partnership with India to help strengthen the country's aerospace capabilities and enhance its national security," said Chris Chadwick, president of Boeing Precision Engagement & Mobility Systems. "Choosing the F/A-18E/F would give Indians a direct hand in building an advanced fighter aircraft that will robustly defend their shores and airspace, infuse new strength into the Indian Air Force, and serve as a catalyst for India's growing defense aerospace industry."

The Super Hornet variant being offered to India, the F/A-18IN, is based on the F/A-18E/F model flown by the U.S. Navy and currently being built for the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). Advanced technology -- such as Raytheon's APG-79 Active Electronically Scanned Array radar -- and proven reliability are drawing U.S. and international customers' increasing interest in the aircraft as a cost-effective and lethal air defense.

Boeing has delivered more than 340 Super Hornets to the U.S. Navy. Australia has ordered 24 Super Hornets to bolster its fleet of F/A-18 Hornets, and Boeing is in discussions with several other international customers about their interest in procuring the Super Hornet.

"One of the concerns here in India is the cost of owning and maintaining combat fighters over their lifetime," said Vivek Lall, Boeing IDS vice president and India country head. "The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet offers a very attractive life-cycle-cost dynamic, since the fighter won't need a scheduled visit to a maintenance depot until it has clocked a minimum of 6,000 hours of flying time, and even well beyond that."

Source : Boeing

[PLE Always]

Joint strike fighter RAAF's choice
Patrick Walters, National security editor | April 28, 2008

THE F-35 joint strike fighter will be confirmed as the best choice to become the RAAF's frontline combat aircraft in a classified review to be presented to Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon later this week.

The final report of the high-level review commissioned by Mr Fitzgibbon in February is also expected to rule out the much more expensive US-made F-22 Raptor fighter as an alternative buy to the F-35 JSF.

Mr Fitzgibbon ordered the review into Australia's future air combat capability as concerns have risen about the development cost and production schedules of the JSF, as well as the capability choices facing Australia as the RAAF moves to replace its long-serving F-111 bombers and the frontline F/A-18 fighters after 2010.

The F-35 is being built by Lockheed Martin and funded by the US and eight other partner countries, including Australia, and was selected by the Howard government in 2002 as the next-generation fighter for the air force.

The RAAF plans to acquire up to 100 F-35s from 2013 at a projected cost of $16billion, making the aircraft easily Australia's largest-ever defence buy.

The air combat capability review, led by senior defence bureaucrat Neil Orme, considered the case for and against acquiring the Raptor as well as trends in Asia-Pacific air power up to 2045.

Sources familiar with the review say it emphasises that Australia faces a far more challenging strategic environment over the next 30 years as regional air forces move to buy more sophisticated combat aircraft as well as ships and submarines.

While Australia can expect to retain a technology edge over its immediate neighbours in Southeast Asia, China will acquire 500 to 600 advanced fighter bombers over the next 30 years and is likely to surpass the US as the leading air power in East Asia.

Defence has judged that the F-35's all-round capability is still the best and most affordable platform for the RAAF's longer-term needs compared with the single-role F-22. But Mr Fitzgibbon has been keen to explore with the US Government the chances of acquiring the F-22, which at present is not for sale to overseas customers. Defence experts argue that even if Australia were allowed to buy the F-22, the RAAF could not buy enough to guarantee Australia's frontline air defence. While the procurement cost of the F-35 has risen by about 36per cent in real terms since 2002 to $US77 million a plane, the rising Australian dollar means that the RAAF is still confident it can afford the 100-strong fleet it regards as essential.
Mr Orme's findings will fundamentally shape the Government's defence white paper, due to be released at the end of the year, which will provide a clear road map for the future air force.

Opposition defence spokesman Nick Minchin, who was briefed on the F-35 and F-22 by Lockheed Martin in the US last week, said the F-35 was still clearly the best aircraft to meet Australia's needs.

The first part of the Orme review, completed last month, confirmed the Howard government's plans to retire the F-111 strike force from 2010.

It also confirmed the previous government's controversial $6billion purchase of 24 Super Hornets as a bridging fighter between the retirement of the F-111 and the arrival of the F-35.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23607964-601,00.html

[Going Boeing]

(El Segundo, Calif., July 1, 2008) -- Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN) has delivered its 100th APG-79 active electronically scanned array radar system to Boeing and the U.S. Navy for use on F/A-18 and EA-18G aircraft.

The company marked the occasion with a ceremony July 1 that attracted senior customers and local dignitaries to its Consolidated Manufacturing Center in Forest, Miss.

"Our 100th delivery of this remarkable system testifies eloquently to the confluence of teamwork and dedication to operational excellence that the program team and our customers committed to more than a year ago," said Dr. Tom Kennedy, vice president for Tactical Airborne Systems. "This milestone proves the importance not only of developing a revolutionary and viable solution but of teaming closely with our customers to ensure they receive exactly what they need to keep our aviators safe."

The first operational deployment of an APG-79-equipped F/A-18 Super Hornet Block II squadron is in progress. The first EA-18G Growler to sport the radar was delivered to the Navy June 3.

"The outstanding performance of our APG-79 systems in the fleet continues to exceed expectations," said Capt. Mark Darrah, F/A-18 program manager. "Boeing and Raytheon have provided warfighters with a cutting-edge radar that is already demonstrating phenomenal performance along with unprecedented levels of reliability, which is critical for combat operations. This sensor backbone of the F/A-18 and EA-18G helps take the aircraft to the next level of capability we need at home and abroad."

Raytheon is under contract to deliver 437 of the systems to the Navy. The company's sophisticated multi-role APG-79 is the radar of choice for the F-15C, F-15E, F/A-18E/F and EA-18G. It is approved for export to such international customers as Singapore and Australia and is a candidate for the F/A-18 entry in India's fighter competition.

"The AESA radar is a critical element in the integrated sensor fusion on the Super Hornet and ensures the Block II Super Hornet and Growler deliver unmatched combat capability today and over the coming decades," said Bob Gower, Boeing's vice president for F/A-18 programs. "Everyone on the team is dedicated to delivering on the promise to provide warfighters with the most advanced weapons system available and maintain the proven track record of 100 percent on-time delivery that's always within budget."

Source : Raytheon

[Going Boeing]

(Fort Worth, Texas, September 19, 2008) -- U.S. Air Force analyses show the Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] F-35 Lightning II is at least 400 percent more effective in air-to-air combat capability than the best fighters currently available in the international market.

The Air Force's standard air-to-air engagement analysis model, also used by allied air forces to assess air-combat performance, pitted the 5th generation F-35 against all advanced 4th generation fighters in a variety of simulated scenarios. The results were clear: the F-35 outperformed the most highly evolved fighters in aerial combat by significant margins.

"In all F-35 Program Office and U.S. Air Force air-to-air combat effectiveness analysis to date, the F-35 enjoys a significant Combat Loss Exchange Ratio advantage over the current and future air-to-air threats, to include Sukhois," said Maj. Gen. Charles R. Davis, F-35 program executive officer.

Recent claims that Russian fighters defeated F-35s in a Hawaii-based simulated combat exercise are untrue, according to Maj. Gen. Davis.

"The reports are completely false and misleading and have absolutely no basis in fact," Maj. Gen. Davis said. "The August 2008 Pacific Vision Wargame that has been referenced recently in the media did not even address air-to-air combat effectiveness. The F-35 is required to be able to effectively defeat current and projected air-to-air threats. All available information, at the highest classification, indicates that F-35 is effectively meeting these aggressive operational challenges."

The Pacific Vision Wargame was a table-top exercise designed to assess basing and force-structure vulnerabilities, and did not include air-to-air combat exercises or any comparisons of different aircraft platforms.

Other erroneous allegations about the program were recently made in a letter distributed and written by industry-watchers Winston Wheeler and Pierre Sprey.

"It's not clear why they attacked the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program," said Tom Burbage, Lockheed Martin executive vice president of F-35 program integration. "It is clear they don't understand the underlying requirements of the F-35 program, the capabilities needed to meet those requirements or the real programmatic performance of the JSF team."

Here are the facts:

-- The F-35 is a racehorse, not a "dog," as Wheeler/Sprey suggest. In stealth combat configuration, the F-35 aerodynamically outperforms all other combat-configured 4th generation aircraft in top-end speed, loiter, subsonic acceleration and combat radius. This allows unprecedented "see/shoot first" and combat radius advantages.
-- The high thrust-to-weight ratios of the lightweight fighter program Wheeler/Sprey recall from 30 years ago did not take into consideration combat-range fuel, sensors or armament, which dramatically alter wing loading, thrust-to-weight ratios and maneuverability. We do consider all of this in today's fighters.
-- The F-35 has the most powerful engine ever installed in a fighter, with thrust equivalent to both engines today in Eurofighter or F/A-18 aircraft. The conventional version of the F-35 has 9g capability and matches the turn rates of the F-16 and F/A-18. More importantly, in a combat load, with all fuel, targeting sensor pods and weapons carried internally, the F-35's aerodynamic performance far exceeds all legacy aircraft equipped with a similar capability.
-- When the threat situation diminishes so that it is safe for legacy aircraft to participate in the fight, the F-35 can also carry ordnance on six external wing stations in addition to its four internal stations.

Other important facts:

-- External weapon clearance is part of the current F-35 test program.
-- The government has already proven that no other aircraft can survive against the 5th generation stealth that only the F-22 and the F-35 possess; it is impossible to add this stealth to fourth-generation fighters.
-- The F-35's data collection, integration and information sharing capabilities will transform the battlespace of the future and will redefine the close air support mission. The F-35 is specifically designed to take advantage of lessons learned from the F-117 stealth aircraft. Unlike the F-117, the ability to share tactically important information is built into the F-35, along with stealth.
-- F-35 is developing, testing, and fielding mature software years ahead of legacy programs, further reducing development risk. The F-35's advanced software, already flying on two test aircraft with remarkable stability, is demonstrating the advantages of developing highly-common, tri-variant aircraft. The software developed span the entire aircraft and support systems including the aircraft itself, logistics systems, flight and maintenance trainers, maintenance information system and flight-test instrumentation.
-- Rather than relying exclusively on flight testing, the F-35 is retiring development risk through the most comprehensive laboratories, sensor test beds, and integrated full-fusion flying test bed ever created for an aircraft program.
-- Representing only 25% of our verification plans, still the F-35's flight test program is comparable in hours to the combined flight test programs of the three primary U.S. aircraft it will replace.
-- The F-35 is one aircraft program designed to replace many different types of aircraft around the world - F-16, F/A-18, F-117, A-10, AV-8B, Sea Harrier, GR.7, F-111 and Tornado - flown by 14 air forces.
-- In addition to 19 developmental test aircraft, the F-35 is producing 20 fully instrumented, production-configured operational test aircraft. No program in history has employed this many test vehicles.

"Simply put, advanced stealth and sensor fusion allow the F-35 pilot to see, target and destroy the adversary and strategic targets in a very high surface-to-air threat scenario, and deal with air threats intent on denying access -- all before the F-35 is ever detected, then return safely to do it again," said Burbage.

Source : Lockheed Martin

[wessex19]

my mail this week has been that "if " the RAAF receive the Growler they will be included in the 24 and not additional to the ordered aircraft. Apparently there are a few hoops the RAAF have to jump through states side to get clearance to operate this aircraft and there is definately no done deal yet.
EA-18G is flying with VX-23 "salty dogs" at Naval Air Station, Patuxent River and the navy have opened its first facility at the Growlers new home at NAS Whidbey Island.

Growler Support Center Opens on NAS Whidbey Island (http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=37141)

the first us navy squadron the operate the growler is VAQ 129 "vikings".

VAQ-129 Vikings (http://vaq-129.ahf.nmci.navy.mil/)

the us navy operate 14 VAQ squadrons at NAS Whidbey Island plus a reserve squadron out of Washington. Some serious numbers!!!!

Naval Air Station Whidbey Island Detpartments and Tenant commands (http://naswi.ahf.nmci.navy.mil/naswi_dept_cmd.htm)

YouTube - Growler recovery (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkN_8N61SEQ)

[Going Boeing]

Boeing Begins Final Assembly of RAAF F/A-18F Super Hornets

(St. Louis, December 17, 2008) -- Boeing [NYSE: BA] began final assembly operations Dec. 9 in St. Louis on the first of 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets for the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). The Super Hornet multirole fighter aircraft will be delivered to the RAAF from the first quarter of 2010 through late 2011.

"The Super Hornet is on schedule to deliver unmatched multirole capabilities for Australia," said Bob Gower, vice president of F/A-18 and EA-18 Programs for Global Strike Systems, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems. "The Block II Super Hornet's next-generation technologies -- including Active Electronically Scanned Array radar, fused sensors, and a network-centric data-sharing environment -- will provide wide-ranging air combat solutions for Australian Defence forces. Those capabilities will be delivered in a date-certain and cost-certain program."

Group Capt. Steve Roberton, Head Air Combat Transition Office, RAAF, said the Super Hornet will enable Australia to retain a regionally superior air combat capability. "The Super Hornet will bring Australia into a new generation of air power," Roberton said. "Its advanced, networked weapons system will deliver unprecedented air combat capability across the spectrum of air defense, strategic land attack and maritime strike. It is a true multirole aircraft and there's a lot of excitement on the ground in Air Combat Group about the arrival of the RAAF's Super Hornet."

The Super Hornet being produced for Australia is based on the F/A-18F operated by the U.S. Navy. The Block II Super Hornet is the first operationally deployed strike fighter that incorporates next-generation capabilities.

"The Super Hornet is a model acquisition program for the United States and the U.S. Navy, one that has continued to add capability while decreasing costs," said U.S. Navy Capt. James Kennedy, F/A-18 International Business deputy program manager. "The Super Hornet will provide our Australian partners with a powerful new weapon system. I'm certain they will find the unparalleled aircrew situational awareness and seamless execution of same-time air and ground missions to be as invaluable as our U.S. Navy aircrews do. The Super Hornet is delivering tomorrow's capabilities today."

The Australian government announced in March 2007 that it would acquire 24 F/A-18Fs, making Australia the first international Super Hornet customer.

The Block II F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is a multirole aircraft, able to perform virtually every mission in the tactical spectrum, including air superiority, day/night strike with precision-guided weapons, fighter escort, close air support, suppression of enemy air defenses, maritime strike, reconnaissance, forward air control and tanker missions. Boeing has delivered more than 375 F/A-18E/Fs to the U.S. Navy. Every Super Hornet produced has been delivered on or ahead of schedule.

Source : Boeing

[W800i]

Hello Going Boeing, I read a report that a Growler undertaking flight test suffered an engine fire.
Two questions is this correct and are the crew OK.

[Going Boeing]

http://www.asd-network.com/data_news/ID19667_600.jpg
(St. Louis, March 8, 2009) -- The outer skin of the first Boeing [NYSE: BA] F/A-18F Super Hornet for the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) is fitted to its forward fuselage on a pulse assembly line in St. Louis. The aircraft is approximately three months ahead of schedule and set for an early delivery date in July.

The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, a multirole aircraft equipped with the APG-79 Active Electronically Scanned Array radar, is able to perform virtually every mission in the tactical spectrum. The RAAF has 24 Super Hornets on order.

Each of the more than 380 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets Boeing has delivered to the U.S. Navy has been delivered on or ahead of the original delivery timeline.

Source : Boeing

W800i, sorry, I've no info on that incident. GB

[Going Boeing]

(March 5, 2009) -- In a world first for an Air Force and an infra-red guided missile, Air Combat Group (ACG) of the Royal Australian Air Force has successfully carried out the first in-service 'Lock After Launch' firing of an ASRAAM (Advanced short-range air-to-air missile) at a target located behind the wing-line of the 'shooter' aircraft. The firing was conducted from an F/A-18 fighter aircraft, at low level and typical fighter speed, at a target located behind the fighter at a range in excess of 5km. The result was a direct hit on the target.

The engagement simulated a "chase down" situation by an enemy fighter and successfully demonstrated the potential for an all-round self protection capability with the ASRAAM. This capability is inherent on all platforms that provide pre-launch 'over the shoulder' designation information such as F/A-18, Eurofighter Typhoon and F-35 JSF.

Commenting on the firing, a representative from Air Combat Group said "this demonstration of ASRAAM capability is a major step forward for the RAAF and greatly increases the lethality of ACG's F/A-18 fleet. It is a credit to the RAAF-MBDA-DSTO team who worked together to deliver this capability edge to the fleet."

ASRAAM entered service with the RAAF in July 2004. To provide unique levels of in service support, facilities for deeper maintenance and software support were established in Adelaide injecting some AUS million into the South Australian economy over a period of 6 years. The software support facility, located at the Defence Science & Technology Organisation at Edinburgh (SA), allows Australia to modify the ASRAAM software in response to the Australian Defence Force's specific requirements. The deeper maintenance facility established at BAE Systems at Edinburgh Park provides the in-country capability to support the front line equipment.

Having entered service with the Royal Air Force in 2002, and deployed on Tornado, Typhoon, and shortly F-35 JSF, the ASRAAM programme has provided a unique opportunity for information exchange between the respective air forces, government departments and scientific organisations.

Source : MBDA

[aseanaero]

If the figures quoted are to be believed.....

The unit price for a SuperHornet is around USD $56 for a USN delivery sans weapons. We're buying 24 so at that price and allowing for the exchange rate that would be 24 x 72 = $1.728b AUD.

What about the remaining $4.272 BILLION?

It doesn't state whether this is adjusted back to '2007' dollars or whether this includes expenditure inflated 'future dollars' up to 2017. There could be all sorts of other procurements in the project including new buildings or runway upgrades or what other 'goodies' they can get included in the scope of this additional funding. There's probably also a 'contingency' built into the program funding for unforseen costs and delays.

[Keg]

When Defence quotes figures they're normally talking about the entire cost of the program. So that extra 4 billion is to look after the aircraft for the next decade or so.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

The cost of the aircraft, EW kits, radars, engines, spares, GSE, tech pubs, sims and other synthetic training gear, weapons package, tooling etc etc is A$3.9bn.

The remaining A$2.3bn will cover base works, manning, fuel & oil & everyday expendables, and through life support from 2010 to 2020.

[Going Boeing]

Boeing Unveils New International F-15 Configuration - the F-15SE

http://www.asd-network.com/data_news/ID19789_600.jpg

(St. Louis, March 17, 2009) -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] today in St. Louis unveiled the F-15 Silent Eagle (F-15SE), a new F-15 configuration designed to meet the future needs of international customers.

"The F-15 Silent Eagle is designed to meet our international customers' anticipated need for cost-effective stealth technologies, as well as for large and diverse weapons payloads," said Mark Bass, F-15 Program vice president for Boeing. "The innovative Silent Eagle is a balanced, affordable approach designed to meet future survivability needs."

Improvements in stealth include coatings and treatments on the aircraft. With the added advantage of redesigned conformal fuel tanks (CFTs) that allow for internal weapons carriage, the Silent Eagle becomes a very attractive fighter for Boeing's international customers.

Depending on the specific mission, the customer can use the CFTs that are designed for internal carriage or change back to the traditional CFTs for optimum fuel capacity and external weapons carriage. The Silent Eagle will be able to internally carry air-to-air missiles such as the AIM-9 and AIM-120 and air-to-ground weapons such as the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) and Small Diameter Bomb (SDB). The standard weapons load used on current versions of the F-15 is available with the traditional CFTs installed.

The aircraft's canted vertical tails improve aerodynamic efficiency, provide lift, and reduce airframe weight. Another aerodynamic improvement is the Digital Flight Control System, which improves the aircraft's reliability and reduces airframe weight.

Survivability improvements include a BAES Digital Electronic Warfare System (DEWS) working in concert with the Raytheon Advanced Electronic Scanning Array (AESA) radar.

Boeing has completed a conceptual prototype of the CFT internal-carriage concept, and plans to flight-test a prototype by the first quarter of 2010, including a live missile launch.

The design, development, and test of this internal carriage system are available as a collaborative project with an international aerospace partner.

Source : Boeing

[Buster Hyman]

Improvements in stealth include coatings and treatments on the aircraft
And how much extra will that cost to maintain I wonder?

The Silent Eagle
Why am I thinking of the "Cone of Silence" right now? :confused:

[JaseAVV]

I thought I read somewhere recently the entire F-15 fleet is having longeron cracking issues, resulting in the loss of an ANG aircraft in 2007.

I take it this has been addressed in the SE?

[ozbiggles]

Lucky we have the super Hornet now
We might be lucky to get the JSF (or its secrets)
But there is even less chance now we would get a look in on the F22
A Defence minister with close ties to the Chinese (no real problem there) but a defence minister who tells a blatant lie when asked about that connection? And instead of being sacked gets support?
I think the Americans might even question what intelligence they may pass on to the ADF now let alone their top air to air fighter.
I think he had been doing a good job, but this is a self inflicted wound that has serious implications for defence and seals the deal on the F22.

[Trojan1981]

Ozbiggles
I think the telling part in this saga is the fact that the information was leaked from within the department itself. Obviously it was intended to destabilise the minister IOT prevent his comprehensive Defence department reform agenda. In the circumstances it is good that Rudd backed him. He will need to be carefull to cover himself in the future.
The reform is necessary IOT make Defence more accountable to Govt and the public. Just like other departments.

[Gnadenburg]

The cost of the aircraft, EW kits, radars, engines, spares, GSE, tech pubs, sims and other synthetic training gear, weapons package, tooling etc etc is A$3.9bn.

So the RAAF has bought an aeroplane we can take to war soon after work up and operational numbers in service ?

A capability that is in service and proven with our major allies, with the EW requirements to go to war without unreasonable restrictions, and will slot in nicely to any joint operations.

A fighter-bomber that even in those modest numbers, with other hopefully ironed out capabilities such as tankers and Wedgetail, presents the most capable force in the region- arguably equal to the Singaporians.

Let's buy another 24. With proven Growler technology to bolster the capability beyond anything in the region. Delivering a practical force at reasonable coin.

I don't think there is a regional threat, given the financial constraints at present, that could seriously threaten that kind of structure.

As more serious threats emerge in the next decade; JSF should be a better, more evolved risk than it is now.

[ozbiggles]

G'day Trojan
I don't think the department did leak it! That would be giving them far to much credit. I'll qualify that, I don't believe they found out about it, maybe someone did leak it from there. In a way I'm more worried that the 'spy' agencies had no idea about any of it.
I think the one person who could answer the question (but won't) is the jurno who asked the Defence minister " did Ms Liu ever pay for a trip for you to China" to which the defence minister answered IMHO with a direct bold face lie. I'm sure the jurno was shocked with the answer as well, because I'm sure his next question was why haven't you declared it. But he got an even better story!
I wonder how anyone else who has the top security clearance would go with this on the record. How could America pass on any 'controversial' intelligence about China to the ADF now. It also raises questions about how much access you give to the ADF about aircraft we might want to buy. The Americans won't sell the Raptor to anyone because they don't want its secrets getting out....this proves the theory correct. All it takes is a suspicion.

[Going Boeing]

http://www.asd-network.com/data_news/ID20102_600.jpg

Moving Beyond the F-22

(Washington, April 13, 2009) -- This op-ed piece appeared in the Washington Post on April 13, written by Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz.

The debate over whether to continue production of the F-22 Raptor has been one of the most politically charged and controversial budget issues in recent memory, spawning lobbying efforts that include contractor-sponsored newspaper ads and letter-writing campaigns.

The F-22 is, unquestionably, the most capable fighter in our military inventory. Its advantages include stealth and speed; while optimized for air-to-air combat, it also has a ground- attack capability.

We assessed the issue from many angles, taking into account competing strategic priorities and complementary programs and alternatives, all balanced within the context of available resources.

We are often asked, 'How many F-22s does the Air Force need?' The answer, of course, depends on what we are being asked to do. When the program began, late in the Cold War, it was estimated that 740 would be needed. Since then, the Defense Department has constantly reassessed how many major combat operations we might be challenged to conduct, where such conflicts might arise, whether or how much they might overlap, what are the strategies and capabilities of potential opponents, and U.S. objectives.

These assessments have concluded that, over time, a progressively more sophisticated mix of aircraft, weapons and networking capabilities will enable us to produce needed combat power with fewer platforms. As requirements for fighter inventories have declined and F-22 program costs have risen, the department imposed a funding cap and in December 2004 approved a program of 183 aircraft.

Based on different warfighting assumptions, the Air Force previously drew a different conclusion: that 381 aircraft would be required for a low-risk force of F-22s. We revisited this conclusion after arriving in office last summer and concluded that 243 aircraft would be a moderate-risk force. Since then, additional factors have arisen.

First, based on warfighting experience over the past several years and judgments about future threats, the Defense Department is revisiting the scenarios on which the Air Force based its assessment. Second, purchasing an additional 60 aircraft to get to a total number of 243 would create an unfunded $13 billion bill just as defense budgets are becoming more constrained.

This decision has increasingly become a zero-sum game. Within a fixed Air Force and overall Defense Department budget, our challenge is to decide among many competing needs. Buying more F-22s means doing less of something else. In addition to air superiority, the Air Force provides a number of other capabilities critical to joint operations for which joint warfighters have increasing needs. These include intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; command and control; and related needs in the space and cyber domains. We are also repairing years of institutional neglect of our nuclear forces, rebuilding the acquisition workforce and taking steps to improve Air Force capabilities for irregular warfare.

It was also prudent to consider future F-22 procurement during the broader review of President Obama's fiscal 2010 defense budget, rather than as an isolated decision. During this review, we assessed both the Air Force and Defense Department's broader road maps for tactical air forces, specifically the relationship between the F-22 and the multi-role F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which is in the early stages of production.

The F-22 and F-35 will work together in the coming years. Each is optimized for its respective air-to-air and air-to-ground role, but both have multi-role capability, and future upgrades to the F-22 fleet are already planned. We considered whether F-22 production should be extended as insurance while the F-35 program grows to full production. Analysis showed that overlapping F-22 and F-35 production would not only be expensive but that while the F-35 may still experience some growing pains, there is little risk of a catastrophic failure in its production line.

Much rides on the F-35's success, and it is critical to keep the Joint Strike Fighter on schedule and on cost. This is the time to make the transition from F-22 to F-35 production. Within the next few years, we will begin work on the sixth-generation capabilities necessary for future air dominance.

We support the final four F-22s proposed in the fiscal 2009 supplemental request, as this will aid the long-term viability of the F-22 fleet. But the time has come to close out production. That is why we do not recommend that F-22s be included in the fiscal 2010 defense budget.

Make no mistake. Air dominance remains an essential capability for joint warfighting. The F-22 is a vital tool in the military's arsenal and will remain in our inventory for decades to come. But the time has come to move on.

Source : US Air Force

[Critical Reynolds No]

And here's the first one
Boeing: Boeing Debuts 1st Royal Australian Air Force F/A-18F Super Hornet (http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=740)

[Going Boeing]

http://www.asd-network.com/data_news/ID21826_600.jpg

(St. Louis, July 8, 2009) -- Boeing [NYSE: BA] today unveiled the first of 24 F/A-18F Block II Super Hornets for the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) during a ceremony at Boeing Integrated Defense Systems' production facilities in St. Louis. The aircraft will be delivered later this month, three months ahead of schedule.

"The Super Hornet is on its way to delivering advanced combat capabilities to the Royal Australian Air Force," said Bob Gower, Boeing vice president of F/A-18 and EA-18 Programs. "Cooperation and great teamwork on the part of Australia's Defence Materiel Organisation, the Royal Australian Air Force, the U.S. Navy and the Hornet Industry Team have enabled the first RAAF Super Hornet to be delivered within budget and ahead of schedule."

The remaining 23 Super Hornets, each equipped with the Raytheon-built APG-79 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, will be delivered to the RAAF throughout 2010 and 2011.

"The RAAF Super Hornet will bring a new generation of air power to Australia," said Group Capt. Steve Roberton, Head Air Combat Transition Office, RAAF. "Its advanced, networked weapons system will deliver enhanced air combat capability across the spectrum of air-to-air, strategic land attack and maritime strike, which is so important for Australia. It is a true multirole aircraft and there's a lot of excitement on the ground in the Air Combat Group about its arrival."

The Australian government announced in March 2007 that it would acquire 24 of the F/A-18F multirole fighters, making that country the first international Super Hornet customer.

"The rollout of the first RAAF Block II Super Hornet is an important and exciting milestone for all of the Australian and U.S. team members, who have accomplished a great deal of significant work to make this event possible," said U.S. Navy Capt. Mark Darrah, F/A-18 and EA-18 program manager, PMA-265. "Our long and successful relationship has been mutually beneficial during the RAAF classic Hornet program, and taking this next logical step with the acquisition of the Super Hornet is a win-win for both nations. The Super Hornet's inherent tactical capabilities and ability to force multiply speak for themselves."

The Block II F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is a multirole aircraft, able to perform virtually every mission in the tactical spectrum, including air superiority, day/night strike with precision-guided weapons, fighter escort, close air support, suppression of enemy air defenses, maritime strike, reconnaissance, forward air control and tanker missions. Boeing has delivered more than 395 F/A-18E/Fs to the U.S. Navy. Every Super Hornet produced has been delivered on or ahead of schedule.

Company Center : The Boeing Company (NYSE: BA)

[JaseAVV]

Great time lapse video of Super Hornet construction:

LiveLeak.com - Constructing A Super Hornet: "A time lapse of the construction of a Super Hornet" (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=be5_1247196550)

[Going Boeing]

http://www.asd-network.com/data_news/ID21998_600.jpg

(St. Louis, July 21, 2009) -- The first Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) F/A-18F Super Hornet takes off from Lambert International Airport in St. Louis July 20 to begin its initial flight. Boeing [NYSE: BA] unveiled the aircraft July 8 at the company's Integrated Defense Systems facility in St. Louis.

Boeing will complete delivery of the first of 24 F/A-18Fs to the RAAF later this month, three months ahead of schedule. The remaining 23 Super Hornets, each equipped with the Raytheon-built APG-79 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, will be delivered to the RAAF throughout 2010 and 2011.

Company Center : The Boeing Company (NYSE: BA)

[Like This - Do That]

From DMO's website:

The acquisition of the Super Hornet under Project 5349 Phases 1 and 2 is being expedited due to the Government direction to establish an initial operating capability by the end of 2010.

An accelerated schedule is possible due to the ‘off the shelf’ nature of the acquisition.

Does anyone else read that as "it's ahead of schedule because DMO had nothing to do with it" .... ?:}

Of course I wouldn't say anything like that, but I could understand how some may.

[control snatch]

hit the nail on the head methinks

[Going Boeing]

Obama Praises Senate Vote on F-22 Funding

(Washington, July 22, 2009) -- President Barack Obama praised a Senate vote that struck down $1.75 billion in additional funding in the fiscal 2010 defense budget for more F-22 Raptor fighter jets July 21 here.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates recommended to the president earlier this year to end production of the F-22 at the conclusion of its current funding program in fiscal 2009. President Obama had promised to veto a budget proposal from the Congress that allowed for more money for the program.

"I'm grateful that the Senate just voted against an additional $1.75 billion to buy F-22 fighter jets that military experts and members of both parties say we do not need," President Obama said at a news conference following the vote.

"At a time when we are fighting two wars and facing a serious deficit, this would have been an inexcusable waste of money," the president said. "Every dollar of waste in our defense budget is a dollar we can't spend to support our troops or prepare for future threats or protect the American people. Our budget is a zero-sum game, and if more money goes to F-22s, it is our troops and citizens that lose."

The F-22 has not been used in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In his 2010 budget recommendations, Secretary Gates favored the newest manned aircraft, the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter. The F-35 carries a larger suite of weapons and is better suited for air-to-ground missions such as destroying sophisticated enemy air defenses.

An F-35 also costs half as much as an F-22 and, if supported by the president and Congress, it eventually would become the "backbone of America's tactical aviation fleet for decades to come," Secretary Gates said.

Secretary Gates called the F-22 a "niche, silver-bullet solution for one or two potential scenarios - - specifically the defeat of a highly advanced enemy fighter fleet."

"The F-22, to be blunt, does not make much sense anyplace else in the spectrum of conflict," Secretary Gates said last week in a speech to the Economic Club of Chicago.

By fiscal 2020, the United States will have nearly 2,500 manned combat aircraft in its inventory. Nearly 1,100 will be a combination of F-35s and F-22s.

Secretary Gates has said that accelerating the production of the F-35 will offset job losses of those employed in F-22 production. Pentagon officials plan to buy about 500 F-35s in the next five years, and more than 2,400 over the life of the program. The F-22 program is proposed to be capped at 187 of the fighter jets.

Company Center : US Air Force

[Going Boeing]

http://www.asdnews.com/data_news/ID24316_600.jpg

We look forward to continuing to deliver Australia's newest combat aircraft on budget and ahead of schedule

(St. Louis, November 5, 2009) -- Boeing [NYSE: BA] today announced that it delivered the Royal Australian Air Force's (RAAF) third F/A-18F Block II Super Hornet three months ahead of schedule on Sept. 30, after completing production on the multirole fighter at Boeing Integrated Defense Systems' St. Louis facility.

Boeing publicly debuted the first of the RAAF's 24 Super Hornets in St. Louis on July 8. Each of the three completed aircraft has been delivered three months ahead of schedule.

"We look forward to continuing to deliver Australia's newest combat aircraft on budget and ahead of schedule, as promised," said Carolyn Nichols, Boeing F/A-18F program manager for Australia. "Successful early delivery of these aircraft is a direct result of the great teamwork between Australia's Defence Materiel Organisation, the Royal Australian Air Force, the U.S. Navy, Boeing and the entire Hornet Industry Team."

The remaining RAAF Super Hornets, each equipped with the Raytheon-built APG-79 Active Electronically Scanned Array radar, will be delivered through 2011.

"The Block II F/A-18F Super Hornet will provide the RAAF with an enhanced air combat capability across the spectrum of missions, with a twin-engine design that is ideal for our maritime operational requirements," said Group Capt. Steve Roberton, Head Air Combat Transition Office, Royal Australian Air Force.

Australia became the first international Super Hornet customer in March 2007, when the Australian government announced its intent to acquire 24 of the fighters.

The Block II F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is a multirole aircraft able to perform virtually every mission in the tactical spectrum, including air superiority, day/night strike with precision-guided weapons, fighter escort, close air support, suppression of enemy air defenses, maritime strike, reconnaissance, forward air control and tanker missions. Boeing has delivered more than 410 F/A-18E/Fs to the U.S. Navy. Every Super Hornet produced has been delivered on or ahead of schedule.

Source : The Boeing Company (NYSE: BA)

[Trojan1981]

Budget fear puts off buy-up of F-35 jets | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/budget-fear-puts-off-buy-up-of-f-35-jets/story-e6frgczf-1225796727927)


[QUOTE]Budget fear puts off buy-up of F-35 jets
Patrick Walters, National security editor From: The Australian November 12, 2009 12:00AM Increase Text Size Decrease Text Size Print Email Share Add to Digg Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Kwoff Add to Myspace Add to Newsvine What are these?
THE RAAF's plan to acquire up to 100 F-35 joint strike fighters faces a further delay until next year as budget pressures continue to bear down on the Rudd government.

In a long-awaited decision, cabinet's national security committee was due to sign off on the $16 billion purchase before Christmas.

But defence budget pressures and Defence Department concerns about Australia becoming the lead foreign customer for the initial production models of the F-35 fighter are expected to force a postponement until the new year of a government green light for the acquisition.

The expected delay in the NSC's consideration of the joint strike fighter purchase comes as an annual review undertaken by Pentagon analysts found the F-35 program could cost an additional $16bn and face a two-year slippage unless remedial action was taken.

The F-35 joint strike fighter is a "fifth-generation fighter" earmarked to replace the RAAF's F-111 bombers and the FA 18 fighters from later next decade in what will be Australia's largest defence buy.

Already, the planned acquisition has slipped by at least two years, with the air force not due to get its first operational squadron until 2018-19 at the earliest.

The initial squadron could be trimmed to as few as 14 aircraft as Defence planners struggle to find further savings in the $27bn defence budget.

The current plan is for four operational squadrons each consisting of 24 aircraft.

Further delays in the acquisition will mean the RAAF will extend the planned in-service life of its new FA 18 super hornet fighters well into the 2020s.

The RAAF is still planning to buy two F-35s for test and evaluation purposes about 2014 but this timetable could also slip depending on the government's willingness to commit to the joint strike fighter program next year.

So far, only Britain and The Netherlands have agreed to buy test and evaluation aircraft, but none of the US's key JSF partners has signed up to production aircraft.

In an interview with US defence weekly, DefenseNews, the Pentagon's undersecretary of defence for acquisition, Ashton Carter, said earlier this week the findings of a "joint estimate team" showed some costs increases and schedule slips "which we should do everything we can to avoid."

"Those are forecasts which say what will happen if we don't change what we are doing.

"And we should change what we are doing so that those predictions don't come fully to pass," he said.

Mr Carter said he would convene a major meeting on the F-35 program on November 21-22 with one option likely to involve shortening the planned flight test program for the aircraft.

Defence Materiel Minister Greg Combet remains convinced the F-35 is the best choice for the RAAF's next-generation fighter.

On a visit to Washington last month, Mr Combet came away impressed with the Pentagon's commitment to the multi-billion-dollar F-35 program.

"Tens of billions have already been committed to the program, and the US is determined that it will succeed," Mr Combet said.

[Buster Hyman]

Sorry Trojan, I'm missing something. The article's talking about extending the Super Hornets. I assume you're talking about the F/A-18A's? :confused:

[Trojan1981]

It is, I missed that and will edit to suit. But it doesn't adequately explain the fate of the classics between now and when the F-35 is operational. The timeframe suggests that at least some classics will remain in service beyond 2020.

[Buster Hyman]

Indeed, otherwise there'll be a number of pilots sitting around twiddling their thumbs & looking for a ride...:( So, I guess it's a fair assumption.

Actually, re reading it, I think it may be a typo & you were probably correct anyway. Why would a service life of 18-20 years be an "extension"? If they were leased or something, then perhaps it could mean extending their time in RAAF service rather than life extensions...

This is why I sit behind a desk! :rolleyes:

;)

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Classic Hornets post 2020? No thanks... :eek:

[ozbiggles]

They won't be bored or demotivated....
DP has lots of ground jobs to keep everybody happy

[Going Boeing]

The contract is vital for effective support of the RAAF's fleet of Super Hornets
http://www.asdnews.com/data_news/ID25069_600.jpg

(December 16, 2009) -- The project to acquire Australia's new fighter aircraft, the Super Hornet, took another step forward today with the signing of the sustainment contract with The Boeing Company.

The Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science, Greg Combet, said today that the signing of the Super Hornet Aircraft Sustainment Contract is worth approximately $20 million per annum, and provides for about 74 jobs at RAAF Base Amberley for three years.

"Under the contract the Boeing Company will provide engineering, supply chain management and maintenance services to support F/A-18F Super Hornet operations," Mr Combet said.

"The contract is vital for effective support of the RAAF's fleet of Super Hornets when they arrive at RAAF Amberley early next year.

"Boeing Defence Australia, the major sub-contractor to The Boeing Company, will provide a significant portion of the labour resources.

"This contract integrates local Australian expertise with Boeing's experience as the major support provider to the U.S. Navy's Super Hornet fleet which will deliver the best solution for sustaining our new Super Hornets."

The Super Hornet project is running on budget and ahead of schedule.

"The first four of Australia's Super Hornets will arrive at RAAF Base Amberley in March/April 2010 with the remaining aircraft to be progressively introduced throughout the remainder of 2010 and 2011," Mr Combet said.

Australia is acquiring 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets to aid the transition to a mature Joint Strike Fighter capability, and allow Air Force to retire the F-111 fleet in December 2010.

Source : MoD Australia

[Mustangman91]

I heard that they where stoping in New Zealand on the way over from the US. Dose anyone know when and where they will be here if at all?

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

AKL, March 22...shhhh;)

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Any chance of one or two of them remaining in NZ for the Wanaka show, d'ya rekon??

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Two chances, one of them's none!

[cficare]

heap of ****........can't say any better

[Mustangman91]

Thanks Bro:ok:

[Gnadenburg]

Can't get them here soon enough! Australia has always had a multi-layered deterrent depending on which period. More than a match for possible adversaries in a regional skirmish.

Subs- long range bombers- fighter bombers with tankers- maritime surveillance aircraft- naval surface forces.

Now we were supposed to have fighter bombers, with tankers, AWACS & long range "stealthy" cruise missiles. A potent sub force. JSF replacing F111 etc etc.

Realistically, what we will have is to go to war with in the next 5 year plus period will be heavily structured around the Super Hornet. The navy is in tatters- above and below the surface. Weapons platforms replacing the F111 are plagued with development problems ( JSF and the cruise missiles ).

The Super Hornet is it! Despite JSF tunnel vision. Thankfully the GFC has slowed down the re-arming of the region. If we were serious about near to medium term defence threats to this country, a second x 24 order for Super Hornets would have been sensible.

[Naked_recommiting]

E or F?

Based where?

[Going Boeing]

Naked, the info you are after is already contained in this lengthy thread. All 24 aircraft will be the 2 seater "F" variant (the last 12 having extra wiring to allow fitting of "Growler" hardware) and they will be based at RAAF Base Amberley, the current base for the aircraft they are replacing.

[Like This - Do That]

GB I think Naked was querying Gnad's suggestion of a follow-on order, ie order what type? base them where? ...

[Naked_recommiting]

Yep, after Gnads follow on thoughts. 2 sqns of E's at Tindal, centralising A's to Williamtown?

GB, errr thanks.

[Going Boeing]

Naked, my apologies.

The idea of buying more superbugs is a distinct possibility as LM has just told the US Congress that there is another year's delay before the F35's Entry Into Service and the cost per aircraft has risen to over US$100 million.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Wasn't it Senator Killen who stated allll those years ago.....

'There are lies, damn'd lies, and F-111 estimates'......

Same Same....???

:ouch:

[Gnadenburg]

Yep, after Gnads follow on thoughts. 2 sqns of E's at Tindal, centralising A's to Williamtown?

GB, errr thanks.

Yep. I'm scared.

Defense Chiefs and Government paint a picture of a world that requires Australia having 100 5th generation, fantasy jets. And a strategic environment that requires air warfare destroyers, helicopter carriers with a view to 12 x fantasy, monster, conventional submarines that are not even in existence today.

Yet in the next 5 to 10 years our core deterrence will be 24 Super Hornets, leftover legacy Hornets and 1 to 3 submarines. The surface fleet is in tatters by accounts and something as simple as army aviation ( considering our exposure to proven American capabilities ) is budget sapping and under delivering.

Doesn't make sense to me. Considering the entrepreneurialism of Australia in all things other than government. Perhaps we need a board of business elite on defense projects.

[Weapons_Hot]

Sir Denis James "Jim" Killen AC, KCMG was the member for Moreton (Qld); he was never a senator.

I don't think Killen had much to do with the F111 purchases, as this was signed off under H2; although he did have a fair bit to do with the F/A18s (minister for Defence).

(I am definitely showing my age, and yep, I did vote for Jim)

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

TKS for that,.....

Just seem to remember the particular quote was from him.

I guess he would have been 'in opposition' at the time to have made it.....

Anyhow, for THAT sort of $'sss....HOPE they work, and last for a while before being 'superceded' in our area of ops....

Cheers

[ramble on]

I'll take the bait.

Abolish tri-service. There you go, there's the simple answer.

Australia could do no better than modelling its defence force on the US Marine Corps where every member of the defence force is a soldier first, where each is committed to a common uniform, language and capability, rather than what we have now, namely; each arm speaking a separate language and not being able to integrate when the sh1t really hits the fan.

Get rid of this archaic tri service set up which wastes so much infrastructure.

Top heavy bureaucracy is great when you go in a straight line, but the moment you need to maneouvre quickly it topples.

[Going Boeing]

Get rid of this archaic tri service set up which wastes so much infrastructure.

The Canadians did this and it hasn't been a great success. I agree with getting rid of a lot of duplication but I'd advocate getting each service to do what they do best, ie all vessels including landing craft should be maintained and supported by the Navy, all aircraft should be maintained and supported by the Air Force and all land based defence activities (including RAAF Air Defence Guards etc) should be done by the Army.

The British are currently building two large aircraft carriers but the Royal Air Force will "own" the aircraft that are deployed on them. The crewing of them will probably be a 50-50 mix between the RAF and RN but the maintenance and long term support will be done by the RAF. This came about because the RN displayed an inability to develop the Sea Harrier throughout its service life - it had the potential for significant gains in capability mainly through software development but the RN didn't have the infrastructure/personnel to drive these improvements. The RAF has the infrastructure and experience to ensure that the JSF will continue to develop throughout its service life.

I believe that Air Force maintainers have a better focus on all things aviation whereas the Navy aircraft maintenance staff are split between naval and aviation interests. Similarly, the army staff who carry out helicopter maintenance have impressed on them that they are soldiers first and maintenance engineers second - the system results in a fairly high turnover rate and thus overall experience levels remain low.

[Like This - Do That]

I'd advocate getting each service to do what they do best, ie all vessels including landing craft should be maintained and supported by the Navy, all aircraft should be maintained and supported by the Air Force and all land based defence activities (including RAAF Air Defence Guards etc) should be done by the Army.

Thems fightin' words!

Not going to pick the scab off the RAAF-Army stoushes of old, it's been done to death.

Australia could do no better than modelling its defence force on the US Marine Corps where every member of the defence force is a soldier first, where each is committed to a common uniform, language and capability, rather than what we have now, namely; each arm speaking a separate language and not being able to integrate when the sh1t really hits the fan.

Model on the USMC? Probably wouldn't work for political reasons; won't even work on the Army alone. There has been an increasing (waxes and wanes) feel of 'AIF fetish' in Army senior leadership over the last 15 years, and a lot of trivial things imposed that attempt to water down or even eradicate regimental or corps identity. Very little saves money, and almost all of it is deeply resented, certainly outside the Corps of Boots.

Indeed I would argue that without sectional / factional / sectarian interests, and the tension and arguments that it generates, too much group-think would emerge and orthodoxies would less likely be challenged.

Combined CTs and BGs are the Army's future - it's being done successfully now. It's no stretch to see a purple future for more and more of what the ADF does - doesn't mean it has to come at the expense of identity or genuine career choices.

[Trojan1981]

I believe that Air Force maintainers have a better focus on all things aviation whereas the Navy aircraft maintenance staff are split between naval and aviation interests. Similarly, the army staff who carry out helicopter maintenance have impressed on them that they are soldiers first and maintenance engineers second - the system results in a fairly high turnover rate and thus overall experience levels remain low.


:ok: Couldn't agree more! The Army tells it's aircrew the same thing.

[slamer.]

Australian Super Hornets land in NZ


9:06 AM Wednesday Mar 24, 2010


http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/230310NZHGBFIGHTER3_220x147.jpg (http://javascript<b></b>:ExpandArticleImage();)
The planes are on their way back to Australia from the US.

A squadron of Super Hornets from the Royal Australian Air Force have landed at Auckland International Airport.
The fighter planes touched down last night, on their way back from the United States.
Auckland International Airport spokesman Richard Llewellyn said there was no issue accommodating the planes but the airport did not have a lot of notice.

[Critical Reynolds No]

How can they be on their way back from the US?

[Buster Hyman]

They got lost perhaps?

[Like This - Do That]

I'll bite :E

...the airport did not have a lot of notice.

That can happen when you abolish your air combat wing .... what if those Super Hornets had been Musorian? :eek:

[TBM-Legend]

Launch a couple of F[CT]-4's complete with .303's....:E

[Critical Reynolds No]

Heads up Brisbane & Gold Coast on Friday. The Super Bugs will have a Pig escort and doing a jolly around these areas. Hawk photoship in tow as well.

[Bobster]

Now the brisbane residents can think they are being attacked.

[belowMDA]

Why didn't they stop over at Whenuapai? Or would that have been teasing the RNZAF a little too much?
Don't tell me they didn't have the ability to handle a C-17 and DC-10 there.

[Capt_SNAFU]

To base the ADF on USMC lines doesn't work in the overall sense. USMC aviation for instance is not strategic in anyway. It is focused on CAS, it has no deep strike, SEAD, CAP, Intercept functions which are the domain of the USAF and USN. The USN owns the ships that get the Marines to the drop off point. Every marine a riflemen first does have some merit from their perspective as most marines would be located closer to the action due to the mission type of the marines.

This is not to say that same changes would be good. CT teams as mentioned earlier are a good development for the army. Harder from organisational stand point but for effective from a combat perspective which it what is important, though traditional non integrated tactics also need to be kept up to speed.

[gate4]

Why didn't they stop over at Whenuapai?


Perhaps it has something to do with the KC10 Tanker fuel uplift at AKL.

[Going Boeing]

Published on ASDNews: Mar 24, 2010
(March 24, 2010) -- The historic first flight of Air Force's Super Hornets into their home base, RAAF Amberley, will occur this Friday, 26 March 2010.

Minister for Defence Senator John Faulkner will formally welcome the new aircraft to Australia during a ceremony at Amberley, along with RAAF members, Industry representatives and community leaders.

The F/A-18F Super Hornets are the Air Force's first new air combat aircraft in 25 years.

Five Super Hornets have departed Naval Air Station Lemoore in California after extensive preparations, including acceptance flights and ground tests. While air to air refuelling is occurring, the long journey to Australia involves several stops, including Hawaii and New Zealand..

Air Force is planning to mark the Super Hornet arrival with an escort of F-111s, as the new aircraft fly over Brisbane and Gold Coast on approach to Amberley. The F-111s which have been stalwarts of Australia's air combat fleet will be retired at the end of 2010.

"The Super Hornets represent a major step forward in air combat capability for Australia. Air Force is acquiring 24 multi-role Super Hornets which will provide a bridging capability during the transition to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter," Senator Faulkner said.

"The Super Hornets are an important acquisition," Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science, Greg Combet said.

"Air Force, Defence Materiel Organisation, United States Navy, The Boeing Company and their industry partners, General Electric, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon share the credit for this project's success."

Australia's Super Hornets will arrive at RAAF Amberley progressively during 2010 and 2011.
Source : MoD Australia

[WannaBeBiggles]

Video of them buzzing along the coast Buzzing Super Hornets arrive - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/03/26/2857493.htm)

[Keg]

Was talking to a colleague from ACG today. The interference by the PMs office in the delivery of these aircraft to Australia has been unbelievable- more so when you consider the hue and cry from the ALP when the then coalition government announced their purchase! :suspect:

[Going Boeing]

The Courier-Mail March 26, 2010 10:25AM
Hornets over Queensland - Super Hornets make their Aust debut
http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2010/03/26/1225845/924805-raaf-super-hornet.jpg
The RAAF's first batch of 24 new Super Hornet jet fighter-bombers will arrive late this month.

RAAF BASE: Five F/A-18F Super Hornets will fly over Brisbane this afternoon on their way to their new home at the Amberley RAAF base. Source: AAP
THE southeast has had some noise this afternoon, with five fighter jets passing 100ft over our skies on their way to their new home at the RAAF Base Amberley.

The F/A-18F Super Hornets began the Australian leg of their journey south of the border and worked their way over the Gold Coast, Brisbane and Ipswich on their way over from the United States.

Workers on the Coast posted video on YouTube of the flyover within minutes.

The $50 million-a-piece Super Hornets are the latest addition to the Australian Defence Force military capability. They will be escorted by a formation of F-111s and a Hawk aircraft.
Many South-East suburbs will have views of the Super Hornets before they arrive at Amberley ahead of a formal homecoming ceremony.
http://www.asdnews.com/data_news/ID26940_600.jpg

[teresa green]

AND delivered on time and at the right price, sigh, if only the civil airliners could say the same...... The Dreamliner is just that, a dream.:{

[RATpin]

Spot on Keg,plenty of Flack from desk drivers and the cb bureaucracy.With the delays to the F35,maybe BN got some sound advice.
If only they had ordered a few more C17's.
On Time And On Budget,amazing how well I't can all run when self serving CB muppets are taken out of the process.Now, about those submarines.
Cheers Boys

[Captain Sand Dune]

Was talking to a colleague from ACG today. The interference by the PMs office in the delivery of these aircraft to Australia has been unbelievable- more so when you consider the hue and cry from the ALP when the then coalition government announced their purchase!
Hardly surprising. They'd have us flying C172s if they had their way.:mad:
Yet another comment in today's Australian from a "Defence scientist" about how the the Super Hornet isn't as good as the F-111.:hmm:
Obviously this "Defence scientist" has several thousand fast jet hours to back up this opinion with too:rolleyes:. Come to think about it haven't heard from that other Defence aviation "expert", Carlo Kopp on the subject of late.:yuk:

[Like This - Do That]

The $50 million-a-piece Super Hornets ...

Is this considered the "drive away - no more to pay" sticker price (ie not 1/24th of the cost of the programme)? I seem to remember the classics were priced around the $40 million mark back in 1981 or so.

[TBM-Legend]

The big numbers quoted by defence for new equipment include the life of type operating costs as well. Misleading really. Bit like saying a new Holden Commodore [sticker $35K] costs $85K including all running costs for 5 years or so...
The world is now run by accountants and lawyers..:suspect:

[mohikan]

Keg.

I thought you were an ex-cadet with no military flying experience.

How come you have a 'colleague' from the ACG ?

[ozbiggles]

I'll field this one for you Keg

Who cares Mohikan?

Now there is 30 second of our lives we won't get back.

Back to the topic

[Barry Bernoulli]

TBM-Legend

So you would rather the taxpayer not know that the new toy they are paying for comes with ongoing expenses?

... a bit like a car salesman selling a 17 y.o. finance for a WRX without telling him that it will cost him $2500+ a year for insurance and another $3500 year for running costs in addition to his finance payments...

... a bit misleading really.

I reckon the 17 y.o. wants to be able to afford to cut chookies in his WRX to impress the ladies, not just look at it in his garage!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Hheheheh...you would be amazed the information an ex-AirTC cadet can still get from friends and colleages who shared a uniform and then moved on to different things.

I understand the US NAVY is still cagey about having the SuperBug sit out in the open at AMB....They must have bought out the entire shadecloth supply from Bunnings to keep the bug from prying eyes...and cameras....and I'm in Melbourne:}

[TBM-Legend]

BB not that really. When a 17 year old buys a WRX they don't mention the running costs...only the purchase price. Do you tell your banker that your new TV cost includes all running costs for the life of it? Different budget..

When the Rhinos replace the Pigs then the Pig costs disappear.

The aircraft are not a $6Bn purchase..

[Keg]

mohikan, I have more than one job. I have many colleagues in such diverse places as ACG, military ATC, ADFA, OTS, naval security, joint communications, CISCON, etc. I also have many colleagues in civilian ATC, general aviation, regional aviation, airlines, various police forces, nurses, chaplains, human resources, public education, IT, mining industry, etc.

Happy? :ugh:

[frigatebird]

TBM-L
It's been a long-running and expensive saga with the F-111's since they were ordered during the Confrontation. Have photos of bombed up F-4's on display at Amberley in '71, flying the flag, as an interim measure, while we waited for the Pigs problems to be sorted, and now we have another batch of twin-engined, two crew, externally cluttered, fighter-bombers as an interim measure while we wait for the expensive all-singing, all-dancing, single engined, last of the manned defence systems, F35.
Did our F-111's ever drop a bomb in anger, like the Canberras they replaced, or were they just our Deterent, and spent their life training?

[mrdeux]

Did our F-111's ever drop a bomb in anger, like the Canberras they replaced, or were they just our Deterent, and spent their life training?

So, what's the plan. Disarm? An unused deterrent would seem to have been quite successful.

Mind you, I'd rather see the F35 sidelined entirely, and a 150 F18E/Fs replacing the whole fighter/bomber force.

[Groaner]

Saw a Comm Govt austender Friday for the secure destruction of 13 x F111 and 70 x engines. Funnily enough I can't find it now.

Pity they can't be put to a better use than scrap metal.

[Taildragger67]

Frigatebird,

If the Pigs are/were our deterrent, then if they've never fired a shot in anger, I'd argue they were 100% successful.

God help us all if anything is ever fired in anger from the 'deterrents' quietly cruising around underwater.

Keg,

:ok:

[Tiger35]

Our Canberras certainly dropped bombs accurately on opposition targets in Vietnam, sadly with some crew losses as well.

I'm not sure whether they dropped bombs during the Confrontation with Indonesia in Malaya in the 60's though.

[Gnadenburg]

I know ex-RAAF Canberra crews who flew spy missions against Indonesia during Confrontation. Lonely missions, without escort, at a time when Indonesia had Russian SAMs & MIGs in considerable numbers. They operated from both Darwin and Butterworth.

I'd guess P3's and F111's have poked their noses about since- certainly during Timor operations.

[Buster Hyman]

If the Pigs are/were our deterrent, then if they've never fired a shot in anger, I'd argue they were 100% successful.ADF. :ok:

[frigatebird]

Now that we have spent this generation's taxes on the latest version metal Deterrent, and while crews train to support our allies chosen favourite adventures, could we have some ideas for the 'grass roots' method of actually stopping foreigners from continuing to arrive on our doorstep in small boats. No money needed, just the ideas, - and the willingness to implement them, with our current equipment..

Or is that unpalatable.. ?

[mohikan]

Keg.

What is your other job exactly ?

It's commonly held in QF that you are an 'ex knuck legend' as opposed to an officer of the AAFC................

Nothing wrong with being either or both of course, both noble pursuits

[ozbiggles]

The circus is missing its clown
What Mohikan does your vendetta have to do with the thread?
I'd like to come here and see peoples opinion on the super Hornet and debate those issues.
Not whatever you think you can achieve here. You have managed to achieve something here though......

[Gnadenburg]

Agreed. What a nice prick you are mohikan......

[Keg]

What is your other job exactly ?

Which one? I did leave a job external to QF a while back. I have colleagues from a number of different jobs. :ugh:

It's commonly held in QF that you are an 'ex knuck legend'.....

Lol. I doubt it. Certainly not by anyone who knows me or has flown with me.

I tend not to bring it up the AAFC unless someone asks about it. Sadly, occasionally the AAFC role intrudes into QF time (particularly phone calls and other work that precludes me from going out to the pub after work) and it becomes pretty obvious that I'm involved. About 2 minutes after someone has asked me about the extent of my AAFC involvement they probably regret having asked the question. If someone asks if I'm ex military they then get to hear that my strike rate of rides in military aircraft is 1 flight in 20 years service- pretty shabby for an AAFC staff member really. I know of cadets with better records in their first 12 months!

The real question posed by your comment is why it would be a 'commonly held belief' that I'm an ex-knuck. The only people that would think that are those who have been told it by others as it's not something I've ever put out there. I've never purported to be anything other than a short, round bloke who enjoys my job in QF, my role in the AAFC, and the roles in other aspects of my life. If you actually know me then you know what they are. If you don't know me then your opinion on the matter is pretty irrelevant anyway

So, now that we've cleared that up, how about you? Tell us all a bit about yourself? What burns inside you that you feel the need to to verbal me? You obviously know a bit about me but if you do you also know why I have a 'colleague from ACG'. Why bring up anything else unless you want to throw the impression out there that I talk myself up? The jokes on you I suspect given that 3000 posts means that most regulars know me (and my background) pretty well. I reckon there would be 20 plus times in the last bunch of years that I've mentioned the AAFC. The times I've alluded to being an RAAF pilot or former RAAF pilot? Nil.

What's most interesting is that the regulars will have learned far more about mohikan and raised more questions about the shabby way you do business and your character than they have about mine. := Good work on that front! Both barrels, right on your foot. :D

Taildragger67 gets it! :ok:

(Sorry Tail wheel, et al, Gnadenburg, ozbiggles and everyone else but I wasn't going to leave mohikan's crap without a response. Now back to normally scheduled programming :} ).