Super Hornets For RAAF
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Super Hornet Pricing
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!
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!
JSF Progress
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
(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
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Launceston. Tasmania,Australia
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F-22 Raptor in the mix?
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?"
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?"
Evertonian
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...
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who are we supposed to be fighting?
And a modest fighter force will reduce personnel retention & recruitment strains in the RAAF.
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.
Have you been watching the news or reading the paper for the last 5 years???????
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.
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?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canberra Australia
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!
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!!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 57
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cheers Milt
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
)
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.
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
)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.
Last edited by Like This - Do That; 24th Mar 2008 at 08:08. Reason: shocking grammar
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.
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?
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Barry Bernoulli; 24th Mar 2008 at 23:26.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All on the word of a retired officer who was sacked as Air Commander
he was a Pig pilot, not a fighter pilot
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.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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."
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."
Fox 6!
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!
(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!
How come their opinion is accepted over those with 20 years of current fighter experience
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.
Last edited by Gnadenburg; 25th Mar 2008 at 05:23.
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.
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!