Super Hornets For RAAF
 

$6b fighter plane deal

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/...943419483.html

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

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

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:

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.

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

Is that definite?

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:

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

Great quote from that SMH story:

Spoken like a true Knuck :ok: !!

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.

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???

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

Again, Porkie pies!

Its simple project management basics.

Initial acquisition cost represents a fraction of through life cost.

The 6bn figure makes sense to me.

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.

Yes.

Care to back up your claim Milt?

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."

Such as? In any case the aircraft is only part of the equation.

Bolleaux!

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%.

Some views from both sides ;
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/nationalint...htm#transcript