Australian Fighter options
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: sydney
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LowObservable,
Firstly, you can refer to me by my correct alias.
<<Item one, Mr Jones, anyone who has been in or near this business for more than six months knows that smart guys with some experience in the field have been responsible for a whole lot of massive c**kups. It happens. The second part of the quote is both a classic example of argumentum ad hominem and an example of the insularity and arrogance that protects bad choices from challenge. Onward the Light Brigade!>>
Who do you propose we burden with the responsibility of these decisions if not smart people with experience in the field ? A group of bluntus maximus that can't tell their ass from a hole in the ground? Don't bother looking that one up in your Latin dictionary, just take a look in the mirror.
There it is again - argumentum ad hominem. I'm willing to counter a valid argument whenever you'd like to produce one.
<<Maybe you should consider that there is something happening here and you don't know what it is, do you, Mr Jones?>>
Are you coming onto me ?
Firstly, you can refer to me by my correct alias.
<<Item one, Mr Jones, anyone who has been in or near this business for more than six months knows that smart guys with some experience in the field have been responsible for a whole lot of massive c**kups. It happens. The second part of the quote is both a classic example of argumentum ad hominem and an example of the insularity and arrogance that protects bad choices from challenge. Onward the Light Brigade!>>
Who do you propose we burden with the responsibility of these decisions if not smart people with experience in the field ? A group of bluntus maximus that can't tell their ass from a hole in the ground? Don't bother looking that one up in your Latin dictionary, just take a look in the mirror.
There it is again - argumentum ad hominem. I'm willing to counter a valid argument whenever you'd like to produce one.
<<Maybe you should consider that there is something happening here and you don't know what it is, do you, Mr Jones?>>
Are you coming onto me ?
Last edited by señor_jones; 21st Feb 2007 at 07:42.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do you guys give K Copp so much cred?. He is a spotter who draws tech profiles of aircraft and dreams of some decorative literature to add to them in order to show his 'copyrighted' drawings in 'authoratative' publications. He has never dropped a bomb in anger.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Señor_Jones
I expect to have the same people there making the decisions, but I would love to know what set of criteria was used if the answer is a JSF/Super Hornet mix in 2020..
I would love to know how much the offsets other manufacturers would have offered if they had been asked!
My information is at least one manufacturer hasn't been approached since 2002, now I could be wrong on this but thats the rumour from someone who should know!, this has a bearing on the total cost to Oz..
The operational date is now 2010, not the 2012 date that would have produce a gap, which aircraft are excluded by this and why?. shouldn't it be capability at the introduction time (2010-2012) thats important?, not right now?
The introduction of the JSF would have been 2014, the capability gap was supposed to be starting 2012, the rush is now to have something in service by 2010!!!
I'm sure the correct answer to the question from intelligent procurement people people is the Super hornet, but I think its the criteria use and question asked of them that have to be looked at, from no gap to hurry up and buy something quick! curbs their talents somewhat.
So before you get all defensive re the procurement teams, the incompetence I'm talking about may lie a tad higher...
For example:-
A $4 Billion Mea Culpa!!, thats not peanuts. plus the US isn't offering offsets and the only part I know of thats manufactured in Oz is the Flaps
It seems best value wasn't high on the list.
Cheers
I expect to have the same people there making the decisions, but I would love to know what set of criteria was used if the answer is a JSF/Super Hornet mix in 2020..
I would love to know how much the offsets other manufacturers would have offered if they had been asked!
My information is at least one manufacturer hasn't been approached since 2002, now I could be wrong on this but thats the rumour from someone who should know!, this has a bearing on the total cost to Oz..
The operational date is now 2010, not the 2012 date that would have produce a gap, which aircraft are excluded by this and why?. shouldn't it be capability at the introduction time (2010-2012) thats important?, not right now?
The introduction of the JSF would have been 2014, the capability gap was supposed to be starting 2012, the rush is now to have something in service by 2010!!!
I'm sure the correct answer to the question from intelligent procurement people people is the Super hornet, but I think its the criteria use and question asked of them that have to be looked at, from no gap to hurry up and buy something quick! curbs their talents somewhat.
So before you get all defensive re the procurement teams, the incompetence I'm talking about may lie a tad higher...
For example:-
THE Chief of Air Force, Air Marshal Geoff Shepherd, has offered a "mea culpa … slightly" for Defence's rushed decision to plug a looming gap in Australia's air-combat capability at a cost to taxpayers of $4 billion.
Air Marshal Shepherd was asked by a Senate committee why the Government was advocating buying 24 Super Hornet jets just months after Defence dismissed concerns there were problems with the F-35 joint strike fighter.
At a cost up to $16 billion, about 100 F-35s are being sought to replace Australia's fleet of fighter jets from 2014. But, as revealed in the Herald, there have been cost blow-outs and delays because of US budget cuts. Super Hornets are being considered to fill the gap should the F-35 be delayed.
Cabinet's national security committee was briefed on the option just six weeks after Defence told Parliament the F-35 was on track in November last year.
"It has been done in a more rapid process than the normal process," Air Marshal Shepherd said. "I suppose that's a mea culpa … slightly."
The Opposition defence spokesman, Joel Fitzgibbon, said: "They took a great leap of faith on the F-35 and were naive in their assessment about when the US was capable of delivering it … They have got themselves in a pickle."
While the decision has been criticised by some analysts because of the Super Hornet's poor stealth, Air Marshal Shepherd said it could be available by 2010.
Air Marshal Shepherd was asked by a Senate committee why the Government was advocating buying 24 Super Hornet jets just months after Defence dismissed concerns there were problems with the F-35 joint strike fighter.
At a cost up to $16 billion, about 100 F-35s are being sought to replace Australia's fleet of fighter jets from 2014. But, as revealed in the Herald, there have been cost blow-outs and delays because of US budget cuts. Super Hornets are being considered to fill the gap should the F-35 be delayed.
Cabinet's national security committee was briefed on the option just six weeks after Defence told Parliament the F-35 was on track in November last year.
"It has been done in a more rapid process than the normal process," Air Marshal Shepherd said. "I suppose that's a mea culpa … slightly."
The Opposition defence spokesman, Joel Fitzgibbon, said: "They took a great leap of faith on the F-35 and were naive in their assessment about when the US was capable of delivering it … They have got themselves in a pickle."
While the decision has been criticised by some analysts because of the Super Hornet's poor stealth, Air Marshal Shepherd said it could be available by 2010.
It seems best value wasn't high on the list.
Cheers
<<Who do you propose we burden with the responsibility of these decisions if not smart people with experience in the field ? A group of bluntus maximus that can't tell their ass from a hole in the ground? Don't bother looking that one up in your Latin dictionary, just take a look in the mirror.>>
I don't think any person or group should take on these decisions blindly and without reference to what other people may say or think, merely because they believe that they have the "qualifications".
I think it is extremely valid to argue (in the case of the Oz JSF deal) that the picture has changed since the competition was terminated and the commitment was made to JSF. JSF is more expensive; some of the alternatives (not the F-22) have become more credible; there may be value in the Super Hornet as a stopgap, and pushing the competition down the road to the point where it is needed (two to three years ahead of IOC).
I would suggest also that some people don't want to revisit the decision because the consequences could be negative (more political faffing around, for instance).
However, "if you're not a [insert qualification here] your statements are invalid" is a logical fallacy. You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
Now, if you want to argue that the best thing for Australia to do is to persist with JSF with no fixed price, on a schedule which means buying a lot of aircraft out of LRIP at $100m a pop, and that above all this decision must not be re-examined, go ahead.
And whatever your secret desires may be, the Mr Jones comment had nothing to do with anything of the sort, but maybe you do have many contacts out there among the lumberjacks.
I don't think any person or group should take on these decisions blindly and without reference to what other people may say or think, merely because they believe that they have the "qualifications".
I think it is extremely valid to argue (in the case of the Oz JSF deal) that the picture has changed since the competition was terminated and the commitment was made to JSF. JSF is more expensive; some of the alternatives (not the F-22) have become more credible; there may be value in the Super Hornet as a stopgap, and pushing the competition down the road to the point where it is needed (two to three years ahead of IOC).
I would suggest also that some people don't want to revisit the decision because the consequences could be negative (more political faffing around, for instance).
However, "if you're not a [insert qualification here] your statements are invalid" is a logical fallacy. You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
Now, if you want to argue that the best thing for Australia to do is to persist with JSF with no fixed price, on a schedule which means buying a lot of aircraft out of LRIP at $100m a pop, and that above all this decision must not be re-examined, go ahead.
And whatever your secret desires may be, the Mr Jones comment had nothing to do with anything of the sort, but maybe you do have many contacts out there among the lumberjacks.
JWC,
The key to this has to be buy-back. Shepherd apparently told Senate that the plan is still an all-JSF force, so the Super Hornet deal has to be a lease or include a buyback option.
It suits almost everybody.
The RAAF gets to fill a capability gap, and pushes back the JSF program so that not as many aircraft are needed from LRIP, which saves money, but leaves JSF basically intact so that they don't have to fight the fighter battle over again in the backstreets of Canberra.
The Australian government pushes back the spectre of major cost overruns in JSF.
The USG keeps Australia in the JSF fold.
The US Navy, which is trying to sneak as many Super Hornets as possible under the budget radar while deferring F-35C as long as it can, has another 24 lightly used (no cats and traps) Super Hs coming in 2018-20.
The new chairman of the House Armed Services Committee is from Missouri, or Mizzurrah as they say down there.
So it's great for everyone except the Australian taxpayers, who will never know whether they could have got a better deal out of Eurofighter or Dassault. But who gives a pair of used dingo's kidney's about them anyway?
The key to this has to be buy-back. Shepherd apparently told Senate that the plan is still an all-JSF force, so the Super Hornet deal has to be a lease or include a buyback option.
It suits almost everybody.
The RAAF gets to fill a capability gap, and pushes back the JSF program so that not as many aircraft are needed from LRIP, which saves money, but leaves JSF basically intact so that they don't have to fight the fighter battle over again in the backstreets of Canberra.
The Australian government pushes back the spectre of major cost overruns in JSF.
The USG keeps Australia in the JSF fold.
The US Navy, which is trying to sneak as many Super Hornets as possible under the budget radar while deferring F-35C as long as it can, has another 24 lightly used (no cats and traps) Super Hs coming in 2018-20.
The new chairman of the House Armed Services Committee is from Missouri, or Mizzurrah as they say down there.
So it's great for everyone except the Australian taxpayers, who will never know whether they could have got a better deal out of Eurofighter or Dassault. But who gives a pair of used dingo's kidney's about them anyway?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blimey a lease... what a waste!, if the JSF program is canceled or hits problems and it pushes out to 2020, you have to wonder what the alternatives would be..
Politically I wonder if this is such a hot potato for Prime minister John Howard it might get pushed to the back burner till after the election? or will he stick to the early March announcement of the buy.
As a side issue I wonder if the Austrians have been approached By Oz to get the 18 Typhoons in a deal that they seem desperate to wriggle out of !.
It would be funny to watch Austria then try to field any sort of air force if their bluff was called.. and we could get them a $1 billion cheaper.
BTW I'd expect several more articles from Kopp, Goon, etc, in the coming days, though Mr Jensen may be a bit more subdued
.
Cheers
Politically I wonder if this is such a hot potato for Prime minister John Howard it might get pushed to the back burner till after the election? or will he stick to the early March announcement of the buy.
As a side issue I wonder if the Austrians have been approached By Oz to get the 18 Typhoons in a deal that they seem desperate to wriggle out of !.
It would be funny to watch Austria then try to field any sort of air force if their bluff was called.. and we could get them a $1 billion cheaper.
BTW I'd expect several more articles from Kopp, Goon, etc, in the coming days, though Mr Jensen may be a bit more subdued
.Cheers
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would you mind explaining (from a technical PoV, not aesthetics) why you believe the Typhoon/Rafale would be a better alternative than the F/A-18F?
Oooh Theres a loaded question...
very nicely done.Depends on what you want, but from my personal perspective,(which is going to be Typhoon orientated as its the one I know more about.So I make no apology for that).
If its the fear of our northern neighbors having a better fighter capability, then the Typhoon would fit better.
If its having an aircraft thats used by several countries/interoperability then the Typhoon fits better.
If its a carrier capable aircraft thats required then Rafale/F18E/F are the best fit.
If its technology transfer then Typhoon is better.
If its maritime strike then Rafale/F18E/F are better at present.
However the main requirement seems to be its operational by 2010, so all three would seem to fit the bill.
But what is this "gap"? which areas are the present Hornets deficient?, if air superiority is the main concern then go for a fighter optimised aircraft like the Typhoon, the capability of the Typhoon fits in with the "gap" with its air to ground and Maritime capability coming on line in 2010-2012, as does the Rafale
I'm not sure of the benefits of being the first and possibly only export customer of the F18E/F, it would be like buying the Rafale ;-). So any serious deployment by Oz overseas would require the USA to be there too.
The Typhoon is to be operated by UK,Italy,Spain,Germany,Austria,and if all goes well Saudi Arabia, thats quite a few places where one could deploy with a minimum of equipment if you had Typhoons.
Then theres operational sovereignty, does the f18E/F come with that?, Indias F18E/F offer has denied access to the radar codes, So are we also denied?, Eurofighter have offered full access!. there cannot be any restrictions on parts/support by Eurofighter unless all partner nations agree, unlike the US which has be know to use it as a err... foreign policy tool!.
Ok its getting late and I'm tired... so sorry if I rambled on... some of these points deserve to be explored much better than I can do justice to in such a limited fashion like this.
Cheers and good night sleep tight!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Somewhere up north
Age: 45
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too expensive
At the end of the day, the F22 is ridiculously expensive. The USAF is buying loads less than planned, with a resulting hike in unit price. Whilst it sounds like a good bit of kit, most cash-strapped air forces would do better with more of a different plane (any Typhoons for sale?....)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not know about the F/A-18 radar software issue, but I do have an opinion developed from other weapons/tech transfer issues.
Australia is one of the most valued and trusted of the US allies... not just another hardware customer. An example is that Australia is the only nation the US has authorized to buy JASSM.
India is working closely with Russia on military weapons & systems... therefore there is a much greater chance of a leak of sensitive info than with Australia. India is considered as just another hardware customer.
Therefore, India being denied the UberBug codes has nothing whatsoever to do with what Australia might or might not be given access to.
As for the specific question about the RAAF & the SuperHornet codes... refer to the JASSM issue to see what the US trusts Australia with.
Australia is one of the most valued and trusted of the US allies... not just another hardware customer. An example is that Australia is the only nation the US has authorized to buy JASSM.
India is working closely with Russia on military weapons & systems... therefore there is a much greater chance of a leak of sensitive info than with Australia. India is considered as just another hardware customer.
Therefore, India being denied the UberBug codes has nothing whatsoever to do with what Australia might or might not be given access to.
As for the specific question about the RAAF & the SuperHornet codes... refer to the JASSM issue to see what the US trusts Australia with.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, whilst the Typhoon will become an excellent 4.5 gen fighter, it will never be the striker that we require (That's why the RAF have GR.4, and intend to replace them with JSFs, not Typhoon).
The advanced radar developed for the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet has completed a key testing period with a nagging software problem still unresolved but showing improvement, according to the US Navy. The Raytheon APG-79 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar - the first dual-mode sensor in service on a US military fighter - completed its operational test and evaluation phase on 6 December 2006.
Re the Deployment issues, its nice to train, and fight with aircrew who operate the same equipment, allowing people to exchange and learn how best to use the systems, remember the there are more Typhoons on order than Hornets, more countries operate them, over a wider geographical and political area, so the advantage remains with the Typhoon.
As I said its very odd combo even for a couple of leased years!, which I doubt as the following is saying its a sale not lease.
Australia – F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Aircraft
WASHINGTON, February 6, 2007 - The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Australia of F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Aircraft as well as associated equipment and services. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $3.1 billion.
The Government of Australia has requested a possible sale of 24 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Aircraft, 48 F414-GE-402 installed engines, 6 F414-GE-402 spare engines, 24 AN/APG-79 Radar Systems, 24 AN/USQ-140 Multifunctional Informational Distribution System Low Volume Terminals, 30 AN/ALR-67(V)3 Electric Warfare Countermeasures Receiving Sets, 145 LAU-127 Guided Missile Launchers and 30 AN/PVS-9 Night Vision Goggles. The proposal will include integration of the AN/ALE-47 Electronic Warfare Countermeasures Systems, Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems, 12 Joint Mission Planning Systems, and AN/ALE-55 Fiber Optic Towed Decoys. Also included are system integration and testing, software development/integration, test sets and support equipment, spare and repair parts, maintenance and pilot training, software support, publications and technical documents, U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $3.1 billion.
WASHINGTON, February 6, 2007 - The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Australia of F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Aircraft as well as associated equipment and services. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $3.1 billion.
The Government of Australia has requested a possible sale of 24 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Aircraft, 48 F414-GE-402 installed engines, 6 F414-GE-402 spare engines, 24 AN/APG-79 Radar Systems, 24 AN/USQ-140 Multifunctional Informational Distribution System Low Volume Terminals, 30 AN/ALR-67(V)3 Electric Warfare Countermeasures Receiving Sets, 145 LAU-127 Guided Missile Launchers and 30 AN/PVS-9 Night Vision Goggles. The proposal will include integration of the AN/ALE-47 Electronic Warfare Countermeasures Systems, Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems, 12 Joint Mission Planning Systems, and AN/ALE-55 Fiber Optic Towed Decoys. Also included are system integration and testing, software development/integration, test sets and support equipment, spare and repair parts, maintenance and pilot training, software support, publications and technical documents, U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $3.1 billion.
The individual systems your quoting for the Super Hornet are for the most part equaled or exceeded in the Typhoon, and while your correct in saying the Typhoons AtoG ability is austere at present it won't be by 2010-12, the list of weapons is as you probably know extensive. eg storm shadow/Brimstone/Taurus/Iris-T/Asraam
/Meteor would compliment the JSF unlike the SH. all should be available in EOC1 and EOC2 in the that 2010-12 time frame, and do this as a self escorting strike tooI'm unaware of problems with g/alpha issues, are we talking recently with the heavy load??, Even so perhaps the solution with the Typhoon FCS will be a little more err... elegant that the Super Hornets wing stall issue
As for tech transfer the Eurofighter GmbH has offered full transfer, it may be a non issue If the US does the same, as you say we will have to wait and see, But I remain quite sceptical.
and the final quote is from the FMS notice:-
Australia needs these aircraft for coalition operations. The proposed sale of F/A-18E/F aircraft will increase Australia’s tactical aviation capabilities. An increase in capability will be accrued primarily due to the larger number of aircraft and the larger range and endurance of the F/A-18E/F.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not affect the basic military balance in the region.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not affect the basic military balance in the region.
BTW did you hear Oz has lost a large contract for the JSF production!!, and the government isn't amused, perhaps trusting in a close ally/friend to do the right thing may not work out, especially if you throw any negotiating leverage away, as they have done in this case.
Cheers
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have you compared the range of the SH to the competition?, and is it my imagination or does the toe out on the wing tanks look excessive and a wee bit draggy on the SH? If it is that angle is there any reason why?.
BTW Thanks to everyone who's replied - I'm learning quite a bit about all sorts of stuff.
Cheers
BTW Thanks to everyone who's replied - I'm learning quite a bit about all sorts of stuff.
Cheers
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Where the sun rarely shines
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JWC,
Do you work for BAe Systems?
Your blind obsession with that platform suggests so. SJM111 highlighted the nice kit SH will come with and you seem to think the Euro-lemon will "equal or exceed" it. Lets do a comparion:
APG79 vs Mechanically scanned Typhoon Radar - Winner SH (hands down!)
ATFLIR vs LITENING III - Winner ATFLIR (just I will conceed and some will disagree but SH A-G capability is mature so I will say SH)
MIDS vs Typoon Datalink - Tie (link is link, don't you think?)
JHMCS vs Typhoon HMS - Tie
JDAM vs PW IV - Winner JDAM again because it is mature and PW IV is not yet working
Not to mention the other Typhoon weapons you mentioned:
Stormshadow vs JASSM - Winner JASSM (yes it might not work yet, but niether does stromshadow on Typhoon)
Brimstone - Winner Typhoon, but I don't think the Red Army is much of a concern these days
ASRAAM vs AIM-9X - Winner Typhoon. Yep I'll give you that one but again this is replacing the F-111 not the F-18A which does have ASRAAM. We want A-G capability here.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy watching the Typhoon at airshows as much as the next guy but it is a LONG way off from being a mature A-G platform. Certainly not what the RAAF need now. As for Rafael - are you joking?
The only real option for the RAAF in the short term would be Strike Eagle or Super Hornet. I would suggest we are pinching the SH off the production line rather than joining the queue for F-15E (K) which to me is the best move. It could also be argued that what the SH lacks in payload vs the F-15 it makes up for with sensors.
Now lets sit back and wait for this announcement and be thankful rather than critical. As much as I like the F-111 its retirement is well overdue. Get rid of it ASAP and get these flash new jets on the line.
Art
Do you work for BAe Systems?
Your blind obsession with that platform suggests so. SJM111 highlighted the nice kit SH will come with and you seem to think the Euro-lemon will "equal or exceed" it. Lets do a comparion:
APG79 vs Mechanically scanned Typhoon Radar - Winner SH (hands down!)
ATFLIR vs LITENING III - Winner ATFLIR (just I will conceed and some will disagree but SH A-G capability is mature so I will say SH)
MIDS vs Typoon Datalink - Tie (link is link, don't you think?)
JHMCS vs Typhoon HMS - Tie
JDAM vs PW IV - Winner JDAM again because it is mature and PW IV is not yet working
Not to mention the other Typhoon weapons you mentioned:
Stormshadow vs JASSM - Winner JASSM (yes it might not work yet, but niether does stromshadow on Typhoon)
Brimstone - Winner Typhoon, but I don't think the Red Army is much of a concern these days
ASRAAM vs AIM-9X - Winner Typhoon. Yep I'll give you that one but again this is replacing the F-111 not the F-18A which does have ASRAAM. We want A-G capability here.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy watching the Typhoon at airshows as much as the next guy but it is a LONG way off from being a mature A-G platform. Certainly not what the RAAF need now. As for Rafael - are you joking?
The only real option for the RAAF in the short term would be Strike Eagle or Super Hornet. I would suggest we are pinching the SH off the production line rather than joining the queue for F-15E (K) which to me is the best move. It could also be argued that what the SH lacks in payload vs the F-15 it makes up for with sensors.
Now lets sit back and wait for this announcement and be thankful rather than critical. As much as I like the F-111 its retirement is well overdue. Get rid of it ASAP and get these flash new jets on the line.
Art
Again, if the Oz leaders are to be believed and if they have any sense, the goal is a one-fighter force, ergo the SHs have a return option - which is quite believable as the USN would like that.
So the question is not just SH-versus-Typhoon but what you want in the long term and whether it is smart to have committed to the only non-fixed-price option you can find without a proper competition.
And, by the way, if there is anything out there that the Typhoon can beat on range it's probably the SH. Take a casual look at the US Navy's online photo gallery and see how many SHs are loaded with four gasbags and a buddy store.
So the question is not just SH-versus-Typhoon but what you want in the long term and whether it is smart to have committed to the only non-fixed-price option you can find without a proper competition.
And, by the way, if there is anything out there that the Typhoon can beat on range it's probably the SH. Take a casual look at the US Navy's online photo gallery and see how many SHs are loaded with four gasbags and a buddy store.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No I don't work for BAE systems, I just have an interest in the Typhoon.
Have to agree (with reservations see later comment) - what about Captor-E (Caesar E scan)?, but what capability gap does the F111 leave that only an AESA radar can fill?
Its really the ATFLIR vs Litening III and Pirate.
,
I thought they had the same MIDS terminal! the 'low volume' whotyamacallit
The Typhoons EOC1 and EOC2 (AIUI these have now been replaced by a future capability contract cp210), These included Paveway II, III enhanced Paveway II, IV LGB, other PGM's Inc JDAM. another tie
If they both don't work, why isn't it a tie? 
, so can we agree if they were both working?, advantage Typhoon!
Brimestone isn't integrated yet, again its a EOC1+2 thing, IIRC the FCP was signed in December 06, the actual details are still secret, with some items shuffled forward for the UK requirement for a more robust AtoG retirement.
As I understand it the Typhoon is a much better fighter than the Hornet, if they are doing the self escorting then thats an advantage to the Typhoon even if AtoG is the main function, if the range figures that are public are to be believed the Typhoon has a greater range, with conformals (offering a 25% increase in range and a near 50% increase in fuel) and storm shadow to well over 1000nm.
As I have said before you need to decide what the primary missions are, and what has produced the 'GAP' we are trying to fill.
We could try to argue each system, but this is ultimately futile as the capabilities are for the most part restricted information. even in matters where you assert the AESA of the Hornet is superior and I agree this is pure conjecture on my part, a side by side free access comparison may surprise us both!.
So far the two big reasons given are the demise of the Pig and superior fighters being procured in our region, therefore the three main things we are looking for to fill the 'GAP' should be range, air superiority and AtoG.
Comparison of Typhoon vs the F18E/F
Range - Typhoon advantage which will remain post 2010
Air Superiority - Typhoon advantage which will remain post 2010
AtoG SH advantage today and is equaled or surpassed in 2010-2012
This has turned into a one of those technical arguments, with severe thread creep away from the original cost benefit competition that I think was vital so we don't get screwed.
I still think there are alternatives - I know a lot less about the Rafale, but it might actually fit the bill better than the Typhoon especially in this case due to the AtoG weight you've assigned. and these may actually outweigh its obvious drawbacks.
In conclusion - I think the 'knee jerk' action of buying the SH, does not give Australia the best bang for buck, when you include capability offsets, work share, and interoperability with foreign operators.
Its complicated question thats for sure.
cheers
APG79 vs Mechanically scanned Typhoon Radar - Winner SH (hands down!)
ATFLIR vs LITENING III - Winner ATFLIR (just I will conceed and some will disagree but SH A-G capability is mature so I will say SH)
MIDS vs Typoon Datalink - Tie (link is link, don't you think?)
I thought they had the same MIDS terminal! the 'low volume' whotyamacallit
JHMCS vs Typhoon HMS - Tie
JDAM vs PW IV - Winner JDAM again because it is mature and PW IV is not yet working
JDAM vs PW IV - Winner JDAM again because it is mature and PW IV is not yet working
Not to mention the other Typhoon weapons you mentioned:
Stormshadow vs JASSM - Winner JASSM (yes it might not work yet, but niether does stromshadow on Typhoon)
Stormshadow vs JASSM - Winner JASSM (yes it might not work yet, but niether does stromshadow on Typhoon)
, so can we agree if they were both working?, advantage Typhoon!
Brimstone - Winner Typhoon, but I don't think the Red Army is much of a concern these days
ASRAAM vs AIM-9X - Winner Typhoon. Yep I'll give you that one but again this is replacing the F-111 not the F-18A which does have ASRAAM. We want A-G capability here.
As I have said before you need to decide what the primary missions are, and what has produced the 'GAP' we are trying to fill.
We could try to argue each system, but this is ultimately futile as the capabilities are for the most part restricted information. even in matters where you assert the AESA of the Hornet is superior and I agree this is pure conjecture on my part, a side by side free access comparison may surprise us both!.
So far the two big reasons given are the demise of the Pig and superior fighters being procured in our region, therefore the three main things we are looking for to fill the 'GAP' should be range, air superiority and AtoG.
Comparison of Typhoon vs the F18E/F
Range - Typhoon advantage which will remain post 2010
Air Superiority - Typhoon advantage which will remain post 2010
AtoG SH advantage today and is equaled or surpassed in 2010-2012
This has turned into a one of those technical arguments, with severe thread creep away from the original cost benefit competition that I think was vital so we don't get screwed.
I still think there are alternatives - I know a lot less about the Rafale, but it might actually fit the bill better than the Typhoon especially in this case due to the AtoG weight you've assigned. and these may actually outweigh its obvious drawbacks.
In conclusion - I think the 'knee jerk' action of buying the SH, does not give Australia the best bang for buck, when you include capability offsets, work share, and interoperability with foreign operators.
Its complicated question thats for sure.
cheers
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.house.gov/pitts/initiativ...CRS-hornet.pdf
This makes interesting reading!, touches on some of the pro's and cons of the SH.
Cheers
This makes interesting reading!, touches on some of the pro's and cons of the SH.
Cheers
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: sydney
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think any person or group should take on these decisions blindly and without reference to what other people may say or think, merely because they believe that they have the "qualifications".
If you believe that combined decades of operating fighters is insufficient experience to make smart choices about the platform that will replace, and ultimately expand upon the capability provided by these same aircraft, you’re an idiot.
Now, if you want to argue that the best thing for Australia to do is to persist with JSF with no fixed price, on a schedule which means buying a lot of aircraft out of LRIP at $100m a pop, and that above all this decision must not be re-examined, go ahead.
And whatever your secret desires may be, the Mr Jones comment had nothing to do with anything of the sort, but maybe you do have many contacts out there among the lumberjacks.
Great comeback champ.
JWCook,
The people making acquisition decisions have data available to them pertaining to a type’s performance, tactical employment, etc. that isn’t available on Jane’s website. Making public the exact criteria by which these decisions are made may reveal details of the intended capability that should not be common knowledge. I’m sure you can appreciate that.
No harm in being inquisitive and enthusiastic about the future of our air capability, but I don’t think you’re going to get the answers/arguments/comparisons that will satisfy you.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 58
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jwcook
Have you compared the range of the SH to the competition?, and is it my imagination or does the toe out on the wing tanks look excessive and a wee bit draggy on the SH? If it is that angle is there any reason why?.
The toe out was a result of early separation testing. I'm told it reduces the aircraft's range by about 2% with four jugs and two AAMs up.
Cheers
Magoo
Last edited by Magoodotcom; 25th Feb 2007 at 05:33.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ola Señor
As I've said before the decisions that need questioning may be a tad higher than the air force procurement, look at this briefing by Director General New Air Combat Capability Air Vice-Marshal John Harvey
Granted I may be reading more between the lines than is called for in this one statement, but according to this the government only ask for one to be 'fleshed out', thats my gripe, and I don't think either of us has Janes as a primary source.
BTW thanks Magoo for the info..
Cheers
As I've said before the decisions that need questioning may be a tad higher than the air force procurement, look at this briefing by Director General New Air Combat Capability Air Vice-Marshal John Harvey
we needed to do something if they looked like there'd be too much risk of a transition gap there at all.
And when the JSF was considered in the context of First Pass, Government looked at the options and they asked us to flesh out one of those a bit more; which was the Super Hornet option. So, we're providing more detail on that and Government will make the decision on whether or not they think that's required in the near future.
And when the JSF was considered in the context of First Pass, Government looked at the options and they asked us to flesh out one of those a bit more; which was the Super Hornet option. So, we're providing more detail on that and Government will make the decision on whether or not they think that's required in the near future.
BTW thanks Magoo for the info..
Cheers
As I've said before the decisions that need questioning may be a tad higher than the air force procurement
With delays plaguing more than a few projects, Nelson has demanded a bridging option as an insurance policy against an overly optimistic and JSF myopic Brass and bureaucracy.
The RAAF has enthusiastically recommended the Super Hornet. With tankers, Wedgtail and cruise missiles, on paper it seems to satisfy government policy quickly and convincingly.