Australian Fighter options
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JW Cook. Not sure where you got all your enthusiasm for Typhoon from. I see that you live in Oz so I am sure that you have the best interests of the RAAF in your thoughts.
I am certainly not going to delve into the realms of the classified here, but I would say that much of the information being spouted here by a number of experts is out of date wrt Typhoon.
EOC 1 & 2 no longer exist as such - with the name changes have been other changes.
If the RAAF needs a Multi/Swing - Role platform, with modern weapons capable of engaging a variety of A-A & A-Surf targets - and it wants this to be fully operational by 2010 then the SH (or F-15E) would be the answer. Typhoon, I have said before, is a superb aircraft, but..............Remember, in all procurement decisions it is about Performance, Cost and Time. With 2010 not that far away for the aircraft to be operational - Time will be the critical factor and may well outvote whatever we may think about the relative merits of Typh v F18F.
I am certainly not going to delve into the realms of the classified here, but I would say that much of the information being spouted here by a number of experts is out of date wrt Typhoon.
EOC 1 & 2 no longer exist as such - with the name changes have been other changes.
If the RAAF needs a Multi/Swing - Role platform, with modern weapons capable of engaging a variety of A-A & A-Surf targets - and it wants this to be fully operational by 2010 then the SH (or F-15E) would be the answer. Typhoon, I have said before, is a superb aircraft, but..............Remember, in all procurement decisions it is about Performance, Cost and Time. With 2010 not that far away for the aircraft to be operational - Time will be the critical factor and may well outvote whatever we may think about the relative merits of Typh v F18F.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See PM Desparado
Heres a link for more info on SH
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...20Capabilities
Cheers
Heres a link for more info on SH
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...20Capabilities
Cheers
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Bit nosey aren't you
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The national variants of the Typhoon and JSF will differ in capability due to the quality and integrity of the software on-board. The RAF have a dedicated MSC supplying the required parameters and software. Do the Aussies have the mission support and data aquisition capabilities to run either the F-22 or Typhoon?
Looks like 24 SH are confirmed
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...943419483.html
But at $6 billion for 24 of them, thats AUD $250 mio each!!! or about USD $200 mio. Surely we get more than just the Airframe + engines for that amount of coin?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...943419483.html
But at $6 billion for 24 of them, thats AUD $250 mio each!!! or about USD $200 mio. Surely we get more than just the Airframe + engines for that amount of coin?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fatigue isses with the SH
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...navys_top_jet/
Cheers
WASHINGTON -- Engineers have uncovered a flaw in the Navy's top fighter jet that could reduce by half the aircraft's advertised service life and potentially cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in repairs, according to Pentagon documents and military and industry officials.
Article Tools
A mechanism inside the wings of the F/A-18 Super Hornet, manufactured by Boeing Co. , is wearing out prematurely, prompting the Navy to order the company to make changes in the plane's production as well as retrofit several hundred planes already operating off the decks of Navy aircraft carriers, according to a Navy official.
Article Tools
A mechanism inside the wings of the F/A-18 Super Hornet, manufactured by Boeing Co. , is wearing out prematurely, prompting the Navy to order the company to make changes in the plane's production as well as retrofit several hundred planes already operating off the decks of Navy aircraft carriers, according to a Navy official.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Navy, Boeing Downplay Alleged Super Hornet Problems
U.S. Navy and Boeing officials were quick to respond to a Boston Globe story May 17 that alleged “costly flaws” in Super Hornet strike fighters could cut their lifetime flight hours in half.
“The Boston Globe article has many misstatements,” said Patricia Frost, a spokeswoman for Boeing Naval Systems in St. Louis. “Boeing and the U.S. Navy expect the Super Hornet and the EA-18G to meet or exceed their 6,000-hour design life.”
The Globe story reported that “a mechanism inside the wings of the F/A-18 [E and F] Super Hornet … is wearing out prematurely” — a problem that, if uncorrected, “would drastically shorten the $50 million aircraft’s life span from 6,000 hours to 3,000 hours.”
Boeing and the Navy acknowledged that problems have been found with the aircraft, but said the situation described in the Globe story dates from four years ago. Fixes already have been incorporated into new aircraft and will be retrofitted into older planes, Boeing and the Navy said.
“The U.S. Navy has identified a pylon fitting in the wing of the F/A-18 E and F model Super Hornet where fatigue could potentially shorten the wing’s expected service life and is implementing a corrective measure,” said Chuck Wagner, a spokesman with Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, Md. “The fitting is part of the lower wing spar and is used to reinforce the area where stores attach to the wing. The potential problem was identified through an engineering analysis in 2003 and subsequent testing in 2005, which are part of our routine risk-mitigation processes for the aircraft’s development. The Navy and Boeing worked together, a fully-funded project is underway, and today every aircraft coming off the production line is being delivered with the solution that corrects for the potential future fatigue. A retrofit solution on those aircraft already in the fleet is planned for 2009 and will correct the identified wing area prior to those aircraft reaching the flight-hour threshold in which fatigue could potentially be experienced. The Navy is confident it has selected the optimal proactive response which in no way compromises the readiness or performance of the aircraft’s mission.”
Asked whether the situation affected new EA-18G Growler electronic countermeasures aircraft — which are all converted on the production line from two-seat F models — Wagner said the problem did “not influence them at all, because the solution is already incorporated into aircraft coming off the production line. The solutions were incorporated before the first G was delivered.”
Fixes and modifications to aircraft in series production are not unusual, Frost said. “They’re part of the normal life of an aircraft,” she said. “If something comes up you go out and fix it in a timely fashion before it becomes a serious issue.”
U.S. Navy and Boeing officials were quick to respond to a Boston Globe story May 17 that alleged “costly flaws” in Super Hornet strike fighters could cut their lifetime flight hours in half.
“The Boston Globe article has many misstatements,” said Patricia Frost, a spokeswoman for Boeing Naval Systems in St. Louis. “Boeing and the U.S. Navy expect the Super Hornet and the EA-18G to meet or exceed their 6,000-hour design life.”
The Globe story reported that “a mechanism inside the wings of the F/A-18 [E and F] Super Hornet … is wearing out prematurely” — a problem that, if uncorrected, “would drastically shorten the $50 million aircraft’s life span from 6,000 hours to 3,000 hours.”
Boeing and the Navy acknowledged that problems have been found with the aircraft, but said the situation described in the Globe story dates from four years ago. Fixes already have been incorporated into new aircraft and will be retrofitted into older planes, Boeing and the Navy said.
“The U.S. Navy has identified a pylon fitting in the wing of the F/A-18 E and F model Super Hornet where fatigue could potentially shorten the wing’s expected service life and is implementing a corrective measure,” said Chuck Wagner, a spokesman with Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, Md. “The fitting is part of the lower wing spar and is used to reinforce the area where stores attach to the wing. The potential problem was identified through an engineering analysis in 2003 and subsequent testing in 2005, which are part of our routine risk-mitigation processes for the aircraft’s development. The Navy and Boeing worked together, a fully-funded project is underway, and today every aircraft coming off the production line is being delivered with the solution that corrects for the potential future fatigue. A retrofit solution on those aircraft already in the fleet is planned for 2009 and will correct the identified wing area prior to those aircraft reaching the flight-hour threshold in which fatigue could potentially be experienced. The Navy is confident it has selected the optimal proactive response which in no way compromises the readiness or performance of the aircraft’s mission.”
Asked whether the situation affected new EA-18G Growler electronic countermeasures aircraft — which are all converted on the production line from two-seat F models — Wagner said the problem did “not influence them at all, because the solution is already incorporated into aircraft coming off the production line. The solutions were incorporated before the first G was delivered.”
Fixes and modifications to aircraft in series production are not unusual, Frost said. “They’re part of the normal life of an aircraft,” she said. “If something comes up you go out and fix it in a timely fashion before it becomes a serious issue.”
The Globe story appears somewhat overblown. Right, there are some aircraft that have chronic primary structure problems that can't be fixed cheaply, but this doesn't seem to be one of them. And the "sources" for the intrepid reporter include regular rent-a-quotes and someone who has been on an anti-fighter crusade for years.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, it is an in-service, combat-proven aircraft, and this problem is the type of thing that often cannot be found until after the aircraft has been in use long enough for such defects to start to show.
An aircraft that has been only in limited use (F-22, Typhoon) probably has some of these "glitches" still undetected... waiting for a few hundred more flight-hours on the airframes before they appear.
Basically unflown aircraft (F-35) are even more likely to have these hidden flaws.
Therefore, the F/A-18E/F really is a lower-risk option.
An aircraft that has been only in limited use (F-22, Typhoon) probably has some of these "glitches" still undetected... waiting for a few hundred more flight-hours on the airframes before they appear.
Basically unflown aircraft (F-35) are even more likely to have these hidden flaws.
Therefore, the F/A-18E/F really is a lower-risk option.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.theage.com.au/news/invest...252546263.html
Hmmmmm... 
cheers
THE HOWARD Government's controversial decision to go against the advice of Australia's air force chiefs and buy 24 Super Hornet fighter jets is likely to be investigated by the Commonwealth Auditor-General.
Ian McPhee said he would consider examining the circumstances surrounding Defence Minister Brendan Nelson's decision to spend $6.6 billion on the Super Hornets. If he did investigate, it would be in the 2008-09 financial year.
In response to a request for an investigation from Opposition defence spokesman Joel Fitzgibbon, Mr McPhee said the Super Hornets were a major defence aquisition. If an investigation were held, it would focus on governance issues related to the decision to buy the jets.
Last November, Dr Nelson stunned RAAF chiefs when he told cabinet's National Security Committee that Australia needed to buy an interim fighter to ensure a "capability gap" did not emerge between the 2010 retirement of the F-111 fighter bomber and the 2013 arrival of the Joint Strike Fighter from the US.
Just weeks earlier, the nation's two most senior air chiefs said an interim aircraft such as the F/A-18 Super Hornet was not necessary.
Adding to the controversy was Dr Nelson's decision not to follow the Government's rigorous procurement protocols for large defence purchases.
Ian McPhee said he would consider examining the circumstances surrounding Defence Minister Brendan Nelson's decision to spend $6.6 billion on the Super Hornets. If he did investigate, it would be in the 2008-09 financial year.
In response to a request for an investigation from Opposition defence spokesman Joel Fitzgibbon, Mr McPhee said the Super Hornets were a major defence aquisition. If an investigation were held, it would focus on governance issues related to the decision to buy the jets.
Last November, Dr Nelson stunned RAAF chiefs when he told cabinet's National Security Committee that Australia needed to buy an interim fighter to ensure a "capability gap" did not emerge between the 2010 retirement of the F-111 fighter bomber and the 2013 arrival of the Joint Strike Fighter from the US.
Just weeks earlier, the nation's two most senior air chiefs said an interim aircraft such as the F/A-18 Super Hornet was not necessary.
Adding to the controversy was Dr Nelson's decision not to follow the Government's rigorous procurement protocols for large defence purchases.
cheers
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Bris Vegas Australia
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What were we thinking buying American???
Dr Kopp and the Goon show have proof that we've jumped onto the wrong bandwagon....Surely if Dr Nelson had seen this video late last year we'd have signed up for Su-35! 
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-060807-1.html
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-060807-1.html
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re the Carlo Goon show -
Listen very carefully I shall say this only once :- LOL its like reading the script from "ello ello"
After reading this I didn't feel less secure in Australia.. just hungry!!
Cheers
Listen very carefully I shall say this only once :- LOL its like reading the script from "ello ello"
After reading this I didn't feel less secure in Australia.. just hungry!!
Cheers
Not that the boys at 3/77/75 would be complaining, but it does seem that there is quite a difference between the attitude of the 'RAAF chiefs' and the Defence Minister.
This is nothing unusual, but to spend $6.6bill after 'Dr Nelson was subject to a strong sales pitch from defence contractor Boeing', without following procurement protocols is questionable. Not without precedent undoubtedly, but questionable all the same.
Anyone on the inside got the scoop?
This is nothing unusual, but to spend $6.6bill after 'Dr Nelson was subject to a strong sales pitch from defence contractor Boeing', without following procurement protocols is questionable. Not without precedent undoubtedly, but questionable all the same.
Anyone on the inside got the scoop?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
DID updates on the SH purchase...
Aug 9/07: Australian Senator John Faulkner rises to make a speech that highlights the minister – department relationship, and the decision process behind Australia's Super Hornet purchase. He says:
"Evidence provided during Senate Estimates Hearings in February this year confirmed that there had been no specific Defence recommendation to the Minister on the Super Hornets – so without doubt, both the CDF and the then Secretary to the Department of Defence Mr Rick Smith, must have been stunned at the Minster's actions at that NSC meeting.
There is much we do not know about what happened at that strange meeting, but it was clearly a remarkable – possibly unique – occasion. The NSC decided to buy a new fighter without advice from Defence or the RAAF. I have been told by very reliable sources that neither the Secretary nor CDF even knew the issue was on the agenda, let alone what their Minister was going to propose…"
Aug 6/07: Australia's The Age newspaper reports that the Auditor General may investigate the F/A-18F purchase decision. From "Probe likely into Defence's Super Hornet purchase":
"Ian McPhee said he would consider examining the circumstances surrounding Defence Minister Brendan Nelson's decision to spend $6.6 billion on the Super Hornets. If he did investigate, it would be in the 2008-09 financial year. In response to a request for an investigation from Opposition defence spokesman Joel Fitzgibbon, Mr McPhee said the Super Hornets were a major defence aquisition. If an investigation were held, it would focus on governance issues related to the decision to buy the jets."
Aug 9/07: Australian Senator John Faulkner rises to make a speech that highlights the minister – department relationship, and the decision process behind Australia's Super Hornet purchase. He says:
"Evidence provided during Senate Estimates Hearings in February this year confirmed that there had been no specific Defence recommendation to the Minister on the Super Hornets – so without doubt, both the CDF and the then Secretary to the Department of Defence Mr Rick Smith, must have been stunned at the Minster's actions at that NSC meeting.
There is much we do not know about what happened at that strange meeting, but it was clearly a remarkable – possibly unique – occasion. The NSC decided to buy a new fighter without advice from Defence or the RAAF. I have been told by very reliable sources that neither the Secretary nor CDF even knew the issue was on the agenda, let alone what their Minister was going to propose…"
Aug 6/07: Australia's The Age newspaper reports that the Auditor General may investigate the F/A-18F purchase decision. From "Probe likely into Defence's Super Hornet purchase":
"Ian McPhee said he would consider examining the circumstances surrounding Defence Minister Brendan Nelson's decision to spend $6.6 billion on the Super Hornets. If he did investigate, it would be in the 2008-09 financial year. In response to a request for an investigation from Opposition defence spokesman Joel Fitzgibbon, Mr McPhee said the Super Hornets were a major defence aquisition. If an investigation were held, it would focus on governance issues related to the decision to buy the jets."
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I'm really glad that the the new Australian government is going to look at this as mentioned by myself and others in this thread, that the SH deal looked very different to a well thought out planned purchase.
Source http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/articles/1154045.html
I still think this story has legs.. it will keep on running.
Mr Fitzgibbon had promised to honour the $6.6billion Super Hornet contract for 24 planes but said last week few of the previous government's decisions were as controversial as its decision to buy them "without proper due process or capability justification".
I still think this story has legs.. it will keep on running.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More news.. I wonder who would be suitable for the review??, anyone what to put their hand up?
Not Carlo PLEASE!!!
How long can Australia wait?...
Cheers
The Canberra Times
12 January 2008 - 9:56AM
Fresh eyes needed for jet purchase review
David McLennan
An independent expert with no involvement in past decisions ought to conduct the Government's review of Australia's future air combat capability, a leading defence lobby group said yesterday.New Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon's review is expected to focus on whether the still-in-development Joint Strike Fighter is the right option as the long-term replacement for Australia's aging F-111s and F/A-18s and whether Australia needs 24 Super Hornets, ordered for $6.6 billion by the last government, as a stop-gap option in case the Joint Strike Fighter or F-35 Lightning II is running late.
Australian Strategic Policy Institute analyst Andrew Davies said that even with "the best will in the world" it was difficult for people involved in past decisions to "step back and start afresh".
"For that reason and to provide a measure of protection against the inevitable furious lobbying that will follow the release of any report the review should be headed up by a well-credentialled independent analyst with experience in the aerospace industry," he said.
12 January 2008 - 9:56AM
Fresh eyes needed for jet purchase review
David McLennan
An independent expert with no involvement in past decisions ought to conduct the Government's review of Australia's future air combat capability, a leading defence lobby group said yesterday.New Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon's review is expected to focus on whether the still-in-development Joint Strike Fighter is the right option as the long-term replacement for Australia's aging F-111s and F/A-18s and whether Australia needs 24 Super Hornets, ordered for $6.6 billion by the last government, as a stop-gap option in case the Joint Strike Fighter or F-35 Lightning II is running late.
Australian Strategic Policy Institute analyst Andrew Davies said that even with "the best will in the world" it was difficult for people involved in past decisions to "step back and start afresh".
"For that reason and to provide a measure of protection against the inevitable furious lobbying that will follow the release of any report the review should be headed up by a well-credentialled independent analyst with experience in the aerospace industry," he said.
The review's first priority was to consider what the air force was expected to do and in what circumstances before looking at the details of each plane.
"At the lower end, the RAAF might be called upon to neutralise the threat from a handful of aircraft operated by a regional air force without the assistance of an Airborne Warning and Control System or air-to-air refuelling," he said.
"At the upper end, operations against a major regional power in the next decade could be opposed by hundreds of capable aircraft backed by AWACS and an integrated air defence system."
The Government would need to decide which threat scenarios were credible and how much it wanted to spend on the capability. If the review reconsidered the F-35 purchase, the new minister ought to formally ask the United States whether it would sell Australia its F-22 Raptor aircraft which is banned for export to determine definitively whether it is an option instead of the F-35.
Many experts say the F-22 is a better aircraft for Australia's needs, although it is more expensive and detractors say it does not have the strike capabilities of the F-35.
Other options include the F-15 Eagle, Dassault Rafael, Eurofighter Typhoon and Saab Gripen.
Australia is expected to make a decision on final approval of the project late this year, but Dr Davies said there would be "little downside of deferring that decision until later".
"At the lower end, the RAAF might be called upon to neutralise the threat from a handful of aircraft operated by a regional air force without the assistance of an Airborne Warning and Control System or air-to-air refuelling," he said.
"At the upper end, operations against a major regional power in the next decade could be opposed by hundreds of capable aircraft backed by AWACS and an integrated air defence system."
The Government would need to decide which threat scenarios were credible and how much it wanted to spend on the capability. If the review reconsidered the F-35 purchase, the new minister ought to formally ask the United States whether it would sell Australia its F-22 Raptor aircraft which is banned for export to determine definitively whether it is an option instead of the F-35.
Many experts say the F-22 is a better aircraft for Australia's needs, although it is more expensive and detractors say it does not have the strike capabilities of the F-35.
Other options include the F-15 Eagle, Dassault Rafael, Eurofighter Typhoon and Saab Gripen.
Australia is expected to make a decision on final approval of the project late this year, but Dr Davies said there would be "little downside of deferring that decision until later".
However, a decision needed to be made sooner on whether the Super Hornet order should be cancelled because the cost of such a decision would increase with time.
"As a matter of priority, the review should examine hard data on relative performance much of which is not public and decide whether the Super Hornet is a viable bridging capability that will allow time to develop a long-term solution," he said.
Mr Fitzgibbon has been highly critical of the process behind the Super Hornet purchase.
Critics have said it is not advanced enough to combat more modern aircraft in the region, such as the Russian-made Sukhoi Su-30 Flankers.
"As a matter of priority, the review should examine hard data on relative performance much of which is not public and decide whether the Super Hornet is a viable bridging capability that will allow time to develop a long-term solution," he said.
Mr Fitzgibbon has been highly critical of the process behind the Super Hornet purchase.
Critics have said it is not advanced enough to combat more modern aircraft in the region, such as the Russian-made Sukhoi Su-30 Flankers.