Hornets And AMRAAM
Thread Starter
Jacko
Don't be so sensitive, just asking opinions of the JSF in the maritime strike role and what the rest of the field offers.
Agree on your reference to some problems. Maybe we should just stay a few years behind USAF/USN in kit, letting them iron bugs out. Strike Eagles would be welcomed as the interim.
On P40s. Lousy gunsight but a hundred or so displaying the fighting spirit of the Australian troops on the Malayan Peninsula may have bloodied the Japs enough not to be able to bluff their way into Singapore. The first significant Japanese defeat of the war, with respect to the fighting retreat on Kokoda by mostly 17 year old militia troops, was at Milne Bay and mainly due our P40s.
A fleet of RAAF P40s, as offered in 1939 but denied due our "Buy British Only" policy, would have made a difference in 41-42.
Don't be so sensitive, just asking opinions of the JSF in the maritime strike role and what the rest of the field offers.
Agree on your reference to some problems. Maybe we should just stay a few years behind USAF/USN in kit, letting them iron bugs out. Strike Eagles would be welcomed as the interim.
On P40s. Lousy gunsight but a hundred or so displaying the fighting spirit of the Australian troops on the Malayan Peninsula may have bloodied the Japs enough not to be able to bluff their way into Singapore. The first significant Japanese defeat of the war, with respect to the fighting retreat on Kokoda by mostly 17 year old militia troops, was at Milne Bay and mainly due our P40s.
A fleet of RAAF P40s, as offered in 1939 but denied due our "Buy British Only" policy, would have made a difference in 41-42.
Depending on your assessment of the air-to-air threat, either F-15E or F/A-18F would have been very sensible aircraft for the RAAF - especially as interim replacements for the F-111.
To replace the F/A-18, however, EF was very much Australia's best choice, if it was affordable. (Cheaper than an F-15E, a Rafale, or an F-22, remember).
If it wasn't then Gripen or F/A-18E or F-16/60.
But not JSF....
To replace the F/A-18, however, EF was very much Australia's best choice, if it was affordable. (Cheaper than an F-15E, a Rafale, or an F-22, remember).
If it wasn't then Gripen or F/A-18E or F-16/60.
But not JSF....
Guest
Posts: n/a
Gnadenburg
Given up on sport ------
Jacko has nutshelled some of the important messages that the Brits tried to get across in the Air 6000 debate. I like to think we didn't fail: I really do think that there were those that did not want to absorb what was said. It's not that they were stupid, or that we were seen to be toting potentially outmoded kit. A US solution was deemed to be the only way to go, and with hindsight that should've been recognised much earlier - but we had to try (and I enjoyed doing it). The rationale (in the main, the US alliance and regional support ) is easily followed, but the outright rejective opinions from some high quarters - and some were very agricultural - was harder to understand. Not sour grapes - just some musing with a Wolf Blass to hand -----
You said 'Maritime strike is a primary RAAF role. Much more so than other air arms'. Your last assertion is questionable. Ask the USN. Also ask your colleagues who have served exchange tours on Buccaneer and Tornado maritime strike/attack squadrons. I think you'll find that (if you accept the valid AAR point made by Jacko) those outfits' weapon systems and tactics were as good as any ('specially on shiny Twelve! Hey-Ho).
So Typhoon in the maritime role -----
Given the planned CASOMs (and other possibilities) and CFTs it will outperform F111, F/A18E/F, or JSF (I leave Gripen comments to Jacko!!). Sorry to be so simplistic, but the arguments are not that difficult (and DSTO has all the numbers) - especially given the maritime opposition over the next umpty years. As for stealth (bear in mind we're talking stand-off delivery at sea with a highly capable DASS) and radar performance, they will be more than adequate in the role. The aircraft will also retain 6 AAMs in the role. And if anyone shouts 'F111 range!!' - then the only solution to that is buy another F111 (???)or use your new tankers. Not certain from memory, but I think even CK didn't rate JSF in the maritime role (but then again he wouldn't condone Typhoon either).
Cheers
Given up on sport ------
Jacko has nutshelled some of the important messages that the Brits tried to get across in the Air 6000 debate. I like to think we didn't fail: I really do think that there were those that did not want to absorb what was said. It's not that they were stupid, or that we were seen to be toting potentially outmoded kit. A US solution was deemed to be the only way to go, and with hindsight that should've been recognised much earlier - but we had to try (and I enjoyed doing it). The rationale (in the main, the US alliance and regional support ) is easily followed, but the outright rejective opinions from some high quarters - and some were very agricultural - was harder to understand. Not sour grapes - just some musing with a Wolf Blass to hand -----
You said 'Maritime strike is a primary RAAF role. Much more so than other air arms'. Your last assertion is questionable. Ask the USN. Also ask your colleagues who have served exchange tours on Buccaneer and Tornado maritime strike/attack squadrons. I think you'll find that (if you accept the valid AAR point made by Jacko) those outfits' weapon systems and tactics were as good as any ('specially on shiny Twelve! Hey-Ho).
So Typhoon in the maritime role -----
Given the planned CASOMs (and other possibilities) and CFTs it will outperform F111, F/A18E/F, or JSF (I leave Gripen comments to Jacko!!). Sorry to be so simplistic, but the arguments are not that difficult (and DSTO has all the numbers) - especially given the maritime opposition over the next umpty years. As for stealth (bear in mind we're talking stand-off delivery at sea with a highly capable DASS) and radar performance, they will be more than adequate in the role. The aircraft will also retain 6 AAMs in the role. And if anyone shouts 'F111 range!!' - then the only solution to that is buy another F111 (???)or use your new tankers. Not certain from memory, but I think even CK didn't rate JSF in the maritime role (but then again he wouldn't condone Typhoon either).
Cheers
Bureaufighter - "Yesterday's technology tomorrow..."
Firstly - I must say I find the lack of respect being shown for "Gruppen Fuhrer" Kopp very disturbing. He is a true visionary of Australia's military aviation future - the sooner he is appointed to a top procurement position the better.
As for the repeated claims that EF with a couple of 'CASOMs' (I've not heard the term but I assume that Stand-Off Munition is in there somewhere) will "outperform the Pig..." HAH!
Guys, come off it. Just because it's printed in the shiny BAe brochure doesn't make it so. A hornet sized fighter with hornet fuel loads & a pair of leaky-turbojets can have all the conformals and external fuel tanks you can cram on the thing - the only way it's going to approach the payload/range of a Pig is by trucking in the tropopause at theoretical long range cruise Mach. Very Tactical - NOT..!!! The DSTO paper figures referred to are widely known (and s******ed at) in the RAAF.
Before Jacko et al start on the whole "pom bashing" thing let me say that I do think the Typhoon is an impressive a/c. I'm sure it goes like $hit off a shiny shovel and turns up it's own rectum with a vast array of weapons/sensors (I can read brochures too). Unfortunately it offers no advantage over current generation aircraft that many of it's supporters have already mentioned - ie Block 60 F16s etc... With such brilliant decisions as "hey, let's get rid of the gun, it'll save a few hundred pounds" is it any wonder that there is a healthy amount of scepticism for the project? Coupled with that is the fact that Australia is far better off aligning itself to be 'USAF Det A' than it is to be 'RAF/Euro Det A'.
We can't afford to buy a variety of a/c to cover all contingincies, and at this stage the JSF represents the best compromise for our operations. Australia is right to put all it's "eggs in one basket" - because it is one big, mother-humpin', well armed, well funded & well organised basket.
As for the repeated claims that EF with a couple of 'CASOMs' (I've not heard the term but I assume that Stand-Off Munition is in there somewhere) will "outperform the Pig..." HAH!
Guys, come off it. Just because it's printed in the shiny BAe brochure doesn't make it so. A hornet sized fighter with hornet fuel loads & a pair of leaky-turbojets can have all the conformals and external fuel tanks you can cram on the thing - the only way it's going to approach the payload/range of a Pig is by trucking in the tropopause at theoretical long range cruise Mach. Very Tactical - NOT..!!! The DSTO paper figures referred to are widely known (and s******ed at) in the RAAF.
Before Jacko et al start on the whole "pom bashing" thing let me say that I do think the Typhoon is an impressive a/c. I'm sure it goes like $hit off a shiny shovel and turns up it's own rectum with a vast array of weapons/sensors (I can read brochures too). Unfortunately it offers no advantage over current generation aircraft that many of it's supporters have already mentioned - ie Block 60 F16s etc... With such brilliant decisions as "hey, let's get rid of the gun, it'll save a few hundred pounds" is it any wonder that there is a healthy amount of scepticism for the project? Coupled with that is the fact that Australia is far better off aligning itself to be 'USAF Det A' than it is to be 'RAF/Euro Det A'.
We can't afford to buy a variety of a/c to cover all contingincies, and at this stage the JSF represents the best compromise for our operations. Australia is right to put all it's "eggs in one basket" - because it is one big, mother-humpin', well armed, well funded & well organised basket.
1) The proposed removal of the gun from EF (quickly reversed) was only ever to apply to RAF aircraft. It would never have affected an RAAF Typhoon.
2) No-one pretends Typhoon will out-range the F-111. Nor would the F-15E. But that's the only advantage the ancient, outmoded Pig does have. If all you need is payload range buy a B-52 or an A340.
3) The statement that Typhoon "offers no advantage over current generation aircraft" is so breathtakingly stupid that it could only come from the uninformed and thoroughly biased or indoctrinated. The Typhoon offers a lower RCS than any current generation aircraft. The Typhoon will do BVR air combat better than any aircraft with the possible exception of F-22. The Typhoon will be a Swing Role aircraft in a way hitherto undreamed of. It outperforms anything in its price bracket. If RAAF fighter pilots go to war in JSF against a developed Su-27 with parity in weapons and radar, they'll do no better than parity. In an F-16 or an F/A-18E/F or an F-15 they'll lose more often than they win. In an F-22 they'll win 90-95% of the time, and in EF just less than that, but more than 85% of the time.
4) You need to get yourself better informed before you go spouting quite such ill-informed nonsense about EF. You haven't heard of CASOM. You didn't know that the gun was back in. You didn't seem to know that the gun was never in doubt for anyone except the RAF.
5) No one aircraft will fulfill all parts of the RAAF's requirement. But JSF is not even a good compromise. It's a good Day One 'kick-down-the-door' LO attack aircraft. But it's not a long range interdictor and it certainly is not an air dominance fighter. JSF is small, under-armed (two BVR AAMs, two PGMs ONLY), reliant on an air power infrastructure (AWACS, JSTARS, etc), its price is escalating at a fearsome rate, and the programme lacks support even in the higher echelons of the US Air Force. It may well be mother-humpin' however....
EF, on the other hand isn't a bad compromise, lacking only range for the F-111 replacement part of the requirement (and JSF doesn't have that range either, even in full LO configuration with internal weapons only). In every other way it's a better fit than anything.
Even if you Aussies are too biased to look at EF, there are better options for the RAAF than JSF. Replace the F-111s with F-15Es (that's a no-brainer, surely) but bear in mind they cost more than an EF and will be 'Flanker' fodder. Replace the F/A-18s with F-16C-60s or (better still) Gripens.
And while being an ally of the US may be useful, what will you do when they have their next bout of introverted isolationism, or take a dislike to your foreign policy and impose an embargo? And ask the JSF salesman how much work they'll GUARANTEE to place with local industry (not just give you the chance to bid for) and then ask the same of the Gripen or Typhoon boys.
And I'm a fully-fledged, bona fide independent journalist with a reputation as being both anti BAE and a Eurofighter cynic.
2) No-one pretends Typhoon will out-range the F-111. Nor would the F-15E. But that's the only advantage the ancient, outmoded Pig does have. If all you need is payload range buy a B-52 or an A340.
3) The statement that Typhoon "offers no advantage over current generation aircraft" is so breathtakingly stupid that it could only come from the uninformed and thoroughly biased or indoctrinated. The Typhoon offers a lower RCS than any current generation aircraft. The Typhoon will do BVR air combat better than any aircraft with the possible exception of F-22. The Typhoon will be a Swing Role aircraft in a way hitherto undreamed of. It outperforms anything in its price bracket. If RAAF fighter pilots go to war in JSF against a developed Su-27 with parity in weapons and radar, they'll do no better than parity. In an F-16 or an F/A-18E/F or an F-15 they'll lose more often than they win. In an F-22 they'll win 90-95% of the time, and in EF just less than that, but more than 85% of the time.
4) You need to get yourself better informed before you go spouting quite such ill-informed nonsense about EF. You haven't heard of CASOM. You didn't know that the gun was back in. You didn't seem to know that the gun was never in doubt for anyone except the RAF.
5) No one aircraft will fulfill all parts of the RAAF's requirement. But JSF is not even a good compromise. It's a good Day One 'kick-down-the-door' LO attack aircraft. But it's not a long range interdictor and it certainly is not an air dominance fighter. JSF is small, under-armed (two BVR AAMs, two PGMs ONLY), reliant on an air power infrastructure (AWACS, JSTARS, etc), its price is escalating at a fearsome rate, and the programme lacks support even in the higher echelons of the US Air Force. It may well be mother-humpin' however....
EF, on the other hand isn't a bad compromise, lacking only range for the F-111 replacement part of the requirement (and JSF doesn't have that range either, even in full LO configuration with internal weapons only). In every other way it's a better fit than anything.
Even if you Aussies are too biased to look at EF, there are better options for the RAAF than JSF. Replace the F-111s with F-15Es (that's a no-brainer, surely) but bear in mind they cost more than an EF and will be 'Flanker' fodder. Replace the F/A-18s with F-16C-60s or (better still) Gripens.
And while being an ally of the US may be useful, what will you do when they have their next bout of introverted isolationism, or take a dislike to your foreign policy and impose an embargo? And ask the JSF salesman how much work they'll GUARANTEE to place with local industry (not just give you the chance to bid for) and then ask the same of the Gripen or Typhoon boys.
And I'm a fully-fledged, bona fide independent journalist with a reputation as being both anti BAE and a Eurofighter cynic.
Thread Starter
Jacko
Could you elaborate on your point as to the suitability of the Gripen?
A country 8hours flying time by 5hours flying time needs good range surely?
Would a force of a hundred short range Gripens and five airborne tankers not create an airborne Maginot Line?
You guys are so quick to slam the Yanks. You must understand, in our defence context, they have and continue to be a presence in our region.
And it is not Pommie bashing to say we haven't seen much of you since the fall of Singapore ( ignoring police actions and confrontations ) and the obvious alternative alignment and allegience this creates.
Could you elaborate on your point as to the suitability of the Gripen?
A country 8hours flying time by 5hours flying time needs good range surely?
Would a force of a hundred short range Gripens and five airborne tankers not create an airborne Maginot Line?
You guys are so quick to slam the Yanks. You must understand, in our defence context, they have and continue to be a presence in our region.
And it is not Pommie bashing to say we haven't seen much of you since the fall of Singapore ( ignoring police actions and confrontations ) and the obvious alternative alignment and allegience this creates.
In a defensive context the Gripen is an excellent little agile fighter and is cheap enough that it can be bought in quantity. Its operating costs and costs of ownership are exceptionally low, making it a great bargain for any air arm. With HMS, IRST, etc. it's much better specified than an F-16, and is cheaper to own and operate. It has a very good radar and the export version has good EW kit.
It has a great datalink which works very well. This would be very useful indeed in the Aussie context.
Though small in size the Gripen has good combat persistance and an excellent range of air-to-air weapons options have been or are being cleared.
Though the basic Gripen is lacking in range, extended range versions are under development. Moreover, the aircraft's very good off-airfield (road strip) rapid deployment capability and ability to operate with little support would allow forward deployment by small nuimbers of aircraft to cover massive geographic areas. Whereas basing four JSFs here, and four there would pose huge problems and impose major costs, Gripen is optimised for this kind of deployment. RAAF doctrine would need to change to take advantage of this, and to make greater use of AAR, but you should remember that JSF doesn't have 'sufficient' range either, especially when you hang weapons off it externally.
It's also a formidably good and proven AMRAAM shooter, with great BVR capability. In the air-to-air role it can carry four AMRAAMs and four IR-homing AAMs. The export aircraft will probably carry up to six AMRAAMs.
The aircraft is also exceptionally versatile, and only its lack of stores stations makes it anything less than a great swing role fighter. It does carry a range of useful air-to-ground weapons, and the Swedes use it very successfully in the anti-ship role, using an indigenous missile. The radar has very good anti-ship performance. The export version will have a useful recce capability, too.
I make no apologies for being a great fan of the Gripen, and a mixed force of Gripen/EF or Gripen/F-15E would be better for the RAAF, in my view than a force of JSFs.
And it's proven and it works. After the SH-2G(A) and the C-130J your faith in the USA is quite remarkable.
It has a great datalink which works very well. This would be very useful indeed in the Aussie context.
Though small in size the Gripen has good combat persistance and an excellent range of air-to-air weapons options have been or are being cleared.
Though the basic Gripen is lacking in range, extended range versions are under development. Moreover, the aircraft's very good off-airfield (road strip) rapid deployment capability and ability to operate with little support would allow forward deployment by small nuimbers of aircraft to cover massive geographic areas. Whereas basing four JSFs here, and four there would pose huge problems and impose major costs, Gripen is optimised for this kind of deployment. RAAF doctrine would need to change to take advantage of this, and to make greater use of AAR, but you should remember that JSF doesn't have 'sufficient' range either, especially when you hang weapons off it externally.
It's also a formidably good and proven AMRAAM shooter, with great BVR capability. In the air-to-air role it can carry four AMRAAMs and four IR-homing AAMs. The export aircraft will probably carry up to six AMRAAMs.
The aircraft is also exceptionally versatile, and only its lack of stores stations makes it anything less than a great swing role fighter. It does carry a range of useful air-to-ground weapons, and the Swedes use it very successfully in the anti-ship role, using an indigenous missile. The radar has very good anti-ship performance. The export version will have a useful recce capability, too.
I make no apologies for being a great fan of the Gripen, and a mixed force of Gripen/EF or Gripen/F-15E would be better for the RAAF, in my view than a force of JSFs.
And it's proven and it works. After the SH-2G(A) and the C-130J your faith in the USA is quite remarkable.
Jacko = UK Carlo?
Jacko, I'll concede this: you are the funniest guy (since admin guru) to post on PPrune...
One question mate: Have you ever flown & operated a military 'fast jet'??? As a military aviator you sure make a great journalist...
Your unfaltering belief in the EF is to be commended, but with comments such as "the F15E would be Flanker-fodder" you expose your true anorak wearing, plane-spotting, wannabe self. Either I'm unaware of the actual Mud Hen versus Flanker combat that's taken place or you're basing your statement on Computer simulations - in which case I'm guessing you were in the Beagle sim and a small tuft of navel lint was flying the Flanker sim.
By the way, sorry for not knowing the CASOM acronym, I've misplaced my copy of the "Try-hards Guide to Obscure & Irrelevent Military TLAs for Pathetic Blunt Losers".
Before you get huffy and start with the "bl00dy criminal ignorant colonial $hit", why don't you post a poll for all military aviators on the EF versus 'the rest' and see what responses you get?
One question mate: Have you ever flown & operated a military 'fast jet'??? As a military aviator you sure make a great journalist...
Your unfaltering belief in the EF is to be commended, but with comments such as "the F15E would be Flanker-fodder" you expose your true anorak wearing, plane-spotting, wannabe self. Either I'm unaware of the actual Mud Hen versus Flanker combat that's taken place or you're basing your statement on Computer simulations - in which case I'm guessing you were in the Beagle sim and a small tuft of navel lint was flying the Flanker sim.
By the way, sorry for not knowing the CASOM acronym, I've misplaced my copy of the "Try-hards Guide to Obscure & Irrelevent Military TLAs for Pathetic Blunt Losers".
Before you get huffy and start with the "bl00dy criminal ignorant colonial $hit", why don't you post a poll for all military aviators on the EF versus 'the rest' and see what responses you get?
Champagne anyone...?
Forgive me but as I suspect no-one on Pprune has flown EF in combat against a Flanker or anything else for that matter may I ask where anyone else would draw their opinions of such a combat from?
Hands-in-the-bar or perhaps simulations?
Hands-in-the-bar or perhaps simulations?
Last edited by StopStart; 7th Dec 2002 at 09:49.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ex DD
Agree (and my little digs at CK are unapologettically playful!)
I can vouch that Jacko's percentage comparisons of Typhoon v Others in BVR combat are an accurate representation of UK MoD studies (NOT industry) - and also that these studies are regularly updated (with the help of ex- F15 and F16 drivers) to confirm Typhoon's continued validity. That he has no FJ operational background is entirely irrelevant to the debate - that I have plenty is equally irrelevant: we both have a comprehensive appreciation of specifications and analyses, and try to put forward our views as dispassionately as possible. It is difficult not to rise to uninformed comment, and yes we happen to favour the European competition - but our contributions are surely still valid in the context of this thread ??
And just in case anyone thinks I'm blinkered to reality, I'll be the first to concede that if the UK Government is not prepared to go the mile with Typhoon's planned development potential, and if European industry underperforms (and there is as much potential for this in the US), then Typhoon's potential will be sadly blunted.
And Booger - if you believe that the currently advertised combat claims of F22 or JSF are based on something other than computer simulations, then I miss your point. And if you can't accept that F15E is inferior to a state-of-the-art Flanker in BVR combat, I recommend an early bath -----------
Agree (and my little digs at CK are unapologettically playful!)
I can vouch that Jacko's percentage comparisons of Typhoon v Others in BVR combat are an accurate representation of UK MoD studies (NOT industry) - and also that these studies are regularly updated (with the help of ex- F15 and F16 drivers) to confirm Typhoon's continued validity. That he has no FJ operational background is entirely irrelevant to the debate - that I have plenty is equally irrelevant: we both have a comprehensive appreciation of specifications and analyses, and try to put forward our views as dispassionately as possible. It is difficult not to rise to uninformed comment, and yes we happen to favour the European competition - but our contributions are surely still valid in the context of this thread ??
And just in case anyone thinks I'm blinkered to reality, I'll be the first to concede that if the UK Government is not prepared to go the mile with Typhoon's planned development potential, and if European industry underperforms (and there is as much potential for this in the US), then Typhoon's potential will be sadly blunted.
And Booger - if you believe that the currently advertised combat claims of F22 or JSF are based on something other than computer simulations, then I miss your point. And if you can't accept that F15E is inferior to a state-of-the-art Flanker in BVR combat, I recommend an early bath -----------
Thread Starter
Jacko
Down here in OZ some of our most unscrupulous journalists caught up in a "Cash For Comments" scandal.
You being paid by BAE for such a positive Gripen slant?
Gripens, in Australia's defence context, would have to be a Maginot Line. An aggressor, near or far from our soil, would have much room to manoeuvre, in whatever form, outside of Gripen's limited range envelope.
On Northern roads. They are somewhat differtent to European autobahns ect. Our main North-South, Adelaide-Darwin Rd, affectionately known as "The Track". I think Gripen northern road operations spectactular to witness, whatever the result!
Eurofighter and maritime strike? Still not sold, can you elaborate?
Down here in OZ some of our most unscrupulous journalists caught up in a "Cash For Comments" scandal.
You being paid by BAE for such a positive Gripen slant?
Gripens, in Australia's defence context, would have to be a Maginot Line. An aggressor, near or far from our soil, would have much room to manoeuvre, in whatever form, outside of Gripen's limited range envelope.
On Northern roads. They are somewhat differtent to European autobahns ect. Our main North-South, Adelaide-Darwin Rd, affectionately known as "The Track". I think Gripen northern road operations spectactular to witness, whatever the result!
Eurofighter and maritime strike? Still not sold, can you elaborate?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Typhoon Maritime Attack.
Dedicated radar modes:
The ECR-90 has a range of air to surface modes including; beam mapping, sea and surface search, Ground Moving Target Identification (GMTI) and Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR). The SAR mode available in Tranche-1 gives a 1m resolution, test flights have reduced this to 0.3m (this improvement will be introduced in Tranche-2).
SCLs:
4 ASM ( Penguin, Harpoon), 4 AMRAAM, 2 ASRAAM, 3 fuel tanks.
or
6 ASM, 4 AMRAAM, 2 ASRAAM.
Reference the gun, the F-35 is getting the same Mauser cannon as the Typhoon.
PBI Media - June 3rd 2002:
"In November, Boeing concluded a licensing agreement with the Mauser subsidiary of Germany's Rheinmetall for Mauser's BK 27 27mm cannon that is to be used in Lockheed Martin's [LMT] F-35 JSF (Defense Daily, Feb. 13)".
Defence Daily - Sept 26 2002:
"GD has been selected over Alliant Techsystems [ATK] and the Mauser subsidiary of Germany's Rheinmetall, which are teamed to produce the 27mm cannon, to integrate the JSF gun system. GD said it will develop an integration package for the JSF gun system at its Burlington, Vt., Armament and Technical Products (ATP) division, as well as conduct the integration for production aircraft.
Lockheed Martin originally selected the BK 27mm cannon offered by Boeing [BA] and Mauser in July 2000. GD had initially offered its GAU-12 25mm gatling cannon for the JSF in July 1999, but withdrew its proposal in February 2000".
Reference CASOM.
The Conventionally Armed Stand Off Missile is a development of the Storm Shadow fitted with a BROACH unitary warhead. It has a maritime attack capability against ships & submarines. It's fitted with a high resolution IR sensor for target identification and acquisition. If the target acquisition process is unsuccessful the mission will be aborted and the missile will fly to a predetermined safe crash site. Stand-off launch range is 215nm+. Integration of the CASOM on the Typhoon is funded within the present RAF budget.
Dedicated radar modes:
The ECR-90 has a range of air to surface modes including; beam mapping, sea and surface search, Ground Moving Target Identification (GMTI) and Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR). The SAR mode available in Tranche-1 gives a 1m resolution, test flights have reduced this to 0.3m (this improvement will be introduced in Tranche-2).
SCLs:
4 ASM ( Penguin, Harpoon), 4 AMRAAM, 2 ASRAAM, 3 fuel tanks.
or
6 ASM, 4 AMRAAM, 2 ASRAAM.
Reference the gun, the F-35 is getting the same Mauser cannon as the Typhoon.
PBI Media - June 3rd 2002:
"In November, Boeing concluded a licensing agreement with the Mauser subsidiary of Germany's Rheinmetall for Mauser's BK 27 27mm cannon that is to be used in Lockheed Martin's [LMT] F-35 JSF (Defense Daily, Feb. 13)".
Defence Daily - Sept 26 2002:
"GD has been selected over Alliant Techsystems [ATK] and the Mauser subsidiary of Germany's Rheinmetall, which are teamed to produce the 27mm cannon, to integrate the JSF gun system. GD said it will develop an integration package for the JSF gun system at its Burlington, Vt., Armament and Technical Products (ATP) division, as well as conduct the integration for production aircraft.
Lockheed Martin originally selected the BK 27mm cannon offered by Boeing [BA] and Mauser in July 2000. GD had initially offered its GAU-12 25mm gatling cannon for the JSF in July 1999, but withdrew its proposal in February 2000".
Reference CASOM.
The Conventionally Armed Stand Off Missile is a development of the Storm Shadow fitted with a BROACH unitary warhead. It has a maritime attack capability against ships & submarines. It's fitted with a high resolution IR sensor for target identification and acquisition. If the target acquisition process is unsuccessful the mission will be aborted and the missile will fly to a predetermined safe crash site. Stand-off launch range is 215nm+. Integration of the CASOM on the Typhoon is funded within the present RAF budget.
Last edited by ORAC; 7th Dec 2002 at 15:05.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Gnadenberg
'Cash for Comments' --------
No such thing in industrial UK - if I'd paid Jacko for a piece of print, I would've soon been topped by those that foolishly hired me. Over the years the UK aviation press has been, with some exception, mainly very astute in its words; there is, thankfully, no CK comparison ------
'Cash for Comments' --------
No such thing in industrial UK - if I'd paid Jacko for a piece of print, I would've soon been topped by those that foolishly hired me. Over the years the UK aviation press has been, with some exception, mainly very astute in its words; there is, thankfully, no CK comparison ------
Booger,
You appear to base your opinion of Typhoon and F-15E on ignorant, uninformed anti-Brit prejudice. You sneer at brochure figures without having bothered to assess their accuracy or veracity.
I base mine on independent, non-industry simulations of both aircraft being flown against a developed Flanker using JOUST. And on having spoken in depth to people who've flown both, and who've evaluated both professionally (and not just from GmbH partner nations). And while I have no professional experience of flying a military fast jet, I have been lucky enough to have been given a 'grandstand view' of operational flying, and to have had patient friends who've taught me what questions to ask, and what the answers may mean.
I'm struggling to be civil to someone who may be an F-111 pilot or nav, as he pretends, but who seems to have none of the social graces, intelligence or manners that I'd have expected from any commissioned officer in the RAAF.
You, on the other hand, make silly remarks about 'navel lint' and anoraks. With your breathless enthusiasm for the 'Mud Hen' and 'Beagle' you sound more like a spotter than I do, old chap, while your lack of open-mindedness and tight grip on silly and out-of-date generalisations about EF (no better than F-16) is in danger of marking you out as being a 'bear of very little brain'.
Gnadenberg,
Gripen International have given me the odd tie, drink and dinner, but their hospitality and generosity has never been as generous as that offered by Lockheed. Eurofighter GmbH cannot compete with Lockheed either, though they do a nice line in laptop bags! Cash (unfortunately) never changes hands.
Were Australia acquiring F-22s or an aircraft with F-111 range, the Gripen's relatively modest radius would be a valid criticism. But JSF's range is similarly (not equally) inadequate. Forward based Gripen with conformals and tankers would do the job cheaply and well, though EF would be better.
You appear to base your opinion of Typhoon and F-15E on ignorant, uninformed anti-Brit prejudice. You sneer at brochure figures without having bothered to assess their accuracy or veracity.
I base mine on independent, non-industry simulations of both aircraft being flown against a developed Flanker using JOUST. And on having spoken in depth to people who've flown both, and who've evaluated both professionally (and not just from GmbH partner nations). And while I have no professional experience of flying a military fast jet, I have been lucky enough to have been given a 'grandstand view' of operational flying, and to have had patient friends who've taught me what questions to ask, and what the answers may mean.
I'm struggling to be civil to someone who may be an F-111 pilot or nav, as he pretends, but who seems to have none of the social graces, intelligence or manners that I'd have expected from any commissioned officer in the RAAF.
You, on the other hand, make silly remarks about 'navel lint' and anoraks. With your breathless enthusiasm for the 'Mud Hen' and 'Beagle' you sound more like a spotter than I do, old chap, while your lack of open-mindedness and tight grip on silly and out-of-date generalisations about EF (no better than F-16) is in danger of marking you out as being a 'bear of very little brain'.
Gnadenberg,
Gripen International have given me the odd tie, drink and dinner, but their hospitality and generosity has never been as generous as that offered by Lockheed. Eurofighter GmbH cannot compete with Lockheed either, though they do a nice line in laptop bags! Cash (unfortunately) never changes hands.
Were Australia acquiring F-22s or an aircraft with F-111 range, the Gripen's relatively modest radius would be a valid criticism. But JSF's range is similarly (not equally) inadequate. Forward based Gripen with conformals and tankers would do the job cheaply and well, though EF would be better.
You win - I give up!!
Deep breath, calm blue ocean...
As one who is a 'bear of very little brain', I will attempt to better myself and refrain from any further personal jibes (but dammit it's just so tempting!!!
).
You cannot replace the Pig & Hornet in RAAF service with a single platform that will do both current jobs, anything we acquire will be a compromise. The ADF is a the cusp of a shift in Defence thinking that will take us away from the much vaunted (but impossible to achieve) 'Self-reliance', and return us to our post WWII 'little brother to US' philosophy. Whether this is the right path to take is open for debate, but probably way beyond the scope of this topic.
The arguments made that EF is a far better option than JSF for Australia are moot - we have made our choice!!! You must realise that Australia is choosing what is best for Australia, not what's best for the EF consortium. Once again don't take my word for it, ask ANY RAAF fighter/strike pilot what current fighter (or 'swing role') aircraft he would prefer as a Hornet/Pig replacement: I assure you the EF is way down (if not bottom of) the list. Don't believe me? Start a PPrune poll !!!
For Jacko et al, this is not due to any anti-brit feeling. When/Why would a fighter pilot give up the chance to operate the best aircaft type just to 'spite a nation'? Guys you've got to let it go, the EF is just not for us!
Now why would the EF, seemingly so brilliant, not be the aircraft for us? For the same reason that I lampooned the ill-informed comment that 'the F15E would be Flanker fodder'... You must understand that you are dealing with unclas (or restricted at best) info. Could it be that the operators of these aircraft types know just a little more about regional tactics and aircraft capabilities? Funnily enough I never recalled seeing any industry executives or aviation journalists at any intel briefiengs or capability reports. Not a slight, just a fact of life.
Back to the topic at hand: the ultimate aircraft type would be the F22, but unless all Australians are willing to accept a 80% marginal tax rate for 15 years to pay for them, it aint gonna happen. Ergo, JSF is the 'way to go'.
Now, I wasn't too offensive that time was I?
As one who is a 'bear of very little brain', I will attempt to better myself and refrain from any further personal jibes (but dammit it's just so tempting!!!
).You cannot replace the Pig & Hornet in RAAF service with a single platform that will do both current jobs, anything we acquire will be a compromise. The ADF is a the cusp of a shift in Defence thinking that will take us away from the much vaunted (but impossible to achieve) 'Self-reliance', and return us to our post WWII 'little brother to US' philosophy. Whether this is the right path to take is open for debate, but probably way beyond the scope of this topic.
The arguments made that EF is a far better option than JSF for Australia are moot - we have made our choice!!! You must realise that Australia is choosing what is best for Australia, not what's best for the EF consortium. Once again don't take my word for it, ask ANY RAAF fighter/strike pilot what current fighter (or 'swing role') aircraft he would prefer as a Hornet/Pig replacement: I assure you the EF is way down (if not bottom of) the list. Don't believe me? Start a PPrune poll !!!
For Jacko et al, this is not due to any anti-brit feeling. When/Why would a fighter pilot give up the chance to operate the best aircaft type just to 'spite a nation'? Guys you've got to let it go, the EF is just not for us!
Now why would the EF, seemingly so brilliant, not be the aircraft for us? For the same reason that I lampooned the ill-informed comment that 'the F15E would be Flanker fodder'... You must understand that you are dealing with unclas (or restricted at best) info. Could it be that the operators of these aircraft types know just a little more about regional tactics and aircraft capabilities? Funnily enough I never recalled seeing any industry executives or aviation journalists at any intel briefiengs or capability reports. Not a slight, just a fact of life.
Back to the topic at hand: the ultimate aircraft type would be the F22, but unless all Australians are willing to accept a 80% marginal tax rate for 15 years to pay for them, it aint gonna happen. Ergo, JSF is the 'way to go'.
Now, I wasn't too offensive that time was I?
Since your temperature seems to now be back at a safe level, we can continue. Thanks very much for such a reasonable response.
I'm glad that we at least agree that a single platform replacement for two such different aircraft types is unwise. I should point out that I don't much care whether the RAAF buys EF, nor what is best for the EF consortium. I'm not a shareholder. (I am interested, mildly, in what's best for any of our allies, however, although I think that F-15E/F-16 or F-15E/Gripen is the best option for you chaps, if you can't afford F-15E/Typhoon).
What current F-111 F/A-18 pilots think is the right replacement for their aircraft is interesting, but irrelevant, since few ordinary frontline squadron blokes will be fully briefed on the potential replacement aircraft, whether we're talking about JSF or EF. (Funnily enough I never recalled seeing any Aussie F/A-18 drivers flying EF or the perceived threat in JOUST....) 'Not a slight, just a fact of life'. When assessing EF you're not even dealing with restricted or classified info - you're making assumptions based on often ill-informed comment. You don't actually seem aware of EF's capabilities and characteristics, whether we're talking about performance, range, payload or price. If EF is at the 'bottom of your list' it's a good indication that you are inadequately briefed.
I should perhaps have made it more clear that when I said that the F-15E would turn out to be 'Flanker' fodder, I was referring to any F-15E bought by the RAAF in the future, and was comparing it to the developed 'Flanker' used as a nominal threat in UK MoD simulations assessing EF and other fighters. Remember that this is an aircraft with the performance and agility of today's 'Flanker' but assuming parity in pilot training, missile performance, radar performance and avionics. This is unlikely to happen, but is still a useful 'worst case' baseline threat aircraft for assessment and analysis of EF/JSF etc. (I'm inclined to think that a higher level of agility was assumed for this 'developed Flanker' than is realistic, because when these studies were launched, the significance of the Su-27's 'internal auxiliary' tankage was not fully appreciated. (The Su-27's airshow levels of agility were assumed to be available at higher AUWs than is actually the case, and the fact that the aircraft is quite so severely restricted with full fuel was not originally appreciated). Naturally the F-15E is vastly superior to any deployed 'Flanker' variant today, but that's hardly a great achievement!
I'd expect F-16, F-15 to get 'votes' because people are familiar with them, and know their capability compared to that of the current and near-time threat. I'd expect JSF to get votes because it's had a very comfortable ride, and people assume that it will be as much of a 'class leader' as its predecessors. I'm always astonished at the degree of ignorance about JSF's price and capability, and the extent to which most people's opinions have been formed by pro-Lockheed journos and LM marketing material. By the same token I'd similarly expect EF to score very badly among current RAAF pilots, because your opinion will have been largely moulded by ill-informed and hostile press coverage of the programme.
I have enormous respect for what current frontline people think about their current aircraft, and (sometimes) what their int people think about threat aircraft, though int on Soviet types is often patchy, and capabilities have often been dramatically over-estimated in some areas and under-stated in others.
Nevertheless, I'm surprised that Aussie aircrew are so happy about an aircraft with inferior A-G payload than an F/A-18 and (Ok, this next is a stretch) inferior A-A armament than a Pig!
The JSF is cheaper than EF, for sure, but carries only two PGMs and two BVR AAMs, and relies heavily on third-party off-board sensors and platforms which the RAAF will not have. As the low element in a high:low mix, the JSF could make sense, but it's a bit like buying only F-117s instead of a balanced mix of F-15Es and F-16s.
In the light of the difficulties you've experienced with the Kaman SH-2G, you'll forgive us if we're sceptical as to the wisdom of your procurement decision makers.....!
I'm glad that we at least agree that a single platform replacement for two such different aircraft types is unwise. I should point out that I don't much care whether the RAAF buys EF, nor what is best for the EF consortium. I'm not a shareholder. (I am interested, mildly, in what's best for any of our allies, however, although I think that F-15E/F-16 or F-15E/Gripen is the best option for you chaps, if you can't afford F-15E/Typhoon).
What current F-111 F/A-18 pilots think is the right replacement for their aircraft is interesting, but irrelevant, since few ordinary frontline squadron blokes will be fully briefed on the potential replacement aircraft, whether we're talking about JSF or EF. (Funnily enough I never recalled seeing any Aussie F/A-18 drivers flying EF or the perceived threat in JOUST....) 'Not a slight, just a fact of life'. When assessing EF you're not even dealing with restricted or classified info - you're making assumptions based on often ill-informed comment. You don't actually seem aware of EF's capabilities and characteristics, whether we're talking about performance, range, payload or price. If EF is at the 'bottom of your list' it's a good indication that you are inadequately briefed.
I should perhaps have made it more clear that when I said that the F-15E would turn out to be 'Flanker' fodder, I was referring to any F-15E bought by the RAAF in the future, and was comparing it to the developed 'Flanker' used as a nominal threat in UK MoD simulations assessing EF and other fighters. Remember that this is an aircraft with the performance and agility of today's 'Flanker' but assuming parity in pilot training, missile performance, radar performance and avionics. This is unlikely to happen, but is still a useful 'worst case' baseline threat aircraft for assessment and analysis of EF/JSF etc. (I'm inclined to think that a higher level of agility was assumed for this 'developed Flanker' than is realistic, because when these studies were launched, the significance of the Su-27's 'internal auxiliary' tankage was not fully appreciated. (The Su-27's airshow levels of agility were assumed to be available at higher AUWs than is actually the case, and the fact that the aircraft is quite so severely restricted with full fuel was not originally appreciated). Naturally the F-15E is vastly superior to any deployed 'Flanker' variant today, but that's hardly a great achievement!
I'd expect F-16, F-15 to get 'votes' because people are familiar with them, and know their capability compared to that of the current and near-time threat. I'd expect JSF to get votes because it's had a very comfortable ride, and people assume that it will be as much of a 'class leader' as its predecessors. I'm always astonished at the degree of ignorance about JSF's price and capability, and the extent to which most people's opinions have been formed by pro-Lockheed journos and LM marketing material. By the same token I'd similarly expect EF to score very badly among current RAAF pilots, because your opinion will have been largely moulded by ill-informed and hostile press coverage of the programme.
I have enormous respect for what current frontline people think about their current aircraft, and (sometimes) what their int people think about threat aircraft, though int on Soviet types is often patchy, and capabilities have often been dramatically over-estimated in some areas and under-stated in others.
Nevertheless, I'm surprised that Aussie aircrew are so happy about an aircraft with inferior A-G payload than an F/A-18 and (Ok, this next is a stretch) inferior A-A armament than a Pig!
The JSF is cheaper than EF, for sure, but carries only two PGMs and two BVR AAMs, and relies heavily on third-party off-board sensors and platforms which the RAAF will not have. As the low element in a high:low mix, the JSF could make sense, but it's a bit like buying only F-117s instead of a balanced mix of F-15Es and F-16s.
In the light of the difficulties you've experienced with the Kaman SH-2G, you'll forgive us if we're sceptical as to the wisdom of your procurement decision makers.....!
Thread Starter
Jacko
Ok, let us say the stalwart of the RAAF's offensive capability, for the last 30 years, doesn't make it to it's predicted retirement date. Of course I am talking about the F111.
JSF is delayed.
Both likely scenarios.
PM Howard has no doubt got a behind the scenes handshake, to the effect that if this happends Super Hornets or Strike Eagles will be available for lease.
But will there be enough available for lease? Overburdened US services will be affected too so I can't see them giving up their precious F15E's or Super Hornets.
Enter your EFA sales team. Unwanted RAF EFAs for lease? At a price as competitive as the Airbus deals we see down our way!
Replace F111s, disband a Hornet squadron so the others can make it to retirement and await the JSF.
So send down the fighting 54th. Are they up and away with EFA yet? They were late, but valiant over Darwin. Bit of media hype, good sales pitch, a serious presence at the next Five Power Defence exercises and you never know.
So, EFA and JSF a balance?
And seriously, in our defence context, can EFA offer a decent strike capacity?
Ok, let us say the stalwart of the RAAF's offensive capability, for the last 30 years, doesn't make it to it's predicted retirement date. Of course I am talking about the F111.
JSF is delayed.
Both likely scenarios.
PM Howard has no doubt got a behind the scenes handshake, to the effect that if this happends Super Hornets or Strike Eagles will be available for lease.
But will there be enough available for lease? Overburdened US services will be affected too so I can't see them giving up their precious F15E's or Super Hornets.
Enter your EFA sales team. Unwanted RAF EFAs for lease? At a price as competitive as the Airbus deals we see down our way!
Replace F111s, disband a Hornet squadron so the others can make it to retirement and await the JSF.
So send down the fighting 54th. Are they up and away with EFA yet? They were late, but valiant over Darwin. Bit of media hype, good sales pitch, a serious presence at the next Five Power Defence exercises and you never know.
So, EFA and JSF a balance?
And seriously, in our defence context, can EFA offer a decent strike capacity?