RAAF Future Air Combat Capability Review
 

Looks like Fitzgibbon is changing his tune on the Rhino buy....

http://www.theage.com.au/news/nation...949675268.html

More Uber-control from the new PM or a real review with suitable TORs? I guess only time will tell.......

I will be facinated to see if they can come up with a better alternative, currently available, within the realms of monetary reality.

F22 cant have it
Eurolemon = self explanatory
Rafale in eurolemon category, and please lets not buy french again
F15E best option in my opinion, but havent they stopped producing them?
Grippen tehehe!!

Alligator,

You a wee bit nervous that they might get a single seater as an interim buy??

AA -

Many thanks for this, interesting for an ex-Pommie Bt:mad:ard to se how the discussion develops; be very interesting to see what the Rudd Government comes up with!

C_S

F-22 - Agree, not likely to be released.

F-15E+ - still in production (F-15K for South Korea, F-15SG nee F-15T for Singapore). But still a 4th generation design. And what exactly is the RAAF requirement - as a Pig replacement, good, but what's the overall requirement.

Eurolemon? Eurofighter anything but lemon-esque, but the issue would be range (though not sure how Block 5 with conformal tanks would compare with F-18E/F - I suspect quite well. Eurofighter is also a fundamentally more advanced design than SuperBug).

Rafale - well, smaller and less effective than Eurofighter, so if you don't like Eurofighter.... (but the Edinburgh SA based Mirage IIIOs in white and orange were very pretty in the 80s.....)

Gripen - you may want look again at it, especially the mooted Mk 3 for Norway version that is supposedly going to be built in 2008-09. Nonetheless, possibly too short legged for the RAAF's needs.

Cheers!

S41

1st post of PPRuNe but couldn't resist to roll in on eurolemon

1. The British consistently promise capability and performance that are just ideas they got a sketch artist to draw (vice what they actually have achieved and are achieving). They have nice glossy brochures.
2. Eurofighter 2000, hangon make that 2008. Does it have full air to surface yet? I think the F/A-18 had that in 1980.
3. It's got a mechanically scanned RADAR!!! Wonder if they've got 6 x .50cals in the wings (WWII style). Oh hang on, it doesn't have a gun :ugh:

Bring on "the most potent air defence fighter the world has ever seen":D

I dont fly Typhoon but do get a little bored with ill informed comment. All modern fighters have had issues early in life. F15 was a crock of s**t until the US spent billions on it. The main problem with Typhoon is that it is a multi-nation European aircraft that will never see the level of spending that F22/F35 do.

To address the specific points:

1. By "the British" I assume you mean BAe systems? In which case you are correct - but so does every other company. Have you seen Russian sales literature? Or French? Or American for F35? Their job is to sell stuff.

2. I don't know what the F18 A/G capability was in 1980, but I am sure Typhoon TODAY (well not today, they wont be flying!) exceeds it in most areas, but probably not the range of A/G munitions yet.

3. Agree on the radar. However it derisked everything and an ESA Typhoon would almost certainly not be performing as well as the current Typhoon today. We just don't have the experience and knowledge in Europe (don't believe everything the French tell you!)
Typhoon does have a gun. Keep up.

I hope the final quote isn't from a brochure! Todays Typhoon is far more capable A/A than older types such as F18, but I don't think anyone has ever claimed that it is better than a F22 - not even BAE (but they do claim it is more cost effective, I've seen the graphs in a sales brochure, it must be true!)

Reading through this, it sounds like I am a big Typhoon fan, which I am not, it has some issues and I am not convinced it was the right way for the UK to go, but at least critique it with facts, rather than jump on an ill-informed "Typhoon is crap" band-wagon.

Despite what I posted above (apologies to the OP) I hope that this thread does not disintegrate into a Typhoon v whatever slag fest - lets try to stay on topic!

The article raises some valid points. The previous ruling party kinda pulled the super hornet buy out of it's ass, so it is not unreasonable for the new government to want to examine it, IMO.

Long term the F35 is probably the way ahead, so the question is what could fill the gap from now until 2020? The problem is that 12 years is a very short time and if the Aussies buy new, ie super hornet, then they will realistically be running it for a long time in parallel with F35. Having such a capable type for just 10 years then selling it would appear to be madness!

But if they don't buy a modern (or updated) aircraft then it won't fulfill the spec of matching these super-duper Russian aircraft they are so worried about. Interestingly the article only seems to focus on A/A, not A/G, so maybe super hornet is the wrong way to go - defining requirement might be useful, the politicians themselves don't seem sure!

I bet the Aussies could get some F15Cs really cheap right now!

I know we need a top shelf, top of the range aircraft to help insure we'll never need such an aircraft, but I really wish they'd also spend some money on a type we'll probably get to actually use in earnest - and in doing so, maybe avert the need to ever use the subject of this thread, whatever type it turns out to be.

I'm talking about a low tech, long loiter time mud mover, along the lines of an A10 or the Russian equivalent, whose designation I've forgotten, that could provide meaningful support for troops involved in 'peace keeping' operations like Afghanistan and Timor.

Heaven forbid, Australia might actually be able to build such a beast ourselves.

It's also about time the Caribou was put out to pasture.

I'm not up with the gouge about Euro Fighter, Rafale, Gripen, but i think you can safely say it wouldn't matter how they stack up with the Super Hornet. The deal was struck because of the delivery schedule that boeing has guaranteed the RAAF. IMO

The problem started 10 years ago when the RAAF/Government continued to stretch the legs of the Pig believing that F-35 would magically be on time.
Some forward (and logical) thinking would have revealed that, like all fighter projects, the F-35 would be late. If the RAAF/Government had been realistic a decade ago, then the options could have been explored and the delivery timetable could have been more flexible.

Wiley.
Don't expect the Caribou to last more than 5 years. Once the yanks have finalised there light transport purchase expect us to follow suit. C-27 is looking like a reality early next decade.

Wiley - interesting that you introduce another role. I think that at the moment a lot of air forces don't know how to balance the 3 traditional roles of A/A, traditional A/G strike and CAS. If I understand the politicians, they are looking for an aircraft to essentially protect Australia from her neighbours. This would seem to say A/A first, then strike then CAS. The army won't be happy! Given the size of the region, F15E seems to be the logical choice to me. The only really bad point is stealth and if you really need that you are screwed until F35 arrives!

Obviously, at the moment there is only a need for CAS in real world ops (noone counts QRA for some reason), but governments can't just buy aircraft with a life of 20+ years based on todays limited wars (just is an important word there). And before people start getting upset, I am only talking about traditional FJ roles, I am disregarding the helo and heavy side of things as well as all the other ISTAR stuff etc.

In my opinion what most air forces need is a dual role A/A and A/G strike platform (F15E etc) plus a dedicated CAS platform (A10). The current (pre-Typhoon) UK model of dedicated A/A, dedicated strike (bit of CAS) and dedicated CAS (bit of strike) is inefficient madness! Interestingly the bigger European nations (France, Germany, Italy) all did a similar thing. It is only the smaller countries (Belgium, NL, Denmark etc) who went dual role with the F16. I am sure someone once told me that flexibility was the key to airpower. At least the Brits and French have the excuse of supporting national industry.

Of course politicians have an inability to look beyond the next election, which doesn't help.

Happy New Year to everyone (except politicians), btw.

The F/A-18 wasn't fully cleared in 1980, but that's no surprise, since it didn't join the RAG until November of that year, and didn't complete the fleet acceptance process until 1981. A couple of fairly credible sources suggest that in 1982, VX-5 recommended that the entire Hornet programme be suspended until MDD had sorted out various issues with the aircraft's range and bring-back capabilities (since this would've been terribly embarassing, they were ignored). Hornet didn't have a decent night AG capability until the C-model entered service in 1987.

Oh, and the F/A-18 was cleared for A-G at the outset since its service entry pre-supposed replacement of the A-7 and the F-4 simultaneously. Service entry for Typhoon presupposed replacement of air-air types first, so it is nothing more than (a) logic and (b) funding that delayed the clearances for air-ground.

But don't let little things like the facts or logic get in the way of a good Typhoon bashing, eh?

The SH was selected because it provides an insurance policy against JSF delays or overruns (and the consequent hailstorm of "we told you so" from all sides.
If JSF works, SH can be kept as a complementary capability (two seats with baig-screen back cockpit, added weapon choices) or sold back to the USN, which will always take a standard aircraft with no carrier landings. Also, although it is different in many ways from the classic Hornet, it is similar in ways that facilitate conversion. In those respects buying SH was very different from buying EF.
On the other hand, reviewing JSF would be timely.

At the end of the day, the RAAF will do the best that it can, with what is available.

I suspect that the delays with the JSF will continue, but eventually it will come good. The problem is that we are going to run out of airframes, before this will happen.

Whilst the F22 could be a good choice, we also have to face the fact that they may never be released. But the fat lady has not sung yet.

After the Mirage restrictions on use, I doubt if the RAAF would want to visit that area of supply, as it affectively ties one hand behind our back.

The SU family, good aircraft that it maybe, has a unproven track record both in active duty, and also with after delivery support. Could you also understand the cry that would go up from all areas if the purchase was made.

The Super Hornet to some, appeared to be the best solution, and would have allowed the retirement of some of the earlier airframes. The rumour down here prior to the election was the order was to be increased to a quantity of 48.

Whilst the fighter selection is one issue, we are facing bigger problems with our air uplift capacity.

The KC30 at first will not be much help in that area, because at least the first three do not have freight doors or floors.

The C130H is about the standard of the RAF K models, and will have to go, and we will loosing some of that capacity, as airframes are parked.

The Caribou, great airframe that it is, strugles with the engine ages, and now cannot move because of width, much of the army vehicles. Its replacement is some years away, and whilst the C27 is a favourite, no contracts have been let.

The C17 great aircraft that it is, we have not learnt from the RAF experience and do not appear have bought enough. The government fully believing that as one C17 equals three C130J's, as three into 12 goes four. Not however thinking of all the other associated factors that should have been considered.

Timor and other deployments quickly showed that we do not have enough deployment assets, and many feel there should be more C17's. If we do not order soon then the chance will be gone.

In conclusion the RAAF faces many challenges in regard to airframe purchases at this time, let us hope that Kevin Rudd learns to have confidence in his defense chiefs.

Regards

Col

Develop and construct an indigenous type then and you won't have to moan and groan about other aircraft you know nothing about you to$$er!!

We have; the Boomerang. All our pilots said it was ****. We acknowledged that and moved on. Something you need to do. Try and separate passion and patriotism from cold hard facts.

Going from your first post Kraziman, your "cold Hard Facts" that you have cunjured up are a load of tosh.
Maybe read a few more backdated Air Internationals to get up to speed on what the Typhoon does or doesn't have.

.

Well that quote really says it all then... an old F/A-18 getting A/G back in 1980.

Thanks to all for an interesting discussion. But the stated position seems to be to provide insurance against delays in the F-35 programme to allow for the retirement of the F-111; if so, fair enough, the viable "buy it today" options would appear be dedicated strike platforms - an advanced F-15E or an Su-30MK variant. (Unless RAAF fancied a couple of squadrons of GR4s, one careful owner!)

However, this strike emphasis is somewhat confusing to me in that it seems to assume that the F-35 will be a full swing role platform which is just as good at A-A as CAS with a strike option, and (from my limited perspective) this simply isn't true. Indeed, good though the F-35 will be (buckets of American dollars should ensure that it works at some point), the only people who seem intent on operating it in A-A/CAS/Strike role are those who will not have a an A-A specific platform - e.g. a similar position to the European F-16 operators from the 1980s onwards.

Therefore, my question to the RAAF focusses on whether the need a strike platform that can do A-A (e.g. F-15E+) or whether the smarter route would be to re-role the F-18 force as a predominately strike focussed force with the A-A role taken on by a new platform that would continue in that role after the F-35 is introduced in 2020 or so?

Not getting into a solution for what that A-A platform should be, just a genuine question.

S41

Why would anyone choose EF at this point in time? Could EF go much better than an attritional slugfest with Russian SU-30BMs over the Pacific (about to be sold to the Red Horde?) The Hornets would at least have the benefit of being a combat proven system, especially A to G, that the Ozzies would be familiar with. Furthermore, it is unsure that the EF would be much more effective than the SuperHornets to waarant its Super Price Tags (in comparison especially.

Face it, if you want an aircraft to look different and cool, choose an European aircraft, like a Prada bag. But if you want something forged in the heat of war, you choose Amrikan.

Stop trying to foist off the EF on all air forces of the world. It is already obsolescent according to NATO doctrine - leading edge technology and leverage multiplying systems that compensate for fewer numbers.

>>However, this strike emphasis is somewhat confusing to me in that it seems to assume that the F-35 will be a full swing role platform which is just as good at A-A as CAS with a strike option, and (from my limited perspective) this simply isn't true. Indeed, good though the F-35 will be (buckets of American dollars should ensure that it works at some point), the only people who seem intent on operating it in A-A/CAS/Strike role are those who will not have a an A-A specific platform - e.g. a similar position to the European F-16 operators from the 1980s onwards.<<


Yeah, and we all know that European aircraft are proven more successful in battle. Everyone knows that the Tornado is a better fighter than F-15 and the Mirage has scored more kills than the F-16!

Wait a minute...

Doubting American aviation is a laugh, especially in the realm of stealth aircraft.

Have you not seen F-117, B-2, Bird of Prey, F-22 and the numerous multigenerational designs in successful stealth, not to mention the vast experience in fighter multirole aircraft?

The only experience the British have with stealth are their stealth taxes/

It is interesting how many "Monday morning quarterbacks" we have here.

Most people do make some very valid points, but maybe most are missing the big picture in the replacement of the F111.

I have to say from the get go, I worked with the F111 and various other projects for a large defense contractor in Australia and have to say I love the Pig, it's fast, has an awesome range and packs a real punch, but unfortunately she's a bit long in the tooth and getting very expensive to maintain.

If you were to replace just the pig then the European and Russian options would be quite feasible, HOWEVER this is not the only criteria.

With the increased use of UAV's, the bringing online of Wedgetail, the eventual replacement of the PC3's with another MMA type, Australia is looking more at a Network Centric capable aircraft, and more so, one that will be easier to integrate in to, with existing (and upcoming) technologies.

Now the Super Hornet might have it's fault, but we have skills in maintaining and running the F18, as well as have already done many exercises with them. Our Hawk trainers are currently set up to mimic the F18 cockpit, so re-equipping would be cheaper for the training fleet. Any other type would make the money invested in the Hawks (changing of cockpits) a waste.

As far as capability matching goes, what makes the pig so important to our current arsenal is that fact that it is the only type which is capable of carrying the AGM142, our only true standoff weapon, as well as the Harpoon, which is the most effective anti shipping set up to date.
Yes I know the PC3 can carry a harpoon, but isn't capable of delivering it with the same force as the F111, and yes our current F18's have been evaluated to carry an AGM 154, but aren't equipped to do so.

One must also remember some of the criteria for the replacement aircraft are secret, whether they be requirements for matching current capabilities (i.e. capabilities the aircraft has that are classified) and upcoming projects in Australia's defense strategy.

Quote:

---

The Government (and the Opposition) was also offered some attractive and highly innovative purchase options, which would have made a 100-plus buy very affordable, at today's prices. At the time, there were more than a few senior players throughout the RAAF and DoD who were convinced that Typhoon might well have offered them a very viable multi-role solution, and in the right timescale. There was also a highly vocal element (mainly the US-centric and Pig fraternity - and how wrong the latter have been proved) that stuck their heads in the sand, and in some notable cases simply refused to listen. This latter group has done the ADF no favours, and I trust their like will be muted in the upcoming review process.

---

The "latter" wouldn't be the same people who tried to put ALR-2002 in the AF/A-18 would they? That worked well.

Quote:

---

The F/A-18 wasn't fully cleared in 1980, but that's no surprise, since it didn't join the RAG until November of that year, and didn't complete the fleet acceptance process until 1981.

---

I guess it depends on what your definition of "full" is. It had A/G capability in 1980 with multiple weapons. Your beloved Eurofighter was marketed as a multi-role fighter when Pontius what a pilot. This lack of A/G (on time) is why many countries didn't buy it.

Quote:

---

A couple of fairly credible sources suggest that in 1982, VX-5 recommended that the entire Hornet programme be suspended until MDD had sorted out various issues with the aircraft's range and bring-back capabilities (since this would've been terribly embarassing, they were ignored).

---

And your telling me because....The F/A-18 was developed from the YF-17 for carrier ops (it wasn't a carrier jet from the start). What do you expect and what does this have to do with a/g capability?

Quote:

---

Oh, and the F/A-18 was cleared for A-G at the outset since its service entry pre-supposed replacement of the A-7 and the F-4 simultaneously. Service entry for Typhoon presupposed replacement of air-air types first, so it is nothing more than (a) logic and (b) funding that delayed the clearances for air-ground.

---

Other countries don't care about how the RAF plan to introduce it. You told us (possible customers) it would be multirole. It wasn't (block 5 in 07). Fact.

I'm going to stop winding up the Eurofighter fan club (which is fun and terribly easy). I will acknowledge my error on the gun and add some serious comment (I am capable of it).

I don't know why you guys separate the roles of CAS and Land Strike so much. Air to surface is as simple as find a target, ID IAW ROE and drop a bomb on it (fire a missile or gun at it). In land strike, targets are normally larger in size and in CAS (or any OAS mission) the targets are much smaller (tanks, troops, arty etc). As well as the targets sets being different, CAS also has the requirement for detailed integration with friendlies. At the end of the day if an aircraft can engage a target on the ground, it can perform any of the air to surface roles (land not maritime). Some are more efficient at CAS due to improved sensors and datalink but any modern jet we buy will have this. Most of the time (these days) it's the land forces that lack the equipment (they'd rather buy more tanks and arty).

If we get a new fighter in about the 2010 timeframe, I reckon F15E/K/S, Super Hornet or F22.

F35 was designed to own the air to surface roles (land) and hold it's own in A/A. Smaller countries can't afford to have dedicated aircraft types performing different roles (it costs too much). Many F35 operators will operate them as their sole A/A platform.

There is some excellent literature out there, written by the man who is arguably Australia's most knowledgable air power strategist, promoting the signficant advantages of the Aardvark over 'the bug'.
I personally think that Kraziman's comments, whilst clearly tongue in cheek, are not principally flawed. The EF is outdated and obsolete - take a quick look at what is coming out of Russia these days and anybody who knows the first thing about 4th and 5th gen fighter A/A tactics can see that the EF with a mech scanned array (and the significant limitations that this has in a multi-role aircraft) is quickly becoming obsolete.
Rafael and Gripen - I'm glad nobody has touted these as serious competitors..... two words - system integration.
Flanker Family - Aren't we trying to buy/build stuff that, in the event of a contingency against our most likely adversaries, will allow us to shoot these clowns down?
F22 - I don't think anybody has ever said that the raptor isn't clearly the best option for when you 'absolutely and positively need to kill every MF in the room...' - but cost/mission requirements/availability to foreign purchasers... the guys who are paid to know, are 'briefed in' and do this work for a living thought the JSF would be a better option 'for Australia.
The only real solution is to extend the life on the F-111, put an ESA in the front of it and load it up with AMRAAMS / Meteors. I'm sure that with some radar absorbent paint and maybe some plasma in the wings, it would be a gun A/A player while still being able to fly a bazillion miles and engage multiple surface targets.:cool:
GD

Monday Morning Quarter Back Checking in Sir.

I pays me taxes so I'll have me say (even if it is complete garbage), isn't that how these democracy thingys work?

I for one hope that the review of the Air Combat Capability includes a serious review of the purchase of F35Bs to operate of the Spanish LHDs that we are buying / building.

I have to bite
In case those speaking of the death of the Caribou aren't aware.
3 have just returned from PNG where they were needed. They achieved a 100% sortie rate, due in no small part to a fantastic hard working flightline crew.
They have recently been deployed to The Solomons, Timor, far NQ for cyclone relief (and the RWY wouldn't have lasted for many more C130 trips if that had gone on).
Sometimes you do need the old ute in the back yard for the low tech solution.
When the Army have all the MRH 90s and extra Chinooks, then indeed it may be time for the old girl, but until then..
Anyway apparently there is no one around to staff a project office for the replacement until 201X. Don't get me started on why we need a project office when we can just tag onto the end of an American buy of C27J
Anyway back to the high tech world of Air Combat.

Ozbig, I think your comment - which I agree with 101% - can be transposed to the close air support mission. As I said in my earlier post, I can see we need a top shelf fighter as a 'big stick' to give potential adversaries pause, (as much at the political level as the military), I can also see the mission taskers being very averse to risking such valuable assets in close air support missions in a purely tactical environment, particularly since we will have so few of them. (Stand by for a reduction in total numbers of JSF (or whatever we get) as the horse trading for dollars gets really intense between a half dozen equally vital programmes.)

I know the Hawk could provide some semblance (but only a semblance) of what I'm suggesting, but it has some major limitations. I can't help but think we've reached the stage where the RAAF could really use something specifically designed to be able to remain on station with a decent payload for more than a few moments. (I can remember the days at Rocky where the Miracles could only provide a few minutes top cover over Shoalwater Bay and recover to Townsville so long as they didn't have to come down to low level to deal with any Orange Forces hostiles.) Maybe any such aircraft should also be able to operate from unprepared strips or even roadways as well.

I know the purse isn't particularly deep - it never has been for Defence in Australia - but I think it's time th 'bou was replaced. The long-suffering groundies were doing a Herculean job keeping them flying twenty years ago. God only knows how many rolls of speed tape they're going through every day nowadays.

OK - I'll try again, but only for a short while.

In the four years up to 2000, the Australian DoD was provided with almost 100% of Typhoon's classified specification and the potential upgrades which would follow, including all those enhancements which are now starting to emerge. Yes there was much glossy-brochure stuff, but behind the scenes there was serious business. The Government (and the Opposition) was also offered some attractive and highly innovative purchase options, which would have made a 100-plus buy very affordable, at today's prices. At the time, there were more than a few senior players throughout the RAAF and DoD who were convinced that Typhoon might well have offered them a very viable multi-role solution, and in the right timescale. There was also a highly vocal element (mainly the US-centric and Pig fraternity - and how wrong the latter have been proved) that stuck their heads in the sand, and in some notable cases simply refused to listen. This latter group has done the ADF no favours, and I trust their like will be muted in the upcoming review process.

It would be good to see this thread develop into an interesting and well-informed debate with contributions from some articulate and up-to-date participants (not me I'm afraid, I bowed out long ago - but I'm still an RAAF fan). Kraziman and friends take note.

I say again - " It would be good to see this thread develop into an interesting and well-informed debate with contributions from some articulate and up-to-date participants " eg ozbig 'n wiley

I cant be bothered going into detail but if you take away the glossy brochures and the impressive airshow performances and look at no **** tactical capability then eurofighter is a lemon. Go deeper than what the gunrunners are saying and look at fair-dinkum in service and combat proven capability. AMRAAM/AESA capability will remain untouched for a while yet. And dont try and tell me that the eurolemon has this capability without a bunch of significant limitations.

As I said in my last ------

Who's going to fly them?

Wiley,
You want a long 'on station' CAS platform??.
Do you know what an MQ-9 is?

The Typhoon bashing is a little boring and now happening on several threads - could we maybe keep it to just 1 thread so maybe this one could talk about, say "RAAF Future Air Combat Capability Review"? Radical and hopelessly optimistic I know, but its close to Xmas maybe a miracle could happen? Please?

Anyway, the CAS comment are interesting - as I see it you could go 4 different routes:

1. Conventional fixed wing CAS specialist - A-10 style. Upgraded A-10s have a great capability and definitely combat proven.

2. Conventional fixed wing all rounder - F/A-18 style. Generalists dont tend to be as good as specialists, but with the right kit onboard (don't know what aussie hornets have in the CAS dept) very effective.

3. UCAV - rapidly becoming combat proven. Cheap and great time on station as well as providing lots of Int/recce etc. But atm not great payload.

4. B-52 style. Can carry huge payload and choice, great time on station but a little vulnerable for show of force (but very impressive!!) or non afghan/iraq ops where the oppostion has an A/A or SAM capability. Dale Brown was maybe on to something!

However, I got the impression the big issue was with a defend Australia type aircraft, rather than relevant to current ops type aircraft - or maybe thats the point, you want an aircraft that can do both. For the "capability gap" until JSF, as someone already said the biggest issue is who can deliver this year. 3-5 years from now is way too late.

The Russian A-10 equivalent is the Su-25 frogfoot, btw.

And for Jindabyne - I'm pretty up to date (although not specifically with Oz). Was that ok on the articulate front or should I desist?;)

That'll do nicely for now BPLT - but remember your old school reports: 'always room for improvement' !

Your ideas on CAS are very dated and are probably based on 5-10years ago when sensors (RF & IR) were no where near what they are today. A modern fighter (F18EF, JSF, etc) can perfrom CAS (very effectively) from standoff range and altitude. So CAS is not as risky any more.

You would think that because the air supports the ground, systems on fighters would be driven by the ground forces. Not the case. It's always the fighter with the new technology and the ground forces playing catch up. The key for effective CAS is making sure the dudes on the ground have the correct equipment when the jet arrives.

How's your low tech CAS a/c going to go when you're fighting your ground war under double digit GBAD?

C_S: sorry mate, but you've been misinformed. According to those who operate it - both A-A and A-G mates, it's really rather good. And with Tranche 2 / Block 8 and onwards, it's going to get even better in the A-G role.

And as much as I'd love to banter Typhoon mates, but facts are sadly, still facts!

Jindabyne/PBLT:

Very interesting: but what's the RAAF's focus - is it looking for a CAS specialist? If I were an Aussie taxpayer (and I'm not), I'd look for the capability mix to include:

- Maritime strike, as anyone intended to invade Australia will need to come by sea;

- Has a precision long-range strike capability to defeat strategic target sets (sending the appropriate message);

And/Or

- Provides a A-A capability to escort the legacy platform (F-18A+) and can provide the same role for the F-35.

For me, it's this second string that makes more sense, as the F-35 / Dave is not an air superiority fighter, and the low observables will be seriously degraded when the inevitable external stores and tanks are added. On this basis, buying an A-A biased platform that will remain credible now (FLANKER, Rafale, Typhoon, maybe evolved Gripen) would ensure that it retains a role in a future mixed RAAF force.

S41

As per my last post, this is what a F111 replacement will be required to do, as the F111 currently is the only fighter or strike aircraft we have which can carry a Harpoon and a Stand Off Missile (AGM 142).

Plus it can curise at Mach 2.5 and do over Mach 1 a few feet off the deck ;)

Regardless I cannot think of an aircraft one could directly compare to the Pig, as there isn't really anything barring maybe a B1, so one has to just look at easy of transition, fleet commonality, easier integration with existing systems etc

What is the range cruising at Mach 2.5 ?

Nowhere near the 3,400nm ferry range? :p

Kraziman,
My point was simply that you indulged in a spot of Typhoon bashing using points that weren't providing entirely accurate parallels, a depressingly frequent event on these means. I don't see offering a contrary point of view as equating to being a member of the 'Typhoon Fanclub'.

I'd just point out the following in answer to your response, if I may:
1. You implied that the Hornet had full clearance in 1980 -i.e. , it was cleared to use the full range of A-G weapons then intended to be available to it in 1980. I merely pointed out that it didn't. The point about VX-5 and its recommendations about the possible suspension of the programme was made to point out that in 1982, a full two years after your date, the F/A-18 was still facing some challenges/issues - just like Typhoon.

2. First, not just the RAF - the other nations played a key role in this. Second, the key word is possible - frankly, we (the European nations who'd stumped up the money for it) weren't going to spend scarce defence money integrating capabilities ahead of schedule for people who might not buy the thing anyway.

Express a desire to buy it, on condition that the kit is integrated, and you might have found a multi-role airframe in service when required - the question being whether you believed that the company could deliver what you wanted, when you wanted (the Singaporeans, for instance, concluded that they didn't believe what BAE, as Eurofighter's representatives, told them about when certain bits of kit would be integrated). And I'd have been a bit wary on that one...

I'd hate to play devil's advocate on myself - but the bug fleet will have JASSM, and can cruise at 1.8 for about as long as an aardvark can cruise at 2.5.
They can also do over Mach 1 on the deck - but it wouldn't need to be there as no true 4.5 gen (that's what the BlkII has been touted as) aircraft needs to be in the weeds to deny Surface threats.
Harpoon is an old weapon, but bugs can carry that too, my understanding is that the geeks just need to work the 1's and Zeroes to get that on board.
That's why we need to heed Dr Kopp's advice and start 'plus-ing up' the F111, am I the only one on this thread that sees this as a viable option? WBB?
The Hornet is a great CAS platform, ask any marine and i'm sure they'll vouch for it - but imagine having a LO F111, with AESA, AMRAAMs and an arsenal of smart iron sitting on station - even in a high threat environment, it would be nearly invincible.

Garuda, which planet are you on.?
Even I (2000hr F-111) acknowledge that the future is not the F-111 (sobs again).
You cannot modernise (any further) something 40+ years old without selling Tasmania.
I cannot offer a perfect solution, but....(interim) replacement is not another word for modernisation/upgrade.