RAAF Orders 24 Super Hornets?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ftrplt
F15 and AESA: the question is when will it be in service?
However, this is not to say the F-15 is right for Australia. On the for side for the Super - low risk was the order of the day - we already have deep relationships with Boeing and the US Navy, are familiar with the general layout of how a Hornet is built and maintained (despite there being a less than 5% commonality in components between Super and Classic), and there is a general familiarity in flying characteristics between the two. Despite what Kopp, Goon et al claim, the Super is an order of magnitude stealthier (hate that word) than anything else bar the F-22 and F-35, and the level of integration of its avionics, sensors and weapons systems is awesome! It's a true stepping stone to the 5th gen gear we'll be flying in a decade.
On the against side for the F-15 - yes, it's ballsier on paper, but the F-15 is a 35 year old design. The US has not built an F-15 for itself for six years and is unlikely to build any more. Both Korea and Singapore operate multiple and overlapping fast jet types and have much higher GDP defence budgets than Australia, so they can afford to swing their F-15 big dicks in their strategically sensitive environments and still have other types to back them up. Their F-15 programs are being funded by those countries, not the US, and the ADF does not want to be beholden to these countries for any kind of support for upgrades or groundings. Boeing or the USAF would say, "sorry guys, you're on your own!" Anmd while the AESA upgrade is great, there will still be little integration between this and other systems, thus the cockpit will be a much busier environment.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Next to Bay 8
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Picking up where Going Boeing left off:
Following my previous post I did some in-depth research on the two (which I regret not having done so BEFORE posting!).
Apparently the F-15"E" has been available with the AESA for a while now... the K model a/c that the Koreans have taken delivery of came with them installed and the Singaporean T model aircraft now do too. There are various other advances the new model Strike Eagles come equipped with such as, InfraRed Search and Track (IRST), Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS), updated cockpit and communications and all the new stand-off and JDAM weapons. These include the Harpoon, which indicate that the F-15 may indeed be capable of maritime warfare (apparently the F-111 wasn't designed to be a maritime strike a/c anyway, as it was the RAAF who enabled it to launch the Harpoon). Finally, the new model a/c are equipped with 30,000 lb thrust engines... an increase over the "E" model.
All in all, I just found it to be an extremely interesting read. Apparently, despite the fact that the (original) F-15 was designed with "not a pound for air-to-ground", the airframe is actually equally, if not more suitable for air-to-ground warfare than air-to-air. Furthermore, the aircraft was designed specifically to replace the F-111 in US service, and apparently it has done so far beyond anyone's expectations. The F-15E was selected after beating the F-16XL ("bent-arrow" design - - - VERY COOL!) in a tendering program by the USAF.
When compared to the Super Block II the (newer) Strike Eagles, climb faster, carry much greater payload, over nearly twice the range, at far higher speed (M 2.5 v M 1.8) and are overall better Air-to-Ground AND Air-to-Air fighters. The USAF expect to operate the F-15E beyond 2025.
In summary (and taking into consideration that I am certainly no defence analyst), from where I'm sitting the Strike Eagle would seem a better aircraft to replace the F-111 (as it was indeed designed to do so) and aside from lower observability, there are no obvious advantages to choosing the Super Block II over it.
Alas, I'm sure the real reasons the government chose the Super II are based on economics and availability, rather than all out potency. I spose if I knew the real answers to this stuff, I'd be earning a better wage than I am at the moment!
What do you guys reckon?
Following my previous post I did some in-depth research on the two (which I regret not having done so BEFORE posting!).
Apparently the F-15"E" has been available with the AESA for a while now... the K model a/c that the Koreans have taken delivery of came with them installed and the Singaporean T model aircraft now do too. There are various other advances the new model Strike Eagles come equipped with such as, InfraRed Search and Track (IRST), Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS), updated cockpit and communications and all the new stand-off and JDAM weapons. These include the Harpoon, which indicate that the F-15 may indeed be capable of maritime warfare (apparently the F-111 wasn't designed to be a maritime strike a/c anyway, as it was the RAAF who enabled it to launch the Harpoon). Finally, the new model a/c are equipped with 30,000 lb thrust engines... an increase over the "E" model.
All in all, I just found it to be an extremely interesting read. Apparently, despite the fact that the (original) F-15 was designed with "not a pound for air-to-ground", the airframe is actually equally, if not more suitable for air-to-ground warfare than air-to-air. Furthermore, the aircraft was designed specifically to replace the F-111 in US service, and apparently it has done so far beyond anyone's expectations. The F-15E was selected after beating the F-16XL ("bent-arrow" design - - - VERY COOL!) in a tendering program by the USAF.
When compared to the Super Block II the (newer) Strike Eagles, climb faster, carry much greater payload, over nearly twice the range, at far higher speed (M 2.5 v M 1.8) and are overall better Air-to-Ground AND Air-to-Air fighters. The USAF expect to operate the F-15E beyond 2025.
In summary (and taking into consideration that I am certainly no defence analyst), from where I'm sitting the Strike Eagle would seem a better aircraft to replace the F-111 (as it was indeed designed to do so) and aside from lower observability, there are no obvious advantages to choosing the Super Block II over it.
Alas, I'm sure the real reasons the government chose the Super II are based on economics and availability, rather than all out potency. I spose if I knew the real answers to this stuff, I'd be earning a better wage than I am at the moment!
What do you guys reckon?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by OhNotSoSure
Apparently the F-15"E" has been available with the AESA for a while now... the K model a/c that the Koreans have taken delivery of came with them installed and the Singaporean T model aircraft now do too.
Originally Posted by OhAre You ReallySure
These include the Harpoon, which indicate that the F-15 may indeed be capable of maritime warfare
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Next to Bay 8
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FA:
Stand corrected with regards to the Korean models and AESA... misinterpreted my information. I stand by the harpoon remark though, I read that in a couple of places... to be available on newer models(?). At any rate, I'm hardly an expert in this case. Certainly not pretending to be. I'll take your word for it!
P.S. - I really liked the "Originally posted by:" names... very nice.
Stand corrected with regards to the Korean models and AESA... misinterpreted my information. I stand by the harpoon remark though, I read that in a couple of places... to be available on newer models(?). At any rate, I'm hardly an expert in this case. Certainly not pretending to be. I'll take your word for it!
P.S. - I really liked the "Originally posted by:" names... very nice.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No worries - was taking a friendly dig without wanting to take the pi$$ too much as is the usual PPrune manner, although this thread has been surprisingly tame of late - good to see!
Re Harpoon, the umbilical, bussing and many other elements for Harpoon Block II/III and a SLAM-ER are identical, although the Harpoon is a lighter weapon. At this time, the Harpoon has not been cleared from the F-15, but I don't imagine it would be a major program to do so.
With the SLAM-ER qualified on the F-15K, there is certainly scope to field Harpoon Block II/III in the future, although there is much cross-capability between the two missiles. As far as I am aware, the Harpoon fielded by Singapore is the Block I ship and sub launched variant.
Re Harpoon, the umbilical, bussing and many other elements for Harpoon Block II/III and a SLAM-ER are identical, although the Harpoon is a lighter weapon. At this time, the Harpoon has not been cleared from the F-15, but I don't imagine it would be a major program to do so.
With the SLAM-ER qualified on the F-15K, there is certainly scope to field Harpoon Block II/III in the future, although there is much cross-capability between the two missiles. As far as I am aware, the Harpoon fielded by Singapore is the Block I ship and sub launched variant.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oceania
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Perth
Age: 54
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scuse my ignorance here people who know more than me, but I've a few questions with the super vs others. Is the super a replacement for the pig or is it the gap filler? What is the big boy stand off it will carry if it is to be a replacement for the pig? Is that where the gap is and has it been filled?
I watched the report and while not being au fait with the mechanics I was a touch sceptical on the outcome. While the stats put the 27 in a higher speed, alt, turning light, the tech and abilityof the Su's to reach out and "touch" seemed to be lacking. While I believe the supers could reach their tactical targets, could they do what they needed to do once there?
Sorry if I've rehashed I'm just a late starter.
I watched the report and while not being au fait with the mechanics I was a touch sceptical on the outcome. While the stats put the 27 in a higher speed, alt, turning light, the tech and abilityof the Su's to reach out and "touch" seemed to be lacking. While I believe the supers could reach their tactical targets, could they do what they needed to do once there?
Sorry if I've rehashed I'm just a late starter.
F-35 - The Great Escape
(Dubai, November 12, 2007) -- BAE Systems has completed Design Verification Testing for the crew escape system for the Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant of the F-35 Lighting II.
This series of tests has provided important risk reduction on the escape system to make sure F-35 pilots can eject safely and is an important milestone in the path to first flight of the first STOVL aircraft in Spring 2008.
BAE Systems F-35 Lightning II Crew Escape IPT leader John Thornton said: "We had some significant technical challenges to overcome in the design of the escape system, including providing enhanced neck-load protection during ejection. This is required because the F-35's state of the art helmet is heavier and has a bigger frontal area to accommodate the visor mounted display. In addition, we also have the challenge of designing a system that can accommodate various sizes of pilot. The F-35 ejection seat is already a design classic. It is the most sophisticated and capable seat in the Western world - and it's still in development."
Source : BAE Systems
This series of tests has provided important risk reduction on the escape system to make sure F-35 pilots can eject safely and is an important milestone in the path to first flight of the first STOVL aircraft in Spring 2008.
BAE Systems F-35 Lightning II Crew Escape IPT leader John Thornton said: "We had some significant technical challenges to overcome in the design of the escape system, including providing enhanced neck-load protection during ejection. This is required because the F-35's state of the art helmet is heavier and has a bigger frontal area to accommodate the visor mounted display. In addition, we also have the challenge of designing a system that can accommodate various sizes of pilot. The F-35 ejection seat is already a design classic. It is the most sophisticated and capable seat in the Western world - and it's still in development."
Source : BAE Systems
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Top of Descent
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pull out of jet deal, Govt urged
Pull out of jet deal, Govt urged
December 9, 2007 - 2:42PM
Source: ABC
A Liberal backbencher says the Super Hornet can not compete with Russian-built fighters being deployed in Asia.
A Liberal MP says party leader Brendan Nelson made the wrong decision in his previous role as defence minister when he ordered 24 Super Hornet jet fighters for the RAAF.
Western Australian backbencher Dr Dennis Jensen, a former defence research scientist, says the Rudd Labor Government should try to get out of the $6.6 billion deal.
Dr Jensen told the National Interest program on ABC Radio National that the Super Hornet can not compete with Russian-built fighters being deployed in Asia.
"There've been numerous comparative analyses that have been conducted overseas and where ever the Super Hornet's been in the competition it's lost," Dr Jensen said.
"The problem with the Hornet is it is slow, it is sluggish in acceleration and its payload range capability is limited.
"And as such the threats that are emerging in the region will effectively fly rings around it."
Dr Jensen says the jet's manufacturer Boeing did a very good sales job on Dr Nelson when he was minister.
"I've seen another slide presentation that Boeing gives and it looks very, very convincing," he said.
December 9, 2007 - 2:42PM
Source: ABC
A Liberal backbencher says the Super Hornet can not compete with Russian-built fighters being deployed in Asia.
A Liberal MP says party leader Brendan Nelson made the wrong decision in his previous role as defence minister when he ordered 24 Super Hornet jet fighters for the RAAF.
Western Australian backbencher Dr Dennis Jensen, a former defence research scientist, says the Rudd Labor Government should try to get out of the $6.6 billion deal.
Dr Jensen told the National Interest program on ABC Radio National that the Super Hornet can not compete with Russian-built fighters being deployed in Asia.
"There've been numerous comparative analyses that have been conducted overseas and where ever the Super Hornet's been in the competition it's lost," Dr Jensen said.
"The problem with the Hornet is it is slow, it is sluggish in acceleration and its payload range capability is limited.
"And as such the threats that are emerging in the region will effectively fly rings around it."
Dr Jensen says the jet's manufacturer Boeing did a very good sales job on Dr Nelson when he was minister.
"I've seen another slide presentation that Boeing gives and it looks very, very convincing," he said.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mostly at home
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regard to the Liberal Backbencher ....
I would not like to be in the Russian Built Fighter with the Super Hornet in the area ...
Maybe there is a reason he is a backbencher ..................
N
I would not like to be in the Russian Built Fighter with the Super Hornet in the area ...
Maybe there is a reason he is a backbencher ..................
N
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like to be caught in a Super Hornet any distance from home either.
From what we are being told by the analysts:
- lacks range (needs inflight refueling support)
- not stealthy (they will be waiting for it)
- lacks top end speed (will be run down by current Russian fighters)
As a taxpayer, I really hope we can get out of this costly raw deal.
I would really like to see the F111s patched up to bridge the gap until our next generation aircraft arrive.
From what we are being told by the analysts:
- lacks range (needs inflight refueling support)
- not stealthy (they will be waiting for it)
- lacks top end speed (will be run down by current Russian fighters)
As a taxpayer, I really hope we can get out of this costly raw deal.
I would really like to see the F111s patched up to bridge the gap until our next generation aircraft arrive.
Last edited by virgindriver; 9th Dec 2007 at 08:37. Reason: sp
These idiots that come out with this stuff ALWAYS neglect to mention this.
1. The US DO NOT sell the F22 to anyone else, therefore you can not try to plan for the future of the ADF with that FACT. They are even less likely to do that now with the gutless act of running from Iraq.
2. The F111 is dead. It is old, its expensive. NO ONE else operates it so we have to foot the entire bill for few aircraft on line. Using parts from the desert that are 20 years old proves this point. If Fitzgibbon and this goose get the super hornet deal scrapped then if anything should happen after 2010 THEY ARE RESONSIBLE
3. They always say the F18 will get thumped by all theses hundreds of eastern bloc aircraft....they mention how the pig would go. We wouldn't even send it to Iraq against what they had.
JSF is the way of the future, it will probably have a few teething issues so the superhornet is a good interim. Labor know it, that won't change it despite the song and dance. They will probably try and buy fewer.
I love the pig, it looks awesome, it was the big stick of the day but its day has gone. Its like putting up a wirraway agianst zeros when you should have a P51.
As for the motives of this backbencher, interesting he waited until after he didn't get a portfolio to bring this up again. He was asked last week to chat to the ABC but waited to see if he would get a spot first.
1. The US DO NOT sell the F22 to anyone else, therefore you can not try to plan for the future of the ADF with that FACT. They are even less likely to do that now with the gutless act of running from Iraq.
2. The F111 is dead. It is old, its expensive. NO ONE else operates it so we have to foot the entire bill for few aircraft on line. Using parts from the desert that are 20 years old proves this point. If Fitzgibbon and this goose get the super hornet deal scrapped then if anything should happen after 2010 THEY ARE RESONSIBLE
3. They always say the F18 will get thumped by all theses hundreds of eastern bloc aircraft....they mention how the pig would go. We wouldn't even send it to Iraq against what they had.
JSF is the way of the future, it will probably have a few teething issues so the superhornet is a good interim. Labor know it, that won't change it despite the song and dance. They will probably try and buy fewer.
I love the pig, it looks awesome, it was the big stick of the day but its day has gone. Its like putting up a wirraway agianst zeros when you should have a P51.
As for the motives of this backbencher, interesting he waited until after he didn't get a portfolio to bring this up again. He was asked last week to chat to the ABC but waited to see if he would get a spot first.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: All over the place
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JSF?
The RAF are an Air Force that gets into combat so maybe their opinion is worth something?
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=303045
a defence scientist has more cred than a Tassie GP IMHO (Nelson) when it comes to defence.
(Senior Officer with procurements and Aus Defence civilian alickadoo visiting Fawlty Towers on the corporate gold card)...
Sybil: BASIL! Don't bring up ADATS, Collins Subs, Abrams Tanks or Sea Sprite helicopters.
Basil: Yes dear.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=303045
a defence scientist has more cred than a Tassie GP IMHO (Nelson) when it comes to defence.
(Senior Officer with procurements and Aus Defence civilian alickadoo visiting Fawlty Towers on the corporate gold card)...
Sybil: BASIL! Don't bring up ADATS, Collins Subs, Abrams Tanks or Sea Sprite helicopters.
Basil: Yes dear.
Last edited by Track Coastal; 10th Dec 2007 at 03:41.
Registered User **
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Moorings
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
a defence scientist has more cred than a Tassie GP IMHO (Nelson) when it comes to defence.
why?
a defence scientist has more cred than a Tassie GP IMHO (Nelson) when it comes to defence.
why?
Defence scientists study defence.
Medicos study coughs, colds and pimples on your willie.
Nelson's panicky and disastrous off the cuff Super Hornet decision stands as a tribute to his lack of expertise in fighter/bomber capabilities in the current environment.
His decision has been almost universally condemned and the only people who appear prepared to defend it are embarrased RAAF members who have just woken up to the fact that Australia is now facing a yawning and ever widening bare-@rsed air superiority gap.
do you know what his expertise was in defence science??
Next.
Ned
PS Your Caps Lock key appears inoperative - but if it actually does work please keep away from operating any more complex machinery for the time being. HTH.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not all defence scientists have expertise in Air Power.
No the F18F is not seen as a disaster by anyone at the coal face, only by commentators outside the decision.
Yes the F18F has limitations but given the options available it is more than likely the best decision.
No I am not privy to all the facts needed to make such a decision but I trust the professional judgement of those advising the minister from within the RAAF.
Retaining the F111 beyond 2012 always had disaster written all over.
The best 4 corners could dredge up to condemn the decision has been widely derided as a weak politically motivated hatchet job.
No the F18F is not seen as a disaster by anyone at the coal face, only by commentators outside the decision.
Yes the F18F has limitations but given the options available it is more than likely the best decision.
No I am not privy to all the facts needed to make such a decision but I trust the professional judgement of those advising the minister from within the RAAF.
Retaining the F111 beyond 2012 always had disaster written all over.
The best 4 corners could dredge up to condemn the decision has been widely derided as a weak politically motivated hatchet job.
F-35
I read in [I]The Australian[I] on Saturday 8th of December (sorry I can't find the article online) that not only will the Rudd Govt most likely proceed with the F-35 purchase, but they are likely to aquire 'significantly less' than the 100 aircraft proposed by the Howard Govt.
Considering the F-35 is intended to replace all of the RAAFs combat Jets when it enters service, would this represent a major capability loss and the end of the RAAF as an effective combat force?
I have heard varrying opinions, mainly negitive, but I would like to know if anyone hear has any further insight.
Considering the F-35 is intended to replace all of the RAAFs combat Jets when it enters service, would this represent a major capability loss and the end of the RAAF as an effective combat force?
I have heard varrying opinions, mainly negitive, but I would like to know if anyone hear has any further insight.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Canberra
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Banzai Stealth?
If we cant get the F22 from the Americans, how about pitching our RD tent alongside these guys?
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/...th-Fighter.php
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/...th-Fighter.php