RAAF to get the F-22 and/or F-18E/F?

[Magoodotcom]

Originally Posted by Andu

Really? Can someone confirm this?

I wouldn't say "numerous", but there's one at NAS Lemoore at any one time on a two-year rotation.

Magoo

[Magoodotcom]

Originally Posted by Wiley

Some time ago, I posted on Jetblast recommending John Birmingham's sci-fi yarn "Weapons of Choice - World War 2.1". I'm almost at the end of his second offering of what I suspect will be a trilogy (towards the end of Book 2.2, 'Designated Targets', we're still in 1942 and the Battle of Bundaberg).
For those not familiar with the books, they are a rather clever (and far superior) spin on the Michael Douglas(?) movie of some years ago where present day forces are thown back in time to WW2. (Don't let that put you off - Birmingham handles the premise very well IMHO, and Birmingham's troops are from 2130, which cleverly avoids any of the time travelling characters meeting themselves back in 1942.)
Birmingham's rather fantastical premise and the way he sees our immediate future has more than a little bearing on this debate in that the 2130 troops have been at war non-stop for 20 years against 'the Caliphate Forces'). I fear he might be a little closer to the mark in some of his predictions than many people today would be comfortable with. One is that in 2130, the full on war was nowhere near being resolved. Another that comes to mind is the way the 2130 troops summarily execute any enemy they consider to have committed a war crime. (We won't go into the war crime many would consider they are committing in doling out this punishment.) This, along with many other things about the people from the future, deeply shocks virtually everyone from 1942. I find myself wondering if something similar won't happen to us over the next few years in the real world, as we realise we will simply have to put aside some of our sensitivities if we are to prevail - and survive - against an enemny who has no such sensitivities.
As I said of the first book - a good read, if perhaps a little too much like Jules Verne for comfort (in the way so much of Verne's 19th century science fiction has become 21st century science fact).

You're right, they're very good reads that way beyond just the technical challenges but well into the social differences of the time. I just got 2.3 and will be reading it on the plane to LA next week.

I think you'll find, however, that they're from 2021, not 2130. It's at the start of 2.1.

Magoo

[Magoodotcom]

For an RAAF/ADF circa 2016, how bout...

COMBAT
64 x F-35A
36 x F/A-18F

ISR
12 x AP-3C (re-winged)
6 x RQ-4B
8 x MQ-9B (Mariner variant)
6 x I-View systems (3 air vehicles per system)
6 x Scan Eagle systems (4 per)

TRANSPORT
4 x C-17
8 x A400M
8 x A330MRTT (with A330F conversion)
18 x C-130J (6 with tanker hose/drogue pods, and only if LockMart can get its $hit together re spares)
18 x C-27J

ROTARY
12 x CH-47F
48 x MRH-90 TTH
16 x MRH-90 NFH
22 x Tiger
48 x UH-72A (UH-145)

TRAINING/LIAISON
33 x Hawk 127 (MLU'ed)
64 x PC-21 or T-6B
12 x B350
2 x BBJ
3 x B604

A bit more realistic from a manning and budgetry point of view???

Magoo

[Magoodotcom]

Originally Posted by Dragon79

Can the MRH90 be fitted with a boom for refuelling?

Yes, ours will have the internal plumbing supplied, and the boom which is being developed for the Germans will add about 100kg to the equation. However, we'd need C-130 tankers then, and no-one has certified a long-fuselaged C-130J tanker yet.

Magoo

[Dragon79]

Magoodotcom

Only two things I could questions

8 x A400M - would introducing another type be best? I would have thought increasing the C17 & C130J numbers would be preferred.

64 x F-35A
36 x F/A-18F

Swap the 35 for the 22, so as not to see that massive a drop in capability.

[Magoodotcom]

Originally Posted by Dragon79

8 x A400M - would introducing another type be best? I would have thought increasing the C17 & C130J numbers would be preferred.

Too big a gap between C-17 and C-130. A400M should slot in nicely, perhaps to replace original batch of C-130Js leaving C-17, A400M & C-27J backed up by half a dozen short-fuselaged KC-130Js.

Originally Posted by Dragon79

64 x F-35A
36 x F/A-18F
Swap the 35 for the 22, so as not to see that massive a drop in capability.

As sexy as it is, I'd actually call the F-22 a massive drop over the F-35 in many ways.

Speed and stealth apart, the F-22 has older gen avionics, FCS, and weapons system, all of which will need significant hardware and software upgrades in next few years; is only baselined with three weapon types (AIM-9m, AIM-120C & GBU-35); doesn't have a targeting pod/designator; and does not have 2-way datalinks (receive only). None of these are currently budgeted to be addressed, and doing so will only raise the aircraft's cost.

Besides, Nelson and co have already ruled it out, so F-22 is a non-starter. Let's stick with what we know will fly (literally and politically).

Magoo

[Gnadenburg]

Air Dominance is Nelson's new catch-cry!

Air dominance in the region numerically? Or air dominance in the region technologically?

Introducing a current generation fighter ( operational in a few years ), in numbers, to obtain numerical air dominance an oxy moron. Similar technology is available to regional air forces already, aswell as the fact we are to operate a fleet ( or partial fleet ) of these tactical fighters for the next 25 years. Super Hornets in 2035?

Air Dominance for the RAAF, could only be a hi-hi mix of F22's & eventually F35's, with their bureaucratically unfavoured overlapping capabilites, in small numbers- say a fleet totalling 75 max but more likely just above 60- 24 F22's and 40 plus F35's. Punch this structure into a RAND computer, and it is the only structure that provides unmatched superiority for the next 20 plus years.

Any other talk of air dominance, just political spin.

[Dragon79]

Magoo & Gnadenburg

Can't fault either of your logic, the issue I have with the JSF is at the moment it is un-proven, a given considering its still in development.

Do you think the cock ups with the F18 upgrade combined with the push to retire the F111, require an interim solution?

As you have said, other countries currently have the technology that is superior to the hornet, the people is another matter.

Introducing leading edge technologies + Australia = generally a cockup F111 (Initially),Collins, Sea Sprite.

Given the cost of the JSF does this not justify an interim platform until the JSF proves itself, hence the F18E/F or F15.

[Lord Snot]

Originally Posted by Pass-A-Frozo

How can you say that Lord Snot. Absolutely disgraceful!! You really are an aweful man.

I'm a product of my upbringing and nothing less.... respect for orphanages was taught to me during the mass brief on EFATO training. As well as the ability to pick them out of the clutter during a glide.

Air Dominance is Nelson's new catch-cry

Well it's a start, at least....

[Magoodotcom]

Originally Posted by Dragon79

Magoo & Gnadenburg

Can't fault either of your logic, the issue I have with the JSF is at the moment it is un-proven, a given considering its still in development.

Do you think the cock ups with the F18 upgrade combined with the push to retire the F111, require an interim solution?

Given the cost of the JSF does this not justify an interim platform until the JSF proves itself, hence the F18E/F or F15.

Cockups with the F/A-18 upgrade? Can you please site sources OTHER than the Sydney Morning Herald???

The HUG has gone swimmingly up to now, with the only potential glitch being Phase 2.3 which is currently under review. If ALR-2002B is canned, then we have ALR-67(v)2 as a fallback option which should not significantly impact the program's schedule.

Phases 1, 2.1 and 3.1 were delivered on time and under budget, and 2.2 is already ahead of schedule just three months into the rollout phase. 2.4 is also going well (don't believe the pod report in the SMH last week) and will deliver ahead of schedule and ahead of budget. Phase 3.2 is the biggest risk, but the Canuckdians have already done 13 centre-barrels and these have all gone well, and the US is cranking up to 40 jets a year from next year.

I believe the interim aircraft window has closed, and the next jet we get needs to be around for the next 20+ years. Whether that is F-35, F/A-18F, F-15T or whatever I don't know. I personally believe a split fleet of Super Hornets and F-35s is the way to go.

Cheers

Magoo

[W800i]

I agree with Magoo that a split fleet is the way to go. My proviso to the RAAF is to slow down on the F-35. They are talking about buying it very very early on in its production schedule. This is my main concern. If the F-35 runs into any number of technical problems which are normal and understandable considering the complexity of modern fighters than the RAAF have a sizeable headache. I believe it is far better to wait until the yanks and the poms have it in squadron service and are working through fixes for all of the usual hiccups that occur before we purchase it. The F-35 has a lot of hard yards ahead of it.
For the sake of argument a combined F-22 & F-18 E/F/G or F-22 & F15E/SG/T is worth condiering I believe. A article in Air and Space October/November 2005 "The raptor arrives- debriefing the pilots who got the first crack at the FA-22 by Carl Hoffman" is interesting. Interview in part with Major Robert Garland FA-22 divisional commander......F-15's and F-16's fly in close visual formation because theyre not stealthy, they must work together to scan the airspace in front of them."In an F-15 you live and die by putting your radar in the irght piece of sky to find threats and ID them" says Cabral. But looking from the ground to 60,000 feet - 120 degrees of sky - takes the F-15C's radar 14 seconds. Flying within visual formation, the flight lead takes the low half and the wingman takes the high half. A sensor called the radar warning receiver indicates if an airplane or a SAM is looking at you. Flying at 500 knots (575mph), Cabral says he alternates between the RWR and radar, while using "my eyeballs and moving my head to look for stuff. If the radars pick something up- bandits are merely green blips,and you dont know if a blip is one airplane or two together- I have to ask; Do I need to defend myself? Is it a threat? Or do I need to call an AWACS and give them the information?"
Flying anf fighting in the F-15 is "task prioritization" Cabral continues. "You have to generate a mental picture of the airpsace and battlefield in your mind. Sometimes I even literally sketch a picture on my kneepad, all while talking on my comms and cross checking the system."
In the raptor , on the other hand the radar sweeps 120 degrees of sky instantly and computers synthesize the incoming data and display the results on a single eight inch square color display. Bandits are red triangles , their flight path , altitude and relative speed are apparent at a glance. Friendlies are green circles. Unknown aircraft are yelow squares, other FA-22's are blue, SAM sites are depicted as yellow pentagons , the sizes varying relative to the distance at which the radars can pick up the stealthy raptors. The raptors radar range is classified but Stapleton says he has "seen targets beyond 320 miles". Attack and defensive displays respectively on the right and left of the main display can show tactical information in even more detail. The attack display for instance can show all tracked aircraft "tracks" in the current shoot list, which tracks you've deployed missiles against and what the status of those missiles is.
Says Dave "shotgun" Lopez a pilot in the 43rd " The airplane is just a huge sponge in the sky soaking up information."
Raptors talk to one another over a secure digital data link, so every raptor in a formation knows about the others; how much fuel a wingman has, which weapons have been fired, even which enemy aircraft have been targeted, "everything he sees, I see and vice versa", Cabral says.
Because of the aircrafts stealth and its knowledge of what others are doing, Raptor formations can be much more widely spaced than F-15 formations, the aircraft can stay beyond visual range of one another - whats known as "detached mutual support" "typically were outside of five miles from each other in different chunks of the sky"
I aplogise for the length of this post however I found the above interesting and hope others do as well. If as magoo suggests that a split fleet is possible than considering the above wouldnt it be prudent to have an aircraft that guarantees air superiority and can target an opponents air defence system backed up with modern second tirer non stealthy types to do all of the heavy hauling.
Thanks

[Magoodotcom]

Originally Posted by W800i

I agree with Magoo that a split fleet is the way to go. My proviso to the RAAF is to slow down on the F-35. They are talking about buying it very very early on in its production schedule. This is my main concern. If the F-35 runs into any number of technical problems which are normal and understandable considering the complexity of modern fighters than the RAAF have a sizeable headache. I believe it is far better to wait until the yanks and the poms have it in squadron service and are working through fixes for all of the usual hiccups that occur before we purchase it. The F-35 has a lot of hard yards ahead of it.
For the sake of argument a combined F-22 & F-18 E/F/G or F-22 & F15E/SG/T is worth condiering I believe. A article in Air and Space October/November 2005 "The raptor arrives- debriefing the pilots who got the first crack at the FA-22 by Carl Hoffman" is interesting. Interview in part with Major Robert Garland FA-22 divisional commander......F-15's and F-16's fly in close visual formation because theyre not stealthy, they must work together to scan the airspace in front of them."In an F-15 you live and die by putting your radar in the irght piece of sky to find threats and ID them" says Cabral. But looking from the ground to 60,000 feet - 120 degrees of sky - takes the F-15C's radar 14 seconds. Flying within visual formation, the flight lead takes the low half and the wingman takes the high half. A sensor called the radar warning receiver indicates if an airplane or a SAM is looking at you. Flying at 500 knots (575mph), Cabral says he alternates between the RWR and radar, while using "my eyeballs and moving my head to look for stuff. If the radars pick something up- bandits are merely green blips,and you dont know if a blip is one airplane or two together- I have to ask; Do I need to defend myself? Is it a threat? Or do I need to call an AWACS and give them the information?"
Flying anf fighting in the F-15 is "task prioritization" Cabral continues. "You have to generate a mental picture of the airpsace and battlefield in your mind. Sometimes I even literally sketch a picture on my kneepad, all while talking on my comms and cross checking the system."
In the raptor , on the other hand the radar sweeps 120 degrees of sky instantly and computers synthesize the incoming data and display the results on a single eight inch square color display. Bandits are red triangles , their flight path , altitude and relative speed are apparent at a glance. Friendlies are green circles. Unknown aircraft are yelow squares, other FA-22's are blue, SAM sites are depicted as yellow pentagons , the sizes varying relative to the distance at which the radars can pick up the stealthy raptors. The raptors radar range is classified but Stapleton says he has "seen targets beyond 320 miles". Attack and defensive displays respectively on the right and left of the main display can show tactical information in even more detail. The attack display for instance can show all tracked aircraft "tracks" in the current shoot list, which tracks you've deployed missiles against and what the status of those missiles is.
Says Dave "shotgun" Lopez a pilot in the 43rd " The airplane is just a huge sponge in the sky soaking up information."
Raptors talk to one another over a secure digital data link, so every raptor in a formation knows about the others; how much fuel a wingman has, which weapons have been fired, even which enemy aircraft have been targeted, "everything he sees, I see and vice versa", Cabral says.
Because of the aircrafts stealth and its knowledge of what others are doing, Raptor formations can be much more widely spaced than F-15 formations, the aircraft can stay beyond visual range of one another - whats known as "detached mutual support" "typically were outside of five miles from each other in different chunks of the sky"
I aplogise for the length of this post however I found the above interesting and hope others do as well. If as magoo suggests that a split fleet is possible than considering the above wouldnt it be prudent to have an aircraft that guarantees air superiority and can target an opponents air defence system backed up with modern second tirer non stealthy types to do all of the heavy hauling.
Thanks

Nelson has already said we wont be getting the F-22 because of cost, availability, and because “based on its complete capability, (it) is not the correct aircraft for us.” So, F-22 is probably not a contender for the life of this government.

As for F/A-18E/F or F-15T, I would lean towards the Super Hornet. Ok, so it doesn't have the speed or the grunt of an F-15, but it does have alot of growth left in it, is already (or about to be) fully networked, has a higher performance AESA radar with more improvements coming (electronic attack etc), is already baselined with all our current and projected weapons systems (except AGM-142), and we can easily plug in to the US Navy's production and support system (as we did with the classic Hornets). Another plus is Boeing already has substantial support facilities already established in-country at Amberley and W'Town.

Others may advocate the Typhoon, but this is going to be an expensive and still immature airplane with many infrastructure and support issues to be resolved. Rafale is the same, except probably worse!

That pretty much leaves Gripen and F-16C/D/E/F. I wouldn't discount the Gripen - there's alot of capability there for the money, especially in its planned DK form, although whether we could count on spares support from Sweden if we took them to a war they didn't agree with may be a deal-breaker. F-16 isn't likely to be enough of an airplane in any role.

Let's order 48 Super Hornets now for 1, 6 and 77 SQNs, take delivery in a few years, and park the Pigs in 2010. Meanwhile, do 32 centre-barrels and slowly run the rest of the classic fleet down with 3 & 75 SQNs as they run out of fatigue life. 2OCU can run a mixed fleet of classics and Supers.

Then get 48 F-35s in about 2017 when the first 'facelift' comes out! It'll give us a two-pronged 'day one' and 'day two' fleet, and a staggered obsolescence schedule. 8-10 of each type can be rotated in and out of service as R3s fall due to extend fleet fatigue life, giving us 60-64 active jets at any one time, about the same as now, with 16-20 in reserve.

The Super Hornets can be replaced from 2030 onwards by UCAVs or whatever you-beaut jets they have flying by then.

Cheers

Magoo

[Buster Hyman]

The Super Hornets can be replaced from 2030

That's about the time we will have finished this thread if you keep quoting entire posts!!!

[Magoodotcom]

Originally Posted by Buster Hyman

That's about the time we will have finished this thread if you keep quoting entire posts!!!

Yeah, sorry. I meant to hit the 'post reply' button not the 'quote' button.

Magoo

[Buster Hyman]

..........................

[Croppyking]

As for F/A-18E/F or F-15T, I would lean towards the Super Hornet. Ok, so it doesn't have the speed or the grunt of an F-15, but it does have alot of growth left in it, is already (or about to be) fully networked, has a higher performance AESA radar with more improvements coming (electronic attack etc), is already baselined with all our current and projected weapons systems (except AGM-142), and we can easily plug in to the US Navy's production and support system (as we did with the classic Hornets). Another plus is Boeing already has substantial support facilities already established in-country at Amberley and W'Town.

The biggest advantage to the F15T/SG/E is that apart from the AESA radar, everything else (EP,EA, Networked, weapon commonality) are current, proven and operationally successful systems. To plug into US Navy's production and support should be just as easy as plugging into the USAF's (probably easier as any base down range that the RAAF may find themselves in will have a greater probability of having a USAF unit rather than a USN unit stationed there). Other advantages include the greater range and larger radar dish offered. (not to mention the fact that AGM-142 is also not supported...)

Boeing also makes the F15 so the support facilities already established are just as much as a plus as for the super hornet.

The only disadvantage to selecting an F15 over a Super Hornet is that the aircrew will need complete re-training and a new OCU would need to be stood up, otherwise, bring on the strike eagle!

[Magoodotcom]

Originally Posted by Croppyking

The biggest advantage to the F15T/SG/E is that apart from the AESA radar, everything else (EP,EA, Networked, weapon commonality) are current, proven and operationally successful systems.

Not necessarily. Alot of what Boeing was offering on the F-15SG for Singapore is quite advanced from what the USAF currently runs in their F-15Es and is likely to plug in to them down the track.

Originally Posted by Croppyking

To plug into US Navy's production and support should be just as easy as plugging into the USAF's (probably easier as any base down range that the RAAF may find themselves in will have a greater probability of having a USAF unit rather than a USN unit stationed there).

The support I spoke of isn't necesarily in a deployed environment, rather in that we would tie in with any block upgrades that the US Navy is doing. This is something we've been doing for 21 years with the classics and is a system with which we're already very familiar and comfortable.

Originally Posted by Croppyking

Other advantages include the greater range and larger radar dish offered. (not to mention the fact that AGM-142 is also not supported...)

Range differences between F-15SG and Super Hornet are almost negligible (830nm combat radius vs 780 respectively). Also, don't believe everyting you read about bigger radar dishes meaning more grunt (AESA doesn't have a "dish" anyway) - it's the back end that gives the radar most its power. The latest APG-63(v)3 just being introduced to ANG F-15Cs now uses technology handed down from the Super's latest APG-79 and the APG-63(v)3 is about as far as you can take the F-15's radar, whereas APG-79 has much growth and development potential left in it.

Other advantages of the Super; it has networkable systems already integrated in at baseline level, has almost a cubic foot (which is a lot I'm told) of spare space for growth capability, and has a much lower RCS than an F-15E (about 1/3 in the front quarter I'm told anecdotally).

Originally Posted by Croppyking

The only disadvantage to selecting an F15 over a Super Hornet is that the aircrew will need complete re-training and a new OCU would need to be stood up, otherwise, bring on the strike eagle!

Aircrew will still need to be trained and an OCU will still need to be set up. There is virtually no commonality between classic and Super Hornet.

Magoo

[W800i]

http://81.144.183.107/Articles/2006/08/03/208267/Pictures+Boeing+rolls+out+EA-18G+Growler+FA-18+electronic+attack.html[/IMG]

[Buster Hyman]

Wow! Some serious wing upgrades have gone on there! Don't think I like the red tail though...

[Croppyking]

Magoo,

Some good gouge you have re: AESA radars.

I'd be interested to see the realities of the combat ranges you have quoted with similiarly configured aircraft (does this include loading stores on the outboard supers pylon?)

My understanding of the super vs classic for front seaters is that they are almost identical aircraft to fly - ie one or two mission checkouts is all that is required on the super.....?