This is a discussion on EA/18G Growler within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; I'd just say that the F35s aren't becoming operational before 2014... and that by then the F111s will be obsolete ...
I'd just say that the F35s aren't becoming operational before 2014... and that by then the F111s will be obsolete and the F18s will be really old...
Don't get trapped like we did in Italy, waiting for a decade for the "holy grail" Typhoon and desperately modernizing old birds such as the F104S/ASA before at the end realizing that stopgap measures -Tornado ADV and F16ADF- were vital to maintain air defence...
I'd just say that the F35s aren't becoming operational before 2014... and that by then the F111s will be obsolete and the F18s will be really old...
Don't get trapped like we did in Italy, waiting for a decade for the "holy grail" Typhoon and desperately modernizing old birds such as the F104S/ASA before at the end realizing that stopgap measures -Tornado ADV and F16ADF- were vital to maintain air defence...
cheers
I agree and we have a precedent for this in Australia. We leased 24cx F-4E Phantoms from the USAF, prior to the introduction of the F-111...
"Everything old IS new again"...
The Super Hornet, plus the HUG Hornet fleet, plus the A330's, Wedgetails and all our new weapons, targetting pods etc, will allow RAAF to maintain a truly capable and potent force until our plans WRT to the F-35 are sorted...
Australia should buy a mix of F and G models at least they could be used
as jammers and refuel F 35's when they come.
The procurement of 24 FA18Fs or a mix of Fs and Gs would certainly prevent a serious decline in the number of combat aircraft available to Australia between the retirement of the F111Cs and the arrival of the F35. Whilst upgrades to the FA18As will better equip them to take over the strike role from the F111C the fact is that there will less aircraft to carry out all the roles presently filled by the combined force of F111Cs and Hornets, unless an interim aircraft is acquired. Another advantage of getting a squadron of SHs is that it would take pressure off the need to acquire early model F35s and allow Australia to enter the program when some of the inevitable bugs have been ironed out.
I also agree with Jezza that including some FA18Gs with the Fs would provide a force that could provide valuable tanker and electronic warfare support to the F35s after they come into service. Thus they would become a permanent addition rather than an interim force (though maybe at the cost of fewer F35s being acquired).
Firstly, may I suggest that we leave any debate as to the merits of such an acquisition to the myriad of other threads currently underway, and leave this thread as just an information thread?
OK, here's the way it is from my understanding, although Occum and his contacts may have more inside information.
Boeing has been subtly pushing the Super Hornet option to Government for several years, although the previously unsolicted proposals turned 'solicited' earlier this year after Nelson said he had asked RAAF/DMO to look at options should the F-35 be delayed. The RAAF has always said the Super Hornet would be the 'Plan B' option for AIR 6000.
About two months ago I began to get wind of more serious discussions being underway with Boeing. One of their unsolicted proposals was a program internally dubbed 'Archangel' (thanks to Occum for filling in the last pieces of the puzzle on that) under which they were pitching Super Hornets to various nations in our region (Japan, India, Malaysia and Australia) with the plan to offset a purchase with as much local industry involvement as possible.
In Japan and India's case (120+ aircraft requirement each), this would likely include local final assembly of the aircraft and the manufacture of various components, engines etc; for Malaysia it may include the manufacture of some smaller high tech components; and for Australia, perhaps some more manufacturing involvement for Hawker de Havilland in the form of additional Super Hornet bits (HdH already does gear doors, trailing edge control surfaces for ALL Supers) and perhaps 777, 787, 747I and other opportunities from within the Boeing stable of airplanes.
In early December, Boeing IDS head Jim Albaugh and his Hornet sales head Rick McCrary were in Canberra and met with senior ADF and Govt officials, including the full National Security Commitee, to discuss the Super option, and it was basicaly agreed that the RAAF would take 24 F/A-18Fs as a "bridging" (NOT "interim") capability so the F-111s can be retired in 2010, and so we don't have to take as many LRIP F-35s as early as we thought we might have to. The first 'hint' (to me anyway) that something was going to happen was when Nelson dropped the HUG 2.3 ALR-2002 RWR in favour of the ALR-67, a system which is common to USN Supers.
The information in Thursday's Fin Review is basically correct, as it was leaked to them by the Minister's Office directly!
So, it looks like a goer, with the 'ONLY' details still to be worked out being the delivery schedule, the cost, the method of purchase, and the local industry opportunities... so it's fair to say there's still a bit of water to pass under the bridge yet.
It is unlikely such an arrangement would be a lease, as there are restrictions on how the aircraft can be operated (hours/month, G-limits etc), and you have nothing to show for it at the end of the lease term. However, an outright purchase, although 'lumpy' up front, gives the RAAF much more flexibility in the use of the aircraft, especially as a second tier to a fifth gen platform later on, and the option to keep them longer term (something alot of people wish we had done with the Phantoms 33 years ago!).
The delivery schedule is an interesting one - the USN currently gets its jets at a set unit rate of US$54.8m each as part of a four-year buy, however Boeing is currently more than a dozen jets and several months ahead of schedule, so there is flexibility in the line for USN jets to be taken out for the RAAF as long as they agree, similar to the arrangement with the USAF for our first two C-17s.
In a best case scenario, we could have 6-8 jets sitting on the ramp at Amberley 24 to 30 months after contract signature, so if something is signed in mid 07, we could have the makings of a capability by early 2010, in time for the F-111Cs to be retired on the current schedule of June 30, 2010. The F-111Gs would likely be canned as soon as practicable after a decision is made, and all the F-111Cs tranferred to 1 SQN, so 6 SQN can start the transition process.
Going on the above timetable scenario, an IOC and established training stream with 12-14 jets could be achieved by mid 2011, and FOC by mid to late 2012. Amberley is the most likely destination for the jets, although it may end up being Williamtown if the RAAF sticks with the current plan for 6 and then 1 SQNs to go over to the JSF first.
Hope this answers some. Opinions aside, anything you can add Occum?
For those with access, the Australian Defence Business Review which comes out in the next week or so has some good coverage of this issue.
Cheers
Magoo
________________
Lead, follow, or get out of the way!
and for Australia, perhaps some more manufacturing involvement for Hawker de Havilland in the form of additional Super Hornet bits (HdH already does gear doors, trailing edge control surfaces for ALL Supers) and perhaps 777, 787, 747I and other opportunities from within the Boeing stable of airplanes.
I was under the impression that honeycomb panelling for wings and tail surfaces was on the cards. (??)
interestingly enough, part of the initial Rafael "seduction offer" also included honeycomb and compound work for HdH
HdH do a fair bit of civil sub contracting for Boeing and Airbus already
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
Just for my clarification, I assume these aircraft should be veiwed as F-111C replacements not F-18A/B so there will be no real drop in numbers?
From magoos traffic they appear to be sep and thus supplemental.
If thats the case, then I'm happy as I've never been a fan of a single platform solution irrespective of what we get.
risk mitigation and all that... it appears (??) that these may well end up being a straight buy up if they can't be leased. Unless we have an option to "sell" back after 4-6 years?
if we're getting "broken" (as in a USN break in) production line Shornets, then that would seem to be an opportunity for India to fast track an iterative purchase if they select Shornets as well.
ie,
Boeing sell a USN committment to Oz
India gets a staggered sell of Shornets
Oz sells back to Boeing and State Dept release incoming tranche to India thus accelerating their overall delivery cycle.
As an interesting twist of variables, Australias opportunity also becomes Indias opportunity to accellerate their own cycle. Because we are Tier1 we get first bite, but that bite doesn't effect their decision, but actually fast tracks their end delivery cycle.
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
From magoos traffic they appear to be sep and thus supplemental.
If thats the case, then I'm happy as I've never been a fan of a single platform solution irrespective of what we get.
risk mitigation and all that... it appears (??) that these may well end up being a straight buy up if they can't be leased. Unless we have an option to "sell" back after 4-6 years?
if we're getting "broken" (as in a USN break in) production line Shornets, then that would seem to be an opportunity for India to fast track an iterative purchase if they select Shornets as well.
ie,
Boeing sell a USN committment to Oz
India gets a staggered sell of Shornets
Oz sells back to Boeing and State Dept release incoming tranche to India thus accelerating their overall delivery cycle.
As an interesting twist of variables, Australias opportunity also becomes Indias opportunity to accellerate their own cycle. Because we are Tier1 we get first bite, but that bite doesn't effect their decision, but actually fast tracks their end delivery cycle.
Personally, I don't see the advantages of the Super Hornet? Really, F-15E Strike Eagle offers way more capabilities.........and could be leased and easily sold secondhand to many current users in the region.
Personally, I don't see the advantages of the Super Hornet? Really, F-15E Strike Eagle offers way more capabilities.........and could be leased and easily sold secondhand to many current users in the region.
How about a whole generation of technolgy for one, AESA for two, reduced RCS for three, tighter turning radius for four, better dog fighter for five...
What would is the probability that the RAAF will purchase a number of EA-18G's and would they be included in the 24 aircraft to be ordered. If so what ratio of EA-18G's to FA-18F's would be required?
Personally, I don't see the advantages of the Super Hornet? Really, F-15E Strike Eagle offers way more capabilities.........and could be leased and easily sold secondhand to many current users in the region.
Like what?
The Super Hornet operates ALL the same weapon systems, plus has a more advanced EWSP systems and is more likely FAR cheaper to acquire AND to operate than the F-15E, in addition to the points raised by Big-E...
What would is the probability that the RAAF will purchase a number of EA-18G's and would they be included in the 24 aircraft to be ordered. If so what ratio of EA-18G's to FA-18F's would be required?
I'll stick my head on the block. maybe the chances will go up if wedgetail slips again...
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
Perhaps the best thing would be to buy the Shornets, and have Boeing equip perhaps eight of them as EA-18G models as compensation for the Wedgetail delays!
Perhaps the best thing would be to buy the Shornets, and have Boeing equip perhaps eight of them as EA-18G models as compensation for the Wedgetail delays!
Nice idea, but this implies the delays are down to Boeing. They are integrating the equipment, but what is the prime cause of the delays?
Wedgetail may prove to be a good concept, but it is rather putting all your eggs in one basket.
It is also a capital assest. Why not have a few fast movers that would have a better chance of escape if things get rough?
