Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
This is a discussion on Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by Ozzy Blizzard
I'm personally pretty confident LM can get it sorted and to us in a reasonable ...
There are a whole raft of others at a connected level who have a very low level of confidence. Boeing are having a very very bad run.
Do you know anything you can share about the Turks? Their defence procurement website says about the Peace Eagle "Due to delay in development by Boeing, program schedule and technical and administrative effects of delay are under evaluation." - last updated 26-02-2008.
I can imagine the Turks switching to Phalcon if Northrop Grumman & Boeing can't get their act together, but only if they lose all confidence in the radar.
Do you know anything you can share about the Turks? Their defence procurement website says about the Peace Eagle "Due to delay in development by Boeing, program schedule and technical and administrative effects of delay are under evaluation." - last updated 26-02-2008.
I can imagine the Turks switching to Phalcon if Northrop Grumman & Boeing can't get their act together, but only if they lose all confidence in the radar.
We recently signed an MOU with the Turkish Govt, so I would assume that they are getting decent access to generalist issues with Wedgetail. IIRC they (like Aust) have had some issues over Boeings disconnect between what they say is happening and what is actually happening.
We're both probably at the point of no return though. The Seasprite fiasco in Oz looms large though....
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
I don’t want to say too much here as I have an article on Wedgetail that should be public this week or next week so and I don’t want to give the game away before then. But while there is a new issue with Wedgetail the poor schedule performance previously and the lack of much public information about the new problems is such that there are lot of doom sayers out there at the moment taking advantage of the information vacuum. From my perspective this is not a game stopper unless someone within the DMO or Government wants to make it one. Certainly no where near the problems Seasprite was in during its last days.
in regards to super hornets rcs adavatage over flanker,is super hornets rcs advantage at an optimium if at the same altitude,on a closing course,dead ahead,and if so does the rcs advantage diminish if the super hornets opponent is at a different altitude and not dead ahead but off to the left or right by so many degrees?
The Super Hornet has tactically significant radar cross section (RCS) reduction in its frontal arc (the equivalent of a ball with a diameter of 1m). This would be to 20 degrees either side of boresight and probably around +- 10 degrees up/down of boresight. Which is quite significant as it means a ground radar at a range of 60km away would be looking at the aircraft flying level at 25,000 feet altitude at under 10 degree look up. To the sides and rear the RCS is much higher. RCS will also be increased significantly by certain types of external carriage of stores (not all). In particular Mk 80 series bombs (JDAM) and fuel tanks, anything with a spherical shape is hell on RCS. External carriage of AIM-120, JSOW and JASSM will not boost the frontal RCS by a significant figure.
The FLANKER has a very large frontal RCS, the equivalent of a ball with a diameter of 4.5m. Its side and rear RCS is even higher in proportion to the Super Hornet’s. So in any kind of head to head air combat scenario the Super Hornet’s RCS will provide it with a tactically significant advantage. Enough for it to shoot and scoot before the FLANKER knows it’s out there. Which is like Kosta Tszyu boxing a deaf, dumb and blind Mike Tyson.
The Super Hornet has tactically significant radar cross section (RCS) reduction in its frontal arc (the equivalent of a ball with a diameter of 1m). This would be to 20 degrees either side of boresight and probably around +- 10 degrees up/down of boresight. Which is quite significant as it means a ground radar at a range of 60km away would be looking at the aircraft flying level at 25,000 feet altitude at under 10 degree look up. To the sides and rear the RCS is much higher. RCS will also be increased significantly by certain types of external carriage of stores (not all). In particular Mk 80 series bombs (JDAM) and fuel tanks, anything with a spherical shape is hell on RCS. External carriage of AIM-120, JSOW and JASSM will not boost the frontal RCS by a significant figure.
The FLANKER has a very large frontal RCS, the equivalent of a ball with a diameter of 4.5m. Its side and rear RCS is even higher in proportion to the Super Hornet’s. So in any kind of head to head air combat scenario the Super Hornet’s RCS will provide it with a tactically significant advantage. Enough for it to shoot and scoot before the FLANKER knows it’s out there. Which is like Kosta Tszyu boxing a deaf, dumb and blind Mike Tyson.
so once super hornet lets off an amraam or 2 what will it do?will it/or will it need to give amraam a midcourse update ?and if so would the super hornets rcs now be large enough for flanker to see it, as they have closed the distance and get off a return shot?or would the amraam shot be true fire and forget from the start?and if fire and forget, does that mean a reduction or major reduction in probability of a hit versus a mid course update shot?also when superhornet lets off its shot its going to eventually have to do an about face and leave the area so its side and rear rcs profiles will be facing flankers radar,so would that be flankers cue to detect and get off a shot if still heading on its original course,as im assuming APG-79 mightnt have been detected and amraam radiates in the terminal phase.
Last edited by splat; December 3rd, 2008 at 11:38 PM.
so once super hornet lets off an amraam or 2 what will it do?will it/or will it need to give amraam a midcourse update ?
That depends on the situation. If its an AIM-120D then the missile can be updated directly from a 3rd party (i.e. another Rhino further away). Then the F/A-18F can disengage, hit the Flanker with an EA or follow up with another missile if need be.
Quote:
and if so would the super hornets rcs now be large enough for flanker to see it, as they have closed the distance and get off a return shot?
If they were closing head on towards an eventual merge then yes. But the whole point of limited RCS reduction is to achieve detection before counter detection (first look). What first look allows you to do is set the terms of the engagement; If there are too many to engage the SH can disengage before it is detected, it can maneuver with the intent of launching a missile from outside the Flankers sensor footprint (remember radars only look straight ahead) or at the very minimum launch first (first shot).
Half the advantage of shooting first is you will force the other guy to maneuver before you have to. If you are both supporting your missiles with mid course updates (and neither missile is being updated via a 3rd party) the fact that yours is flying first means that yours will get there first. What this means is if he wants to support his missile throughout the flight path up until end game your missile is going to get there first i.e. he will be dead. So he will have to maneuver and stop supporting his shot which reduces the pk significantly. At extreme range without updates a BVR missile shot is not going to have much chance of success.
Additionally shooting first and remaining undetected at the time of launch provides other benefits. By delaying detection of the threat you increase your missiles No Escape Volume/Zone because you delay the targets evasive reaction. Outrunning a missile only works if you run early enough, and even within the NEZ delaying evasive maneuver means your shot will arrive at a higher end game energy state thus increasing the pk.
So yes the Flanker can shoot back, but with missiles already in the air the Rhino has a significant advantage by setting the terms of the engagement. Again if the SH was able to launch on an unsuspecting Flanker from outside its radar footprint and the missile remained undetected throughout its flightpath the Flanker might only recognize the threat at the terminal stage. That means a high energy missile with you in the center of its engagement basket and your in a low energy state. Not good.
Quote:
or would the amraam shot be true fire and forget from the start?and if fire and forget, does that mean a reduction or major reduction in probability of a hit versus a mid course update shot?
Yes you can use an AMRAAM as a fire and forget weapon, relying on GPS and INS to get the missile to the terminal stage where its seeker can take over, but at long range the pk is going to be low. Thats why they have data-link systems installed.
Quote:
also when superhornet lets off its shot its going to eventually have to do an about face and leave the area so its side and rear rcs profiles will be facing flankers radar,so would that be flankers cue to detect and get off a shot if still heading on its original course,as im assuming APG-79 mightnt have been detected and amraam radiates in the terminal phase.
Yes but by your assuming the F/A-18F stayed within the Flankers radar footprint, it may well not have. But in any case the SH has got the first shots off, so the Flanker needs to maneuver to survive and cant support its missile shots for long.
Achieving first shot is a huge advantage, and thats what the RCS reduction on the super hornet is designed to achieve. It's not F-22A style VLO which for the most part render's the platform invulnerable in the BVR regime. With superior LPI radar and ESM/RWR, its designed to allow the Rhino to set the terms of the engagement by achieving detection and track before counter-detection.
With the price of f35 lightning seems to be creeping up with cost blow outs and the economic meltdown, should Australia consider an all super hornet fleet?
I can not find an overall price on the different planes so i don’t know how much cheaper the super hornet will be compared to an f35
But say the 16 billion they have allocated to the new aircraft, do you think it is a wise decision to get 100/120 super’s or go with 70/80 f35
A lot of the resource are all ready in place, a conversion to supers only seems to be a few hour of orientation for the pilots.
Also can I have people thought on going from a twin engine to single engine, when you take into consideration one of the main reasons we went with legacy hornets was the twin engine design from the mirage fighters, does anyone see any problems with this?
I was under the impression that the RAAF wanted twin engine set ups for redundancy for long over water flights.
With the price of f35 lightning seems to be creeping up with cost blow outs and the economic meltdown, should Australia consider an all super hornet fleet?
I can not find an overall price on the different planes so i don’t know how much cheaper the super hornet will be compared to an f35
But say the 16 billion they have allocated to the new aircraft, do you think it is a wise decision to get 100/120 super’s or go with 70/80 f35
A lot of the resource are all ready in place, a conversion to supers only seems to be a few hour of orientation for the pilots.
Also can I have people thought on going from a twin engine to single engine, when you take into consideration one of the main reasons we went with legacy hornets was the twin engine design from the mirage fighters, does anyone see any problems with this?
I was under the impression that the RAAF wanted twin engine set ups for redundancy for long over water flights.
Tom Burbage was in Australia in November 2008.
He admitted that the cost of the Lightning II has increased. By 38% in fact.
He also pointed out that 35% of this increase was due to the increasing cost of titanium at present.
How is choosing another platform going to manage that issue?
The engine issue isn't very relevant for the F-35. With older engines like the Atar turbojets on the Miro you had frequent engine stoppages so you really wanted two. But the F135/F136 on the F-35 has a massive increase in reliability and fault prediction. Its really a non-issue in the 21st century.
There are a range of cost issues beyond just acquistion of the platform for comparing F-35 and Super Hornet. Paticullarily in sustainability. Also the F-35 has an Australian industry component whereas the Super Hornet is all American. Spending dollars at home is much better for the Australian economy than spending in the USA. The Super Hornet is however a good backup incase something significantly goes wrong with the F-35. But this doesn't appear to be happening.
There are a range of cost issues beyond just acquistion of the platform for comparing F-35 and Super Hornet. Paticullarily in sustainability. Also the F-35 has an Australian industry component whereas the Super Hornet is all American. Spending dollars at home is much better for the Australian economy than spending in the USA. The Super Hornet is however a good backup incase something significantly goes wrong with the F-35. But this doesn't appear to be happening.
Agree that their is more to the price of aircraft than just fly away price.
If the budget is caped at 16 billion for which i see that it will be from the noise that treasury are making about F35,do we reduce the fleet size or go with some thing slightly less effective (holden statesman to a Calais) to have the same amount of aircraft we currently have?
Agree that their is more to the price of aircraft than just fly away price.
If the budget is caped at 16 billion for which i see that it will be from the noise that treasury are making about F35,do we reduce the fleet size or go with some thing slightly less effective (holden statesman to a Calais) to have the same amount of aircraft we currently have?
RAAF seems pretty much set on JSF. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-31477,00.html
"THE RAAF will need to acquire 100 F-35 joint strike fighters to ensure a credible future air combat capability for Australia, air force chief Mark Binskin has warned."
RAAF don't have that many options. If there are budgetary constraints then maybe the Supers will be kept beyond 2020.
There has been talk of a Super Hornet block III. Not sure if that has any legs atm, or whether it's a Boeing pipedream.
Another cited option is some form of UCAV.
Whilst I'm sure the septics have such projects in the pipeline, I'm not sure that 'they' can mature enough and become a feasible option, within the current timeframe needed by the RAAF.
If the budget is tight or if a batch of F-35s are to be acquired in that time frame; an dual purpose armed-recon Global Hawk/Mariner might be adequate.
