Go back and read page after page after page of explanations for the justifications of why you are wrong on so many counts. Maybe you have a problem with reading compreshension. Other people have made eve better arguments that mine in this thread as to why you are wrong. Go back and read. Then I suggest you do some independent research that does not involve Dr Kopp.
EA/18G Growler
- Thread starter Malayali
- Start date
-
- Tags
- boeing northrop grumman
Just to add my tuppence worth as a non techy....
The SH is a fine aircraft, the Typhoon is a fine aircraft, the f35 is a fine aircraft, the latest Flanker is a fine aircraft.....but are fine aircraft ever going to go up against each other in isolation?
In the case of Australia, the various arguments about whether SH/F35 will be able to do A,B,C against S.E Asian Flankers seems to forget that said Flankers will have been severly mauled by Tomahawk missiles from Aussie stocks before they even take off (tomahawk being purchased?)/SH and F35 ordnance and I would like to add, the huge assets (ooh) of the US and in the event of war in S.E ASIA, the small but potent contribution of the UK.
What I am saying is, that although the multitude of Aussie barmen who live near me in the UK cant seem to grasp the liquid line on a pintglass,nevertheless, in the event of war between said ex colony and her enemies, us western nations would be at the shoulder of the sheep lovers adding naval assets, aircraft, troops etc etc etc.
I would put money on the fact that no SH will ever wage war on a SE Asian neighbour,although its UCAV replacement might. Your "enemies" know full well that australia is absolutely a western nation despite the geographical location. Your SH/F35 will be just part of a huge information and sensor network that in my opinion the non western world cant quite yet emulate.
The SH is a fine aircraft, the Typhoon is a fine aircraft, the f35 is a fine aircraft, the latest Flanker is a fine aircraft.....but are fine aircraft ever going to go up against each other in isolation?
In the case of Australia, the various arguments about whether SH/F35 will be able to do A,B,C against S.E Asian Flankers seems to forget that said Flankers will have been severly mauled by Tomahawk missiles from Aussie stocks before they even take off (tomahawk being purchased?)/SH and F35 ordnance and I would like to add, the huge assets (ooh) of the US and in the event of war in S.E ASIA, the small but potent contribution of the UK.
What I am saying is, that although the multitude of Aussie barmen who live near me in the UK cant seem to grasp the liquid line on a pintglass,nevertheless, in the event of war between said ex colony and her enemies, us western nations would be at the shoulder of the sheep lovers adding naval assets, aircraft, troops etc etc etc.
I would put money on the fact that no SH will ever wage war on a SE Asian neighbour,although its UCAV replacement might. Your "enemies" know full well that australia is absolutely a western nation despite the geographical location. Your SH/F35 will be just part of a huge information and sensor network that in my opinion the non western world cant quite yet emulate.
Good points Dave,
Unfortunately no Tomahawks, which I would personally love to see in the RAN inventory, have yet been ordered by Australia, nor are they projected. However, the RAAF is building up a substantial inventory of stand off weapons for both new and existing aircraft, which would be used to do the things you suggest, and the Harpoon Block II, which has a land attack capability, is being acquired for RAN frigates and the new air warfare destroyers.
Tomahawks aside, I think this post puts things nicely into perspective. Australia is most unlikely to engage a major power by itself and in the event of a major conflict with another country in the region the RAAF would not just sit back and wait for enemy strike aircraft to attack our cities. It would go after its bases.
Cheers
Last edited:
Tomahawk isn't in the picture. JASSM is though, which is more survivable ( L.O. qualities ) Which leads back to the bad decision to shortcut the F-111 right away, which could place a JASSM at a lot longer reach. Super Hornet especially the F with less fuel, is only about 20% ( unknown with JASSM drag ) more range than the legacy Hornet on a good day and sometimes less. There might be no way to stop getting the Super Hornet. However the least they could have done was get E models with more internal gas, ( F-18E 14,400 lb (6,530 kg),F-18F 13,550 lb (6,145 kg) approx. ) including not having a jobs program for the second ex-F-111 crewman. NCW which is where the RAAF is going will mean that second crewman isn't much needed for Super Hornet. Your extra "crewman" is a lot of other people on the network. If F-111 goes away, that second crewman is better used moving into the Wedgetail and UAV community bringing their vast tip of the spear shooter experience as a value added thing to ISR. USAF E-8 JSTARS ( some similar mission sets to Wedgetail ) have people in their community with previous shooter experience. As the RAAF is just growing their doctrine for Wedgetail and UAVs, having previous shooters from the F-111 community to help that doctrine will be a big help. The E Super Hornet is the better choice over the F.
Hi Tasman,
Just a quick comment on the Tomahawk from a recent converstion with a WO on the Te Kaha, on a open day in Christchurch i was advised that if the requirement was needed quickly for a long reach option weapon that the Tomahawk can be implemented and installed very quickly on the ANZACS using the VLS system alongside the Sparrow.
The Harpoon 11 would definitly make a very good land option once its up and running and commissioned on US Navy destroyers and cruisers. The ANZACS are still waiting for the implementation of the Harpoon or similar at this stage but i do understand the Collins already have them making them a formidable element in the RAN and in a preemptive strike situation.
Just a quick comment on the Tomahawk from a recent converstion with a WO on the Te Kaha, on a open day in Christchurch i was advised that if the requirement was needed quickly for a long reach option weapon that the Tomahawk can be implemented and installed very quickly on the ANZACS using the VLS system alongside the Sparrow.
The Harpoon 11 would definitly make a very good land option once its up and running and commissioned on US Navy destroyers and cruisers. The ANZACS are still waiting for the implementation of the Harpoon or similar at this stage but i do understand the Collins already have them making them a formidable element in the RAN and in a preemptive strike situation.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
The publicly declared nominal operational altitude is listed as 9,144 - 12,497 m, which I presume would be fairly close to accurate, since Wedgetail is a modified 737-700. I also would assume the declared range is from the operating altitude. Given the tendency to under-report the performance of mil systems, I wouldn't be surprised if the L-band MESA range at altitude was actually greater by 25% or more. The listed range for the IFF system is 555 km or 345 miles, while radar range is listed as 200 n miles/370 km. The point I was making about the effectiveness of the tactic with the R-172 had little to do with what the max R-172 launch range was though. Unless the launch aircraft closed with the Wedgetail (within 100 miles/160km) there would be time for an escorting aircraft to intercept the missile. Or as mentioned, the MESA could conduct an electronic attack upon the missile itself with the T/R modules. As for aircraft entering within 160 km, they would be engaged by the escorting fighters and/or the fighters awaiting direction by the AEW&C. Then there is the question of how effective (and available) the R-172 is. The missile might have the range to reach a distance of 215 n miles, but will it have the guidance and energy to intercept a mobile target. Even if using a radar-homing guidance package, if the MESA makes use of LPI tech, the seeker might not get enough to maintain guidance. Part of the reason the HARM was developed was the prior radar-seeker, Shrike, sometimes didn't hit because the emitter was shut down before the missile could hit, causing the missile to "forget". Modifications were done so that the HARM was faster, hence H for High speed, so that the HARM could strike before the radar could shut down. When factoring in a potentially manuevering airborne target moving at 760+ km/h, with a LPI radar, an R-172 fired at extreme range would have problems...
What I was referring to was the assumptions by some... regarding the potential development paths available for both the Flanker and SH/JSF. The assumptions seemed to be that the sensor development available to the Flanker would allow the Flanker to detect and engage the SH/JSF before the SH/JSF could detect and engage the Flanker. I have problems with assumptions such as these, particularly for the JSF which is a LO design. The SH has LO features (compared to other 4th gen aircraft), and the JSF is LO, though not to the all-aspect degree of the F-22. If LO features were irrelevant, then the preferred air dominance platforms would be Wedgetail variants, armed with hardened, ALRAAM developments of the Phoenix AAM.
On to other things.
Don't short sell JORN or the advantage it can give the ADF. I don't expect I'm writing anything GF doesn't already know and/or have thought about, but JORN, and to a lesser extent SECAR are assets. As I understand it, the systems aren't precise enough to provide an exact location or targeting data, but the early warning that can be provided gives the ADF time to concentrate forces where effective, decide where to engage, and a host of other potential options. Being able to get even a general location on enemy aircraft/vessels up to 3,000+ km away will give options. I don't know if JORN is accurate enough to determine aircraft size, speed, heading or numbers (distinguish between several fighters together in a flight) but if it can at least track heading, SH or JSF should be able to be directed to a position allowing a side-on aspect attack. This would likely negate any sensor developments in the Flanker-series, since the Flanker nose cone housing the sensors would be perpendicular relative to the approaching RAAF aircraft. With a 3,000 km detection range, the advanced notice give the ADF info on "enemy " positioning, before the "enemy" has similar information on the ADF. And ss GF indicated earlier, information is key.
As for the listed scenarios of PLA-AF or IAF vs. RAAF, as presented, I find them of dubious merit at best, even over a 40 year timeframe. At present both sides (PLA-AF/IAF or RAAF) lack the abilities to engage in sustained operations against each other over the distances required. A stand alone attack (cruise missile launch/bombing raid on Perth, Darwin, etc) would be difficult, expensive and ineffective unless done in massive numbers or for delivery of a nuclear device. Either would cause fallout (pun intended) regionally and internationally. Attempts to shorten the distance by forward basing would draw members of the international community into the situation. As for the future, if India or China develop the power projection capabilities to effect Australia and appear threatening then Australia would need to develop as I call it, the "chicken-bone defence". Where Australia, which can't be expected to match either nation in terms of numbers, can retain sufficient striking power to "kill" the attacking nation even as Australia is being defeated. This would most likely consist of nuclear weaponry. Hopefully, this potential situation will just remain an academic discussion.
-Cheers
Last edited:
The choice of an all 2 seater force is an interesting one, especially as the RAAF still hopes to eventually end up with an all single seat F-35 force. I suspect it reinforces the fact that the RAAF sees the SH primarily as a strike aircraft and prefers a second crewmember for this. I can see value in a percentage of 2 seaters for roles like FAC but I would be interested in hearing the reasons for an all FA-18F force.
Magoo?
Cheers
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
One possible reason behind the selection of the -F variant is that the US will be doing more development work on that airframe. The EA-18G Growler variant will be based off the -F variant. By purchasing the -F the RAAF can possibly convert or augment them to a SEAD role in addition to their current planned strike role.
-Cheers
Comment by F111 pilot re FA-18F in letter to 7:30 Report
Letters re the 7:30 Report program on the FA-18F have finally been placed on the ABC website. There were letters both for and against which you can read on the website. I was particularly interested in the following comments made by a 1 Squadron F111 pilot which I thought were very pertinent:
Cheers
Letters re the 7:30 Report program on the FA-18F have finally been placed on the ABC website. There were letters both for and against which you can read on the website. I was particularly interested in the following comments made by a 1 Squadron F111 pilot which I thought were very pertinent:
http://www2b.abc.net.au/guestbookce...lter3val=&view=&advanced=&Action=&pagestart=9
Cheers
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Very interesting read. It's good to see comments from an end-user about platforms. Also interesting to see what "widgets" an end-user values, and in what order... It's beginning to look like the actual performance of an aircraft is becoming less important than what it brings along with it. It will be interesting to see what the future holds.
-Cheers
Ok in summary of the last 10 pages...
One argument is that some believe the IRST capability of the Suhkoi's give it the ability to see the Stealthy F-22 and F-35 first and possibly get a shot off. The Suhkoi's radar is relatively useless against the F-22 or F-35 due to not being able to detect them until its too late. E.g missile bays opening. IRST is rather unproven in combat and specs are hard to fine. The people using this argument would have to agree that at the very best the Suhkoi and F-22/F-35 would detect each other at a similar range. A worst case scenario would see the Suhkoi's IRST not even detecting the F-22/F-35 at all, due to bad weather or the small field of view. Saying the IRST may improve is not much use.
The second argument that the majority believe is that that the Radar on either the F-22 and F-35 will be able to detect the Suhkoi well before the Suhkoi can detect either of them. One of the main idea's is that IRST only has a small field of view and is quite short range if it has to search a large volume. As the F-22 and F-35 will detect the Suhkoi much earlier that allows them to sneak up on the enemy. Most agree that they can get a shot on them before they are even detected by the Suhkoi. This argument makes the high speed and agility of the Suhkois irrelevent. The slow speed of the F-35 may not allow it to disengage however it doesn't need to as it should will most likely get first look, first shoot, first kill.
So if the F-22 and F-35 can easily detect the Suhkoi's first then it will win the majority of engagements without even entering visual range. If Suhkoi's IRST detecting range is less than the range of an AMRAAM then it is game over for the Suhkoi's as the F-35 and F-22 will win every time as they will not even enter detection range of the Suhkoi's. This is also most likely the case, and as the range of the AMRAAM will most likely increase along with the range of the IRST it will remain so in the future.
So the F-35 will most likely be able to provide air superiority for Australia. It wont have to enter visual which is a big plus due to its lower thrust to weight ratio it would prefer not to dogfight.
With Wedgetail its radar will be able to give all Australian aircraft the tactical advantage and allow them to attack on the sides of the Suhkoi etc. If the enemy gets an AWAC this wont be very usefull due to the radar cross section of the F-35. The IRST on the Suhkoi's would probably detect the Australian aircraft before the AWAC's radar would, however by then it would be too late as an AMRAAM missile would be on its way.
Regarding the Super Hornet. Its radar cross section with weapons is still pretty large. The Suhkoi's may even detect the Super Hornet first it would no doubt be a close fight. We may well loose a Super Hornet against a Suhkoi attack but by the time Indonesia has enough aircraft the F-35 will be here.
We all agree that the Super Hornet will give a massive performance increase in all area's. It may not be as much of an increase as the F-22 or some evolved F-111 but it still is a very significantly increase.
Both arguments are correct at certain points, but the overall package would see the F-35 wining nearly all engagements.
One argument is that some believe the IRST capability of the Suhkoi's give it the ability to see the Stealthy F-22 and F-35 first and possibly get a shot off. The Suhkoi's radar is relatively useless against the F-22 or F-35 due to not being able to detect them until its too late. E.g missile bays opening. IRST is rather unproven in combat and specs are hard to fine. The people using this argument would have to agree that at the very best the Suhkoi and F-22/F-35 would detect each other at a similar range. A worst case scenario would see the Suhkoi's IRST not even detecting the F-22/F-35 at all, due to bad weather or the small field of view. Saying the IRST may improve is not much use.
The second argument that the majority believe is that that the Radar on either the F-22 and F-35 will be able to detect the Suhkoi well before the Suhkoi can detect either of them. One of the main idea's is that IRST only has a small field of view and is quite short range if it has to search a large volume. As the F-22 and F-35 will detect the Suhkoi much earlier that allows them to sneak up on the enemy. Most agree that they can get a shot on them before they are even detected by the Suhkoi. This argument makes the high speed and agility of the Suhkois irrelevent. The slow speed of the F-35 may not allow it to disengage however it doesn't need to as it should will most likely get first look, first shoot, first kill.
So if the F-22 and F-35 can easily detect the Suhkoi's first then it will win the majority of engagements without even entering visual range. If Suhkoi's IRST detecting range is less than the range of an AMRAAM then it is game over for the Suhkoi's as the F-35 and F-22 will win every time as they will not even enter detection range of the Suhkoi's. This is also most likely the case, and as the range of the AMRAAM will most likely increase along with the range of the IRST it will remain so in the future.
So the F-35 will most likely be able to provide air superiority for Australia. It wont have to enter visual which is a big plus due to its lower thrust to weight ratio it would prefer not to dogfight.
With Wedgetail its radar will be able to give all Australian aircraft the tactical advantage and allow them to attack on the sides of the Suhkoi etc. If the enemy gets an AWAC this wont be very usefull due to the radar cross section of the F-35. The IRST on the Suhkoi's would probably detect the Australian aircraft before the AWAC's radar would, however by then it would be too late as an AMRAAM missile would be on its way.
Regarding the Super Hornet. Its radar cross section with weapons is still pretty large. The Suhkoi's may even detect the Super Hornet first it would no doubt be a close fight. We may well loose a Super Hornet against a Suhkoi attack but by the time Indonesia has enough aircraft the F-35 will be here.
We all agree that the Super Hornet will give a massive performance increase in all area's. It may not be as much of an increase as the F-22 or some evolved F-111 but it still is a very significantly increase.
Both arguments are correct at certain points, but the overall package would see the F-35 wining nearly all engagements.
You obviously don't get around too many of the Oz military forums then.OK, find me an aircrew currently serving that would say something that would pull the rug out from the current position of Defence.
You obviously haven't see the stack of complaints that goes through the system. You obviously have never seen uniforms go up to one of the braids and have a whinge (I have numerous times).
One thing that service people aren't shy of is whingeing when they're going to have to put up with schitt kit.
But, its seems that the snipers and white anting will continue on irrespective of the outcome.
Seen it all before. Funnily enough we went through the same hysterics over the streaming in for the F-111's, the Phantoms and Collins.
Now the F-111's are the best thing since sliced bread and the saviours of civilization (as we know it). The fact that we only got them to work properly nearly 40 years after they hit the drawing boards has escaped the memory of a few.
But I guess its easier to malign the integrity of a bloke in 1 Sqdn who takes a contrarian view from the doom and gloomers than accept the fact that he might actually have a better operational clue than all of us put together. (apart from the one bloke in here who does actually chug around in a Rhino for a living)
:unknown
Last edited:
No offence guys, but we've been over (and over, and over
) this ground many times before, and with the pissing contests and various crap that is being written here by the usual suspects, I'd just rather sit back and read for now.I'm happy to try to answer any questions in PM, and will try to get back to you tomorrow Tas.
Cheers
Magoo
Yeah, but if they don't like the decision, they don't have to say anything ELP. They could just shut up rather than write a letter to the producers to back the decision.OK, find me an aircrew currently serving that would say something that would pull the rug out from the current position of Defence.
Oh well, so much for just sitting back and reading! That plan lasted a whole 5 minutes!
Magoo
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Perhaps you should read this months Airforces Monthly magazine and you'll read about some of the capabilities of the SH. It is no mug. For starters it has NOT been mentioned by anyone else (that I have seen) however SH's WILL field their own advanced IRST system on operational USN birds in 2008 and WILL equip RAAF SH's either initially or down the track...
Why are the Russian radars so superior? Because APA say they are? Because Russian manufacturers say they are? Because American and European manufacturers DON'T disclose the range of their systems publicly?
Dr Kopp loves to state how superior the Russian radars and avionics are compared to "our" systems. Seems a bit incongrous then that the users of the Russian systems that can afford to do so, swap out the Russian avionics for "Western" systems doesn't it? I'm sure it ain't exactly cheap or easy to integrate these systems into the Russian made jets, so why exactly do they do it? India, one of our "threat nations" as APA likes to promote, is a prime example of this, with it's SU-30's. Malaysia is another.
SH's are NOT stealthy. Defmin Nelson should read his briefing notes. What they DO have is a relatively low "front on" RCS measure. Significantly less than any other fighter besides F-35 and F-22 from all reports and certainly much less than any SU series fighter. The benefits of this when going "head to head" against other fighters should be obvious.
Fact is the SH's and F-35's will be just fine and will massively increase RAAF's combat capability. Believing otherwise is simply delusional.
Delusional, certainly describes any senior leadership of any force that decides to put Super Hornet up against a big SU in the future years.
The F-111 aircrew stance in that post is at least of some use if you intend to get a lot more tankers. Fact of the matter is you won't see serving aircrew dis an airframe because they have a career. Raise your hand if you work for a company and you think that you will be allowed to have a job after your boss finds out you said (in public media) that the companies wonderful new product was crap.
Thinking that avionics only and not avionics and good raw airframe performance makes a fighter jet ( especially when the public mention of the decision maker states part of that reason is "air superiority" ) is certainly delusional. Not having a fly-off of competitive products before spending $6 dollars that doesn't even belong to you, and creating a house of cards reasoning around the purchase decision is fraud.
The F-111 aircrew stance in that post is at least of some use if you intend to get a lot more tankers. Fact of the matter is you won't see serving aircrew dis an airframe because they have a career. Raise your hand if you work for a company and you think that you will be allowed to have a job after your boss finds out you said (in public media) that the companies wonderful new product was crap.
Thinking that avionics only and not avionics and good raw airframe performance makes a fighter jet ( especially when the public mention of the decision maker states part of that reason is "air superiority" ) is certainly delusional. Not having a fly-off of competitive products before spending $6 dollars that doesn't even belong to you, and creating a house of cards reasoning around the purchase decision is fraud.
Well since APA have been advocating putting an F-111 up against a big SU (how else do they fulfil their strike role) they must be suffereing from a similar delusion as it has a larger RCS than SH by a massive margin and despite its speed (depending on what is draped on its wings) should find itself in trouble for all the arguements pushed by the SH doubters.
I especially include USN leadership in that statement. Part of the difference here is that USN had to pay out funds to a ship building lobby in their budgets also. A-12 being mismanaged into the dirt, F-14 production equipment being scrapped. A thin post cold war budget in the 90s that would see almost a whole squadron of legacy Hornets put up unflyable on sawhorses with their spare parts stripped so another squadron could go on carrier duty and have spares available at sea etc. etc. And any number of other things. SH ended up on the deck because it had a new car smell and was in production. Super Hornet solved an alleged* problem of the checkbook. And even then, the way we do air power with a ton of tankers is yet one more reason not to follow our doctrine. Defence making a buying decision based on what USN has is unwise**. The one remaining shelter the USN has is that at least the airfield (carrier) it is on, can move around.
Gentleman, I hope I am really really wrong, as the alternative isn't so great. If JSF gets delayed and costed up... not because it is a badly run program... it is a well run program.... If that gets delayed because we in the U.S. can't balance a checkbook and keep shoveling cash into the war, JSF is going to get hurt and maybe even bad. If Super Hornet arrives here, it will have cache based on it has a new car smell, is available and has the word "super" attached to it. If JSF goes really bad, your decision won't be how much more to wait on JSF, but whether you want to populate the rest of your fighter force going up to 100, with E model or F model Super Hornets. Then your doctrine will be tied to the limits of that jet.
What I respectfully suggest to some of you is that you read up on all of your neighbors and how they are getting all different kinds of Chinese inspired funding for any number of domestic infrastructure projects and how part of that will be paid for by giving the PLA military access in all shapes and forms. Part of that is happening now in small ways ( E.Timor ) and other places and can be expected only to increase over the years with a PLA that is flush with cash.
Locking yourself into certain fighter purchases without considering others, will lock you into an aircraft type that once Army and Navy declare that RAAF has their toys now and they need funding for Army/Navy projects x y and z, getting further funding to replace your stop-gap Super Hornet if JSF falls on it's face, is going to be a problem not fixed any time soon. Boeing will be only to glad to see LM fall on its face and kindly offer you a deal on Super Hornets to replace your legacy Hornets.
*=studies also showed that a new build legacy Hornet with new accessories, would have been good enough for USN until JSF arrived on the deck and cost less than the Super Hornet program.
**=Defence announced the other day ASRAAM/AIM-132 wont' go on Super Hornet. AIM-9X will be part of the deal to "add more comonality with the USN". Funny as for RAF ASRAAM is part of their JSF plan.