Yank aircraft down under

[Rich]

With all the apparent unhappiness I see on the Internet,
ie: Aussie unhappiness about Yank war planes,

I wonder why doesn't Australia have fly-off competitions pitting Yank aircraft against European, Russian, and Chinese planes?

And why doesn't Australia chose the other fighters over Yank ones?

 

[abramsteve]

With all the apparent unhappiness I see on the Internet, ie: Aussie unhappiness about Yank war planes,

I wonder why doesn't Australia have fly-off competitions pitting Yank aircraft against European, Russian, and Chinese planes?

And why doesn't Australia chose the other fighters over Yank ones?

Mate not everyones unhappy. Trust me.

I think you might be looking for a fight. My suggestion is to end this disscussion now before it causes trouble...

 

[knightrider4]

US Aircraft.

Some are indeed unhappy but the fact remains that the United States manufactures some exceptional warplanes.

There are many who simply beleive that the governments choice of aircraft, those being the F35 and the SuperHornet are simply not good enough.

That is there choice and indeed their right to state their opinions.

 

[Tasman]

With all the apparent unhappiness I see on the Internet, ie: Aussie unhappiness about Yank war planes,

I wonder why doesn't Australia have fly-off competitions pitting Yank aircraft against European, Russian, and Chinese planes?

And why doesn't Australia chose the other fighters over Yank ones?

I might be wrong Rich, but I suspect the people you are talking about are in a minority.

Nevertheless, it is true that the selection of the JSF without a transparent selection process has caused considerable argument and debate.

Since the failure of the British built Meteor to be able to engage the MIG15 on equal terms in Korea, Australia has tried to ensure that its pilots have the best fighters available.

After Korea the RAAF acquired a licence built version of the Sabre (ahead of aircraft like the British Hawker Hunter). Its next fighter, after evaluating available aircraft from the USA, was the French Mirage III.

When a replacement for the Canberra tactical bomber was required, the American F111 was chosen ahead of the British TSR2, the American A5 Vigilante and the French Mirage IV. The American F4 Phantom II was subsequently leased to fill a cabability gap caused by delays to the F111.

The Mirage III replacement was keenly contested and the FA18A Hornet was chosen.

To replace the Hornet and F111 it was originally planned to call expressions of interest from competing designers which would have included European fighters. The decision to abandon this process and sign up to the JSF program, with an expectation that it would be selected if it met expectations (they haven't actually been ordered), was certainly controversial but seems to have been enthusiastically supported by the RAAF hierarchy.

I think in retrospect it might have been better to have gone ahead with a selection process. The result would probably have been the same but I think it may have been more widely accepted.

In the case of the FA-18F I think the RAAF has chosen the most suitable aircraft to bridge the capability gap that will arise with Hornets undergoing modifications and the retirement of the F111s before the F-35s enter service. I think this is a different situation to the JSF decision as it was one that needed to be resolved quickly and in this case I think it was reasonable for the government to take RAAF advice rather than calling expressions of interest.

Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

With all the apparent unhappiness I see on the Internet,
ie: Aussie unhappiness about Yank war planes,

I wonder why doesn't Australia have fly-off competitions pitting Yank aircraft against European, Russian, and Chinese planes?

And why doesn't Australia chose the other fighters over Yank ones?

It is a vocal minority, led by the Air Power Australia group that is unhappy about RAAF's choice of fighter aircraft. RAAF is ecstatic about Government's choices for new fighter aircraft and is telling "all and sundry"...

Air Power Australia has led this campaign due to the fact they will suffer direct financial loss (oh and of course there is their "overwhelming" concern for Australia's wellbeing) if there F-111 proposals are not taken up.

Certain APA members stand to gain a certain amount (probably LARGE amount) of royalties if their proposal for F-111 upgrades are pursued, due to the work they submitted for such proposals as part of the AIR-6000 program. Dr Kopp admitted such publicly, on ABC radio national only a few days ago.

In addition to which the F-111 upgrade proposals are of course accompanied by numerous writings and work by Dr Kopp on the F-22 and it's potential for service with RAAF.

If these aircraft were NOT chosen, Australian Flight Test Services would lose financially and a large part (though not all) of Dr Kopp's extensive previous works would become largely irrelevant over night.

There would be little difference in the arguments, if the Typhoon, Rafale or Gripen were to be chosen over JSF, Super Hornet, from this group, except then they'd be able to point out (with a rather large dose of irony included however) that not only are these aircraft aerodynamically inferior to the SU-30 Flanker variants "flooding" our region, but completely lacking in steath too.

Their arguments are carefully designed to enhance their F-111/F-22 proposals and negative any counter arguments which demonstrate that perhaps all is not quite as they would have it...

Unfortunately their "enthusiasm" has become somewhat infectious of late. They are convincing others, or at least ghost writing articles pushing the same mantra.

Still all they've done so far is bring their arguments into the public arena. They have been spectacularly unsuccessful to date in convincing Government (beyond 1 or 2 insignificant back-benchers) or RAAF (beyond 1 or 2 Junior officers) to change their minds.

This is evidenced by the $6b Super Hornet purchased announced recently and first pass approval (the first "hurdle" for Australian defence acquisitions in Australia, 2nd pass approval is the go ahead to purchase a specific capability) for JSF in December 2006.

IMHO, if the Liberals retain power in Australia in November 2007, they can kiss goodbye any remaining chance of convincing Government to reconsider it's options...

 

[ELP]

Good points all. My concern is how the Super Hornet was selected. Top Defence published total mis-information on the F-15 Strike Eagle here:

http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/NelsonMintpl.cfm?CurrentId=6437

Were other aircraft such as the F-15 considered?

Yes. Defence has maintained a watching brief on other 4th generation aircraft like the F-15. The Super Hornet is the most capable 4.5 generation fighter for Australia, with many 5th generation attributes – particularly the new radar and low-observable technology. The F-15 is not in US production, is not capable in all air combat roles and does not provide an adequate maritime strike capability.


The F-15s are being phased out in the US and replaced by aircraft such as the Joint Strike Fighter.

Almost none of that is correct when you look at an "export" model of the F-15Strike Eagle in the form of the F-15K Korea is getting. (I have been around the F-15 program, operations and support off and on for years ). The last point is especially wrong when you consider our dumb congress is going to draw out JSF purchase into a costly low rate production and we will have to keep F-15E and the golden eagles ( 170 or so of the C-D.s that aren't thrashed ) Going well beyond the year 2020 or 2025.

Part two of that is the incredibly bland performance of the F-18E/F series.
Consider what these U.S. naval aviation experts published here ( in the article replace F-14 with SU-30 to get an idea ) Read the whole two pages. It hardly inspires confidence.

http://209.2.68.15:8006/fj/articles/f14f18/f14f18_1.asp

Finally the oversell on Super Hornet in the media and defense... throwing around the word "stealth" in excess. It has some low observable designs that effectively go away when you hang weapons on it. And in a blanket statement saying it is more capable than the F-111. Great, however it is not more capable in longe range strike reach. In order to follow some kind of U.S. doctrine completely and using all of the small fighters Defence is getting instead of large fighters, tankers are needed in number and not the current small amount of tankers which are OK for a tanker-drag deployment somewhere. There won't be enough long range tankers for any perceived ... sustained.... long range strike ops.

Super Hornet makes a good sell if you are an accountant:

(not everything is listed here...)

-The wonderful new combat training sim and mission sims RAAF just got for the older Hornet which are Super Hornet support items, which is of course good when SH arrives.

-Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System ordered for Hornet and the SH will use this too.

-Similar supply chain management process

-Easy pilot transition. ( Example legacy USN Hornet crews take very little time to transition to the Super Hornet.

-The Avionics are incredibly great. But a good combat aircraft .... where Defence uses the justification of "Air Superiority" ( their words for the procurement justification of SH ) .... a good combat aircraft for that mission requires great avionics and good raw performance. SH has good avionics only. It is not an air domination machine and has to be approached in that light with that understanding of it's limits. Also the over-sell on saying SH has some "5th generation capabilities". You can't be half-pregnant. 5th gen is sensor fusion and next gen stealth as incorporated into the full design. SH only has nice sensors. The quote here addresses that:

"There is no tactical fighter flying that is more effective in both air-to-air and air-to-ground [missions] as a Block II Hornet with AESA," Gaddis says. "It is the finest radar bomber in the world today. That goes for little platforms and big platforms" - a reference to the B-1 and B-2. The F-22 program has not yet completed its development of air-to-ground capabilities.

Critics of Gaddis' claim contend that cobbling together some pieces of the capability won't result in a fifth generation aircraft like the F-22 or F-35. "The whole point to fifth generation is the synergy of stealth, fusion and complete situational awareness," says a veteran Air Force fighter pilot. The point about fifth generation aircraft is that they can do their mission anywhere - even in sophisticated integrated air defense [IADS] environments. If you fly into heavy IADS with a great radar and sensor fusion, but no stealth, you will have complete situational awareness of the guy that kills you."

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene...dline=Super Hornet Radar Not Ready For Combat

I'm not here to rain on anyones parade. However the grand total on new fighters is now getting up to be $22 billion. Where the $6 billion has to go forward to a supplemental budget approval. Anyway you cut it, that is a lot of cash IF.... if not all your important Defence stakeholders including the over-stressed taxpayer, think that they are being well served and think that they would be better served by (as someone here mentioned already) an aircraft fly off like what Korea and Singapore did.

I don't think the Godless hordes are going to come down and kill us anytime soon. However consider that this has to last a number of years the words "stop-gap" being used to say- Don't worry.

Just my opinions and nothing more. Sorry for all the rant, I enjoy reading this forum and learn alot from everyone here.

 

[Ryttare]

Great, however it is not more capable in longe range strike reach. In order to follow some kind of U.S. doctrine completely and using all of the small fighters Defence is getting instead of large fighters, tankers are needed in number and not the current small amount of tankers which are OK for a tanker-drag deployment somewhere. There won't be enough long range tankers for any perceived ... sustained.... long range strike ops.

My ignorance on Australian security situation is pretty deep. Could someone explain to me what the need for Australia to carry out long range strikes comes from. Is there any nation in the region that now or in a future could be both a threat to Australia and still be vulnerable to long range strikes? To me it seems contradictory, but I'm as I said not in the know.

 

[Tasman]

Welcome to the forum ELP and Ryttare.

That was an interesting link ELP. I would just make the observation, though, that comparing the FA18F's performance with the F14 as a long range strike aircraft is like comparing it with the F111. Neither aircraft is in production and even the USAF and USN with their vast resources decided that these aircraft were no longer economical to retain in service. In Australia we have had an ongoing and exhausting debate about whether the F111s ought to be upgraded (virtually rebuilt) to provide a long range strike capability that no other available aircraft can offer. Defence have firmly decided that the answer to that is no.

I mentioned in an earlier post that I think it would have been better for expressions of interest to have been called from competing designers before the FA-18A replacement was selected but in the case of the FA-18F purchase there was a need for a quick decision. To repeat what I said earlier:

In the case of the FA-18F I think the RAAF has chosen the most suitable aircraft to bridge the capability gap that will arise with Hornets undergoing modifications and the retirement of the F111s before the F-35s enter service. I think this is a different situation to the JSF decision as it was one that needed to be resolved quickly and in this case I think it was reasonable for the government to take RAAF advice rather than calling expressions of interest.

I agree that some of the political reasons justifying the decisions (such as the statement that the F15 was no longer in production), were misleading but there is no doubt that the RAAF was very clear that it believed the FA-18F was the aircraft most suited to 'bridge the gap".

Re the long range strike requirements mentioned by Ryttare:

At the time when the F111 was ordered for the RAAF (1963) Australia did not have the airfields in the north of the country that are available now, nor did the RAAF have an AAR capability. There is no secret that the F111 was bought to provide a capability to be able to project air power over Indonesia and to have the legs to be able to stage easily to the RAAF bases in Malaysia and Singapore. That is something that can be achieved by the FA-18F, which IMO and more importantly, in the opinion of the RAAF, has sufficient range to meet Australia's needs.

Cheers

 

[Rich]

Mate not everyones unhappy. Trust me.

I think you might be looking for a fight. My suggestion is to end this disscussion now before it causes trouble...

No, I'm not looking for a fight. I asked a simple question. Unless you have something to add stop wasting our time with 3 liners.

Maybe it is a vocal minority but I do get some sense of unhappiness with Yank aircraft, both from Internet forums, and from what I read from down under. Much of that "sense" has followed the evolution of the F-35. I bet in all recent history never has such negativism followed what has been a pretty remarkably efficient design and early flight phase, especially for such a revolutionary aircraft.

Granted many of these "Lemon" comments, and "the radar sucks" comments come from people who dont know which end of the aircraft flies. But still, they vote. And their ridiculous opinions influence others with ridiculous opinions. Whats a ridiculous opinion? Its an uneducated one, that's what it is.

ELP welcome to the forum and thanks for the input. I wasnt in the USN but everything I read tells me the SH and the F-14 have similar strike ranges and that the SH carries far more ordinance. 17,775 lbs for the SH and 13,000 lbs for the F-14. The truth is for targets that far away from our carriers, and if a carrier strike would put the ship at to great a risk, we would send a couple of dozen bombers, or 200 LACMs, to take out the target. I know Australia doesn't have that option but you do have refuelers and you do have an awfully good cruise missile. Frankly I found this article biased against the SH. The author makes numerous quotes from the boys actually doing the flying but he doesn't name any of the boys. I cant help but wonder who's payroll these two authors are on right now. "I refer you to Dr. Kopp in Australia". People do and say things for reasons and in the defense business the "reasons" are often money and power. Many a general has smooth-talked terrible systems simply because their careers were riding on it.

Here are two of numerous links I could post regarding comparisons between the F-14 and F-18 SH. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-14.htm http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-18.htm Of particular interest look at ranges, payload, and engine thrust numbers between the two aircraft. The F-414-GE-400s on the SH have significant increases in thrust compared to the F-14, and whats that tell you? Not just that but the F-18 is far, far easier to keep flying then the aircraft it replaced.

I'm surprised there is still such talk about the F-111s. They are, simply, OLD! Keeping them past a certain point isn't an option and we sure as hell aren't making new ones, "tho I understand the bonds fly boys have for their aircraft".

Super Hornet makes a good sell if you are an accountant:

Which is why the most powerful navy in history is flying the thing I bet. If I were an Aussie pilot, on the verge of getting my hands on that plane with that radar, I'd be itching. Read for yourself. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/990414-ART-Super-Hornet.htm

 

[phreeky]

Did we really need another thread about Australian combat aircraft choices?

Anyway people are not anti yank-aircraft, the most common of the SHs alternative selections people are talking about (upgraded F-111s, waiting out for the JSF, getting F-15s instead) ARE yank aircraft. The idea of buying Euro alternatives is very rarely mentioned, let alone suggested.

 

[ELP]

I think you can make the Super Hornet work. However most of the airframe performance is hype in comparison to almost any other current jet available.

The range doesn't really compare as for Afghanistan like range the F-14 needed about 2 refuelings and the Super Hornet about 3 and legacy Hornet 3. At first glance, SH appears to carry a lot of fuel: internal fuel 14,400 pounds or so for the E and about 13,500 pounds or so for the F compared to 10,000?? pounds on the A+. On a sales brochure that would seem like a lot more range, but as the airframe is much bigger/longer, there is no free lunch and drag is more. So a direct comparison by looking at a legacy and a Super and comparing internal fuel doesn't equate to that much more significant range. Drag isn't helped by the funny canting out of a few degrees of the external hardpoints. This was a quick fix to address safe weapons clearance issues. There is only a little bit more range. And no where near the range...( not even close ) of an F-111 or F-15E. So the "range" offered by Super Hornet and in this case being a family model F that loses some internal fuel carry, isn't especially impressive. Legacy Hornets have always been short legged and at least for our carrier ops an F-18E/F looks a little better for the range ( and or reserve that translates too ) and more important for us with our uber expensive precision guided weapons that we don't have to drop into the sea for reaching a safe target trap weight: Brinkback. Which is significant for the SH compared to the legacy Hornet. Why am I even bringing up range? Because with so few tankers, the less refueling an airframe needs the better off you are in sustained ops. This is a big deal. JASSM entering into service is OK at first glance but it doesn't have significant range. However they are ungodly expensive and in a sustained war go away quick. Also a JASSM won't have the versatility of being able to hit every target set you want, and consider for every JASSM you buy you can by x number of precision guided kits for your dumb iron. I respectfully don't see JASSM as an answer to buff up any long range strike needs. They are nice to have but I wouldn't base a whole doctrine around them. You may want to consider digging up the tests of our JASSMs too. We dumped some in testing and stopped the whole program until it got cleaned up. I would be real interested what the failure rate of these is that was sold to the customer.

As mentioned also there the Super Hornet is pretty darn slow. A legacy can go faster. On the surface this doesn't mean much except that most aircraft can contempt of engage a Super Hornet if they have too. Engine thrust is also another non-starter as our GAO found that the engine, while sitting on a test stand may in fact kick out 22,000lb of thrust but installed in the jet it will be about 17-18,000 max. From the beginning for it's weight, it is underpowered. I doubt a Block III engine if it is ever properly funded, will improve that much. As the jet was never prototyped it carries a number of things like that with it. Where a batch of them needed barrel replacement after only 500 hours. Weapons get less flying hours on the jet before going back into the shop for refirb because of excess wing vibration when they hang off the wing. And there are some other things. I am not doing this to disparage, I am doing this so you may have a better idea of it's origin and for the big money that is being put down on this project, it should be well considered.

Is the Super Hornet a good strike aircraft? Yes it is. But for other missions, it is not in any way in the performance class of it's contemporaries all of which can contempt of engage it.

I don't think the big bad SU is under every rock. But an encounter with one with SH will be a mixed bag depending on the situation. If the SU has to break up a package of Super Hornets, it has to come to it. At least in this case the SH can engage a big SU. Where the problem happens is when a SH has to cut off or intercept a big SU. It has no speed to do this. F-14s carrying 4 MK83s underneath or other things, have just gone around legacy F-18s in exercises and pressed on and hit their targets. A legacy is faster than a SH. The only reason for mentioning the F-14 is that it is in a similar class as the Big SU. More worrisome is that the big SU has greater raw performance than the F-14. Lots of fuel and ability to push that into a contempt of engagement situation. A big SU can refuse to engage a Super Hornet, the reverse is not true.

Again, I'm not here to ruin anyones fun. One has to consider though what is going on with aircraft procurement. At the end of the day I could care less if it is U.S. made or not, just as long as all defence stakeholders are satisfied. SH will probably have a very successful career with the RAAF, and that is all that really counts. Defence using the words "air superiority" with Super Hornet is in my opinion a reach. A medical doctor with zero military aircraft experience looks silly and ridiculous writing on topics as if he has possession of such knowledge. The taxpayer isn't just another sheep to be fleeced. I'm not here to pretend to be all knowing or wanting to "win" some forum match. And I would be the last person to have all the answers. Far from it.
I just respectfully think it is worth your time to consider the limits of the Super Hornet as well as it's advantages. The only reason our Navy is flying the jet is yes: accounting. The downsizing of the 1990s was severe, that with screwing up things like the A-12 project put the naval aviation roadmap in tatters. Super Hornet being on our carrier decks isn't anything to crow about. At everytime in history our carrier aviation advanced in raw performance. Super Hornet ended that for a while. In the 1980's the Navy introduced a new aircraft to the carrier deck: The F-18. Twenty years later the Navy introduced a new aircraft to the carrier deck: An F-18.

 

[Aussie Digger]

ElLP,

the point of the SH in RAAF service, isn't that it's the "biggest, fastest or the mostest" and people who only consider this aspect are wrong to do so. There are any number of jets, one on one that could probably defeat either an SH or a legacy Bug the majority of the time if everything else were even, however modern combat is MORE than this.

Capabilities are matched against expect threats. Read the US navy release, that came out recently about the Electronic Attack capabilities of the APG-79. It'll be burning out enemy fighter radars at 160k's plus, when faced with an air threat. How are those Indian/Chinese/Malaysian/Indonesian SU-30's going to fare with no operational radar?

Aircraft aerodynamic performance is important, but it's not the be all and end all of combat. Overall capability is what counts and RAAF's capability WILL be improved sufficiently to meet the requirements Government makes of it, until the F-35A is available.

I think what Dr Nelson meant to say was that the F-15 is not in production for the USA any longer. He IS a politician afterall not a defence expert. I doubt Donald Rumsfeld had much of a clue about the technical side of military matters either.

As to JASSM, Australia is not basing it's doctrine around it. Other standoff and precision weapons will be operated including JDAM, LGB's, JSOW, Harpoon II and possible advanced HARM variants.

JASSM will give an extra long range strike capability over what the fighters and our limited tanking resources can achieve. It is a 400k ranged missile however and will outrange anything else we have in our current inventory by at least 270k's...

RAAF will no doubt jump on board JASSM-ER and JSOW-ER just as soon as they can anyway. 1000k's and 300k's respectively will change this equation somewhat, don't you agree?

I agree our tanking resources are slim and will remain so, despite the introduction of the KC-30B. I doubt you'll find anyone (even within RAAF, if they can speak freely on the issue) that thinks 5x are enough.

However there are more pressing capability issues for ADF at present than bolstering the AAR force. Getting everything we've ordered in the last few years operational for instance is far more important, than discussing the minutiae of whether what we will get will be enough...

As to the supplementary funding issues, I could barely believe my eyes when I read someone complaining about the "cost".

Supplementary means "additional to" existing budgets. Even 3 years ago who could possibly have imagined that ADF would be given an extra $8.5b for acquisitions that weren't in ANY of the White Papers or Defence Capability Plans that have been released in the last 25 years, whilst gaining an overall increase in budget at the same time???

Having experienced the state of the ADF firsthand in the mid to late 90's and early 21st century, the difference that has been made now and in the next few years is almost unbelievable.

Lets be happy shall we that ADF is ACTUALLY getting a new advanced fighter, that is recognised as ONE of the most capable in the world and That NOTHING else is being cut to fund it, fer cryin out loud.

Beggars cannot be choosers my friends. :lul

 

[Aussie Digger]

Oh and one more thing about stealth issues. Yes external weapons or stores increases the RCS of an aircraft. I don't think you'll get ANY arguments from anyone about that.

This is NOT restricted to the F/A-18E/F however, as many people are conveniently overlooking. The F-15, Typhoon or whatever suffer the same problem. The situation being that their already larger RCS gets larger AGAIN.

Any stealth features HAS to be better than little to none...

 

[ELP]

Hey thanks AD.

I think everything in the purchase plan has unstoppable momentum. It is interesting that most Aussies I talk to just aren't up on the issues of Defence. Many seem far removed from it and if anything a weapon system being a political football happens to everyone and isn't exclusive to Australia.

I don't want to think of what will happen if our congress puts any more delays on the JSF. This last budget was a big deal. The slow down of the rate of JSF production is now unfortunately real. All the "low cost" projections of JSF were based on there being no slow down in the target production. A sidenote to that is that you better guarantee block III avionics for the first JSFs and not block II.

The only reason I mention this is that another thing going for the Super Hornet is that it is "off the shelf". We screw up the production funding for JSF any more and there will be hell to pay. At U.S. $10 billion a month for us, just on Iraq, that figures into all this too. So just on cost and nothing else, you guys are into JSF for AUS$15-16billion. Super Hornet adds another $6 billion. It would also be my view that for "self-reliance" in your defence industry, ( the topic brought up by Dr. Nelson not long ago: Wanting better home defence industry self-reliance) That the ultimate hot setup is to have a mix of front line combat aircraft vendors and not all-U.S. While it might be "expensive", it is my view that you all should consider a fighter purchase that at least guarantees final assembly in country and much more work-share. Certainly there would be the political football of jobs around that, but more important it would give something for aerospace engineers... of which Australia has to grow more of in the coming years, a good stretch of work experience. And while I am no fan boy of a particular product and I will risk having garbage thrown at me for mentioning it: A RuTech Su-35 that can be final assembled in country ( a la similar to the defunct Brazil deal ) should be considered for the very idea of helping aerospace defence reliance over the long haul. And yes in the current environment any support for that is unfortunately about nil.

We (U.S.) are running on a Chinese inspired credit/Walmart economy. Being locked into us to provide all your front line combat aircraft .... well I don't know. It should be looked at with a bit more scrutiny and the average Australian person on the street should be concerned about this too. Again, just my opinion.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Hey thanks AD.

I think everything in the purchase plan has unstoppable momentum. It is interesting that most Aussies I talk to just aren't up on the issues of Defence. Many seem far removed from it and if anything a weapon system being a political football happens to everyone and isn't exclusive to Australia.

I don't want to think of what will happen if our congress puts any more delays on the JSF. This last budget was a big deal. The slow down of the rate of JSF production is now unfortunately real. All the "low cost" projections of JSF were based on there being no slow down in the target production. A sidenote to that is that you better guarentee block III avionics for the first JSFs and not block II.

The only reason I mention this is that another thing going for the Super Hornet is that it is "off the shelf". We screw up the production funding for JSF any more and there will be hell to pay. At U.S. $10 billion a month for us, just on Iraq, that figures into all this too. So just on cost and nothing else, you guys are into JSF for AUS$15-16billion. Super Hornet adds another $6 billion. It would also be my view that for "self-reliance" in your defence industry, ( the topic brought up by Dr. Nelson not long ago: Wanting better home defence industry self-reliance) That the ultimate hot setup is to have a mix of front line combat aircraft vendors and not all-U.S. While it might be "expensive", it is my view that you all should consider a fighter purchase that at least guarantees final assembly in country and much more workshare. Certainly there would be the political football of jobs around that, but more important it would give something for aerospace engineers... of which Australia has to grow more of in the coming years, a good stretch of work experience.

We (U.S.) are running on a Chinese inspired credit/Walmart economy. Being locked into us to provide all your combat aircraft .... well I don't know. It should be looked at with a bit more scrutiny and the average Australian person on the street should be concerned about this too. Again, just my opinion.

I understand this view well enough and to some degree concur with it. The only problem being that RAAF only wants 1 next generation aircraft, the F-35.

Under AIR-6000 and with it's "watching briefs" since, it has decided that the F-35 is good enough (moreso in fact, as RAAF considers it vastly superior to any present day type including SH, with the possible sole exception of the F-22 in A2A combat alone).

Maybe it's not the absolute best capability that could be achieved, but the most appropriate for the types of operations we are likely to conduct and the budget we can provide for it.

A heavy reliance is placed upon America for our arms purchases especially within RAAF, but more broadly across ADF the split between European and American systems is relatively even.

The timing of the SH purchase, the relative ease of entry into service plus the AESA radar system are really the points which got SH over the line, IMHO.

An operational Tranche 2 Typhoon force, available now with a pre-integrated weapons suite which matches our current inventory would have no doubt been of great interest to RAAF and probably would have led to a "consideration of both types, if not an actual flyoff, but such a capability is likely to exist only 2 or 3 years before th F-35 will be in RAAF service. The capability advantages are not sufficient to justify the additional expenditure or timing issues, obviously...

 

[abramsteve]

Rich, my appologies, I honestly thought this thread was headed for a fight. More than happy to see it hasnt. Consider my face red with egg on it.

Seeing as the topic of type selection is being discussed fairly, I have a question with regards to the F-15.

I understand and am quite positive on the SH selection, but what were some of the reasons why the F-15 wasnt? Unit costs? Integration costs? Or just not suitable?

 

[trainedmonkey]

One of the reasons for the F/A-18F purchase I have seen recently is that it will be easier for current Hornet pilots to make the switch. However, wont the Super Hornets be flown by the F-111 pilots or are they being retrained in the classic Hornets? If F-111 pilots are transitioning to a new aircraft wouldnt that kill the whole ease of switching to the Super Hornet and in some ways justify a 'new' aircraft? Just curious or have I totally been misreading people lately?

 

[Tasman]

One of the reasons for the F/A-18F purchase I have seen recently is that it will be easier for current Hornet pilots to make the switch. However, wont the Super Hornets be flown by the F-111 pilots or are they being retrained in the classic Hornets? If F-111 pilots are transitioning to a new aircraft wouldnt that kill the whole ease of switching to the Super Hornet and in some ways justify a 'new' aircraft? Just curious or have I totally been misreading people lately?

It was mentioned in another thread, Post 16, F/A-18E/F officially selected for Australia, that the FA-18F crews are to be drawn from both F111 and classic Hornet squadrons. The Hornet OCU is a long established and experienced unit and should, IMO, have no trouble bringing F111 pilots up to speed on the SH. It would be interesting to know, in fact, how many F111 pilots have already flown the Hornet.

Cheers

 

[Rich]

One of the reasons for the F/A-18F purchase I have seen recently is that it will be easier for current Hornet pilots to make the switch. However, wont the Super Hornets be flown by the F-111 pilots or are they being retrained in the classic Hornets? If F-111 pilots are transitioning to a new aircraft wouldnt that kill the whole ease of switching to the Super Hornet and in some ways justify a 'new' aircraft? Just curious or have I totally been misreading people lately?

Yeah but the thing is the RAAF already has an entire F-18 support/training/doctrine mechanism in place. Now I'm just assuming but if they follow the USAF model, and there's no reason they shouldn't, the older F-111 pilots will probably be finding other jobs, while younger F-18 pilots will be transitioned to SH's. Meanwhile more youth will be brought into the training cycle, "I'm also assuming there's no shortage of Aussie kids wanting to fly super-sonic fighters".

But no matter how they do it having the Hornet support machine already in place will ease any transition, and, save money. Most parts already in inventory will be able to be used on SHs. Imagine having to spend 55 m per Eurofighter and also having to build the support mechanism for them?

Rich, my appologies, I honestly thought this thread was headed for a fight. More than happy to see it hasnt. Consider my face red with egg on it.

It takes a man to say that. And I for one respect you for doing so.