EA/18G Growler

The "availability dates" are something created by Defence to create their fantasy emergency that F-111s are some how unsafe to take to 2020 ( not true ) and that action has to be taken now. Ditto with the "stop-gap" nonsense. The taxpayer, since they are paying for it, at least deserves some respect by having a fly-off selection of aircraft. Just about everything in print on Dr. Nelsons webpage re: F-15 was a bold faced piece of mis-information. At the end of the day I could care less what the jet is just as long as it isn't Super Hornet. This aircraft is completely outclassed by big SUs coming down the ways.

Organizations are real bad about predicting the future. No one can say what the big SU force in the region will look like in ten years. However "be prepared" isn't such a bad idea. $6 billion for Super Hornet with no other airframe consideration is not good government. Not by a long shot. Even Super Hornets only good thing, it's avionics may get "out growth potential'ed" by the Flanker inside of ten years. What is scary is that Australia, which seems pretty open minded, original and creative in some areas, on the topic of having a fighter fly-off, will absolutely refuse to consider an advance SU as one of the fly-off aircraft to consider. 24 big SUs are:

-Not that expensive
-Have huge growth potential in weapons, avionics and power-plant over the next...... 30 years.
-Have more western-like avionics connectivity with the help of Israel, France, India etc ( look at an Indian big SU and where that program is going )
-Are sustainable, including home work-share to include final assembly of aircraft
-Balance the procurement of Defence goals of Australia being more "self-reliant" ( their words). As it is now you guys are just giving us (U.S.) more and more cash. Go over to Nelson + Show U.S. PowerPoint Brief = Get Cash.
-Big Su can be a regional "joint strike fighter" to work with regional powers in the future that have the same airframe for contingencies where everyone has a common goal.
-It is not a weak weapon system.

That is the short list. Of course I am for an open competition that considers all vendors and at least gives the taxpayer some form of justice on how their money is being spent. Right now I don't see that.

gf0012-aust said:

The adage that procurement is requirements based rather than widget based is being forgotten...

Click to expand...

I would agree. The Super Hornet purchase will certainly never qualify for that standard. Add to that, what ever happened to Australia wanting to get the absolute best? The wheezing SH isn't going to satisfy that. After the F-22 and ( who knows how the JSF will flesh out ), Big SU is about the most formidable aircraft to have. Having a set of 24 of these jets is not a bad thing even if you believe F-111 is going to wilt and die and be unsafe after 2010.

gf0012-aust said:

The adage that procurement is requirements based rather than widget based is being forgotten...

Click to expand...

We've banged our heads on this particular brick wall before if memory serves me:roll

ELP, the Super Hornet will be, by far, easier to integrate than any other possible choice. Feel free to disagree.

The reason for buying something that has the chief attribute of being "easier to integrate", is hardly very useful if the jet in question is near the bottom of the 4th generation combat jet food chain. Parity in air combat is bad enough. Fielding something below the established parity scale is isn't very safe.
Part two of that is that there was no open consideration of all current types. An accountant making a decision from Mt. Olympus doesn't serve the goal of war winning killing power very well. Wars are won buy having the better killing force not by who has the best ill-informed accountants.

ELP said:

The reason for buying something that has the chief attribute of being "easier to integrate", is hardly very useful if the jet in question is near the bottom of the 4th generation combat jet food chain. Parity in air combat is bad enough. Fielding something below the established parity scale is isn't very safe.
Part two of that is that there was no open consideration of all current types. An accountant making a decision from Mt. Olympus doesn't serve the goal of war winning killing power very well. Wars are won buy having the better killing force not by who has the best ill-informed accountants.

Click to expand...

Ummm I would actually say that wars are won by those that can apply and sustain 'killing force', which can be very different from who has a better killing force.

ELP said:

The reason for buying something that has the chief attribute of being "easier to integrate", is hardly very useful if the jet in question is near the bottom of the 4th generation combat jet food chain. Parity in air combat is bad enough. Fielding something below the established parity scale is isn't very safe.
Part two of that is that there was no open consideration of all current types. An accountant making a decision from Mt. Olympus doesn't serve the goal of war winning killing power very well. Wars are won buy having the better killing force not by who has the best ill-informed accountants.

Click to expand...

Very true, I agree wholeheartedly about decisions made by accountants.

However, the SH is, to my understanding an intrim purchase. It is to primarily fill a strike role, not air superiority. This means that it is unlikely to face SUs in any number or quality. For this purpose it fits nicley, its easy to integrate, has a high degree in comonality(AFAIK) and is a capable platform (also AFAIK).

Let the politicians say what they will, they wont be deciding on how best to employ the aircraft (thank god).

If all goes to plan, and I know thats dangerous to bank on, if and when a large potential threat eventuates the JSF should be in service.

The upgraded Superhornet is one of the best all around fighters flying today. Saying that it would have any trouble at all against a Flanker is total ignorance. Elp you should know better all of your arguments have been debunked by actual Rhino pilots in the other forum you participate in.

The days when a fighter's effectiveness is based mainly on the ability to fly at M2.5, climb 50k feet/minute and pull 9gs are long over. Today weapons, sensors(and sensor fusion) and the ability to gather, analyise, and disseminate data take precedence over sher performance. No AC can outrun a missile. The person who gets the first effective shot in is going to live and kill the other guy no matter how fast he goes or how much energy he has.

Australia made a great choice. I think like the US Navy, they will come to see the SH less as an interim and more as a complement to the F-35.

The SH can be a very effective interceptor when coupled with the later models of AMRAAM and AESA. Consider just this one very obvious scenario.

One or two SHs fly clean without any external weapons (so they are somewhat stealthy). These AC use their AESA which is inherently an LPI sensor to detect track and target those nasty Flankers that Elp is so concerned about long before the Flankers even know what is there. They download the targeting information to the other 10 SHs that carry 10 AMRAAMs each. These 10 SHs then fire the missiles at the Flankers using the targeting information from the two clean SHs while well out of detection range of the Flankers. Result, many Flankers die. The missile carrying SHs then close to sidewinder range (all the while not using radar) and finish off anything that is left taking advantage of the SHs superior pointing ability and AIM-9X.

Today the only production AC superior to a Block II Hornet is the Raptor. Typhoon may one day challenge the SH in A2A if it ever gets a good AESA radar and Meteor. That must be tempered with the fact that the AIM-120D variant of the AMRAAM will be fielded next year. F-35 will also challenge SH but it will not be dominant in A2A due to the fact that (today) it has a limited number of missiles it can carry internally. In fact it will make a great supplement to the SH in A2A when it takes on the role as the target designating AC for the SHs.

abramsteve said:

However, the SH is, to my understanding an intrim purchase. It is to primarily fill a strike role, not air superiority. This means that it is unlikely to face SUs in any number or quality. For this purpose it fits nicley, its easy to integrate, has a high degree in comonality(AFAIK) and is a capable platform (also AFAIK).

Click to expand...

As you say the SH is designed to cover any capability gap that may arise following withdrawal of the F111 resulting from possible delays to the JSF.

A question to ELP and others:

If the Super Hornet is as incapable as some members are suggesting why has an organisation like the USN invested so heavily in it? It seems to me that USN assets are far more likely to be employed in hot situations and opposed to large numbers of modern fighters than the RAAF.

Cheers

A question to ELP and others:

If the Super Hornet is as incapable as some members are suggesting why has an organisation like the USN invested so heavily in it?

Click to expand...

What Elp and other will say is that the Navy messed up in 1991 and chose the wrong fighter to upgrade and now they are stuck with it. Either that or some vast Boeing/Navy conspiracy.

The fact is Elp and others are stuck in the past and do not realise that many aspects of warfare in general and especially air warfare has drastically changed with the introduction of things like stealth, AESA, GPS, data processing, etc.

Think back (such fond thoughts) of those A-6s loaded with iron bombs. How many allied bomber went on raids in Germany and Japan just to knock out a factory? How many sorties did the AF use in Vietnam to knock out a bridge?

Technology has changed the face of warfare and they just don't get it.

Oh yeah just to be balanced. The SH could use more range.

Ozzy Blizzard said:

Swereve stop following me around trying to push the merrits of typhoon. ....

Click to expand...

I'm not. But I am wondering why you never miss an opportunity to put it down, even when it isn't relevant to what's being discussed. You brought it into this discussion only to dismiss it, for example. In another discussion, you said it was inferior to the F-15E for a particular role, & then specifically mentioned its RCS & IR signature - i.e. things in which it is superior to the F-15E - as making it unsuited to that role. Seems to me you have some sort of emotional bias against it.

As for all the stuff about dogfighting - sorry, but that's over. A Flankers agility (BTW, I see you've switched from low speed agility to transonic - why?) doesn't help it against modern WVR AAMs & HMS. You don't need to get on your opponents six nowadays. An Asraam will kill you long before your ability to do so helps you.

Thumper said:

The upgraded Superhornet is one of the best all around fighters flying today. Saying that it would have any trouble at all against a Flanker is total ignorance. Elp you should know better all of your arguments have been debunked by actual Rhino pilots in the other forum you participate in.

The days when a fighter's effectiveness is based mainly on the ability to fly at M2.5, climb 50k feet/minute and pull 9gs are long over. Today weapons, sensors(and sensor fusion) and the ability to gather, analyise, and disseminate data take precedence over sher performance. No AC can outrun a missile. The person who gets the first effective shot in is going to live and kill the other guy no matter how fast he goes or how much energy he has.

Australia made a great choice. I think like the US Navy, they will come to see the SH less as an interim and more as a complement to the F-35.

The SH can be a very effective interceptor when coupled with the later models of AMRAAM and AESA. Consider just this one very obvious scenario.

One or two SHs fly clean without any external weapons (so they are somewhat stealthy). These AC use their AESA which is inherently an LPI sensor to detect track and target those nasty Flankers that Elp is so concerned about long before the Flankers even know what is there. They download the targeting information to the other 10 SHs that carry 10 AMRAAMs each. These 10 SHs then fire the missiles at the Flankers using the targeting information from the two clean SHs while well out of detection range of the Flankers. Result, many Flankers die. The missile carrying SHs then close to sidewinder range (all the while not using radar) and finish off anything that is left taking advantage of the SHs superior pointing ability and AIM-9X.

Today the only production AC superior to a Block II Hornet is the Raptor. Typhoon may one day challenge the SH in A2A if it ever gets a good AESA radar and Meteor. That must be tempered with the fact that the AIM-120D variant of the AMRAAM will be fielded next year. F-35 will also challenge SH but it will not be dominant in A2A due to the fact that (today) it has a limited number of missiles it can carry internally. In fact it will make a great supplement to the SH in A2A when it takes on the role as the target designating AC for the SHs.

Click to expand...

I thought this was a well balanced post Thumper, and I say that as someone who is a fan of the F-22 (yes I know it's unavailable at present and maybe forever). Like you I think that the SH will be an excellent supplement to the JSF in Oz service. My reservations, as mentioned previously, are that I would be disappointed to see an all FA-18F force (possible in the unlikely event that the JSF program 'falls over') and I think that, if it was ever available, a squadron of Raptors would ensure air dominance in our region.

I cannot, for the life of me, see what would be achieved by ELP's suggestion to delay the purchase of an aircraft ordered to fill a possible capability gap but which also has the potential to complement the JSF in the areas you have mentioned together with roles like FAC and buddy refuelling. It will, IMO, be an excellent multi role aircraft in RAAF service.

Cheers

Thumper said:

What Elp and other will say is that the Navy messed up in 1991 and chose the wrong fighter to upgrade and now they are stuck with it. Either that or some vast Boeing/Navy conspiracy.

The fact is Elp and others are stuck in the past and do not realise that many aspects of warfare in general and especially air warfare has drastically changed with the introduction of things like stealth, AESA, GPS, data processing, etc.

Think back (such fond thoughts) of those A-6s loaded with iron bombs. How many allied bomber went on raids in Germany and Japan just to knock out a factory? How many sorties did the AF use in Vietnam to knock out a bridge?

Technology has changed the face of warfare and they just don't get it.

Oh yeah just to be balanced. The SH could use more range.

Click to expand...

And they still "dont get it" even after numerous air wars between air craft types that have had roughly comparable AtA performance. The difference being the avionics packages, training, integration, missile performance, domination of the electro/Intel-sphere..ect

I see way to much comparing of slow speed pirouetting, as if it were an end all, and not enough effort toward looking at the big picture. Most of all when individuals want to press home their opinion F-18s and/or F-35s are "Lemons".

Whiskyjack said:

We've banged our heads on this particular brick wall before if memory serves me:roll

Click to expand...

and we will visit again and again no doubt.....

I'm always curious when individual platforms rather than systems seem to garner all the attention.

swerve said:

I'm not. But I am wondering why you never miss an opportunity to put it down, even when it isn't relevant to what's being discussed. You brought it into this discussion only to dismiss it, for example. In another discussion, you said it was inferior to the F-15E for a particular role, & then specifically mentioned its RCS & IR signature - i.e. things in which it is superior to the F-15E - as making it unsuited to that role. Seems to me you have some sort of emotional bias against it.

As for all the stuff about dogfighting - sorry, but that's over. A Flankers agility (BTW, I see you've switched from low speed agility to transonic - why?) doesn't help it against modern WVR AAMs & HMS. You don't need to get on your opponents six nowadays. An Asraam will kill you long before your ability to do so helps you.

Click to expand...

I didnt bringit up, stingray oz did. I mentioned its RCS & IR signature in response to a question you made about what else it needed to be considered a modern (ie fifth gen) multirole aircraft, not in comparison to F15.

Fine forget slow speed turns and angle of attack. Flanker has the kenetic advantage, and it has the internal fuel load to use it. As its relevent to weather it will give the RAAF the capability we need, which for reasons i've allready stated it wont.

gf0012-aust said:

I'm always curious when individual platforms rather than systems seem to garner all the attention.

Click to expand...

When those platforms are worth $20bn its worthy of debate.

You guys are right. Networking, LO, capable ISR platforms, AESA, ect are all great and may have changed the face of warfare. The networking of the ADF in general that has been going on over the last 5-10 years and that will continue in the future seem to have made it a much more lethal war fighting force. But theres a few things i just cant figure out.

I'm no expert. Most of you guys know a hell of alot more than me on the subject. I'm just a concerned citizen who cares deeply about the future security of my nation. So maybe i'm just worring about nothing, but could some of the learned members out there explain a few things for me?

As important as information gathering and sharing in real time is today, and the massive emphasis that has been put on it, it seems that we are relying on it to overcome all of the dissadvantages we seem to be burdening ourselvs with. In this specific case, ie the future of air superiority for the RAAF, We have chosen a platform that, apart from its networking with other platforms, its LO which can be courtered at decent ranges by alternative sensor's , and its radar performance, is outclased in every other peramiter by its likely opponant. A guy sitting in an F35 with a kangaroo painted on the side, is still going to have to engage the enemy platform. And he will be completely relying on the information advantage to overcome the fact that the guy he is trying to kill has a much more capable aircraft in every other respect. I cant for the life of me figure out how an F35 is supose to close with and kill an SU XX, even with real time radar information from the Wedetails, who might know exactly were the target is, when under the majority of circumstances the target will detect the F35 outside of its own missile envelope, and it's only advantage was that it knew were the enemy was and the enemy didn't. Can someone please explain it to me and i dont mean best case i.e. against a couple of Indoneseian SU 30's who are flying around in circles? Beacuse all i've heard is dismissive, general comments about information dominance and net-centric warfare. No one has outlined specifically how this is suppose to be achieved. Annother thing doesent seem to make sense. If LO and networking can overcome all other dissadvantages, which is what the RAAF will be relying on, why would the USAF design an aircraft that, even without LO, networking and a conventional radar, could defeat any aircraft in the world today or in the forseable future on purely airodynamic/kenetic performance? If its LO, networking and radar could defeat more capable airodynamic/kenetic performers that is? Am i just getting woried over nothing, could someone please ease my fears and explain exactly how information dominance will overcome the huge difficiencies the F35 will have against advanced Flanker variants???? Because most of you seem to agree that these deficiencies dont matter, but no one has spesiffically described why they dont.

gf0012-aust said:

and we will visit again and again no doubt.....

I'm always curious when individual platforms rather than systems seem to garner all the attention.

Click to expand...

Yep.

Rich - "comparing of slow speed pirouetting" - I like it. nfloorl:

Ozzy Blizzard said:

I didnt bringit up, stingray oz did. I mentioned its RCS & IR signature in response to a question you made about what else it needed to be considered a modern (ie fifth gen) multirole aircraft, not in comparison to F15.

Fine forget slow speed turns and angle of attack. Flanker has the kenetic advantage, and it has the internal fuel load to use it. As its relevent to weather it will give the RAAF the capability we need, which for reasons i've allready stated it wont.

Click to expand...

No, I didn't ask that. I asked what you thought it lacked for CAS, because a Among the reasons you gave for its unsuitability for S. Korea was that it was no good for CAS. Since you stated that the F-15K is superior for S. Korea, criticising features in which it is clearly superior to the F-15K suggests either confusion, or an emotional bias which leads you to denigrate the Typhoon whatever the context.

As for the kinetic advantage: this gives the ability to engage or not, as long as you are aware of your opponent before he is able to engage you. It can also be used to impart greater range to missiles. If your opponent knows where you are & is able to move to engage you before you spot him, or if you're attacking & he's defending, & you must go within range of him or abort your mission (in which case he's won without firing), you can't use it for the first purpose. If your sensors don't pick up your opponent from far enough away to use the greater range, the second advantage is lost. If you have to use afterburners to gain a kinetic advantage, & your opponent has the advantage on dry thrust, the fuel equation changes in his favour. Etc, etc.

Why would I have an emotional byass againt Typhoon, its not like it killed one of my family? I just dont think its a good choice for the RAAF.

So you wanna talk sensors??? If we are thinking about a scenario where the EF2000 will be in RAAF service, the opponant shoud be a regional power i.e. PROC or India. In that case the PLAAF has just compleated a prototype of the KJ-2000 AWE&C, based on the russian A-50E. The IAF have aquired the A50 and are looking at more modern phased array platforms based on the Elta Phalcon L-Band phased array made by isreal, this was a contender for the RAAF's Wedgetail, so this is a respectable AWE&C capability. So the whole "if they see you" argument is kind of a moot one if your talking about RAAF Typhoons vs PROC/IAF Flankers as both would have AWE&C support and niether could be considered stealthy. Sure the Typhoon may have some RCS reduction but this would be far from decisive. Or we can look at it without AWE&C support. The SU 30/35 has a decent sensor package. The NIIP N011M Passive ESA equiped on the Flanker is comparable in detection range vs RCS to the APG 81. Information on this can be found here.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-JSF-Analysis.html

It would be hard to argue that the ECR-90 on the typhoon would be a decisive advantage, and both platforms sport a decent IRST capability. So i dont see suprise as a advantage for the EF 2000.

The k I netic (if that makes you feel better) advantage allows you to set the pace of the engagement. It does give your missiles greater range. It does allow you to engage/disengage at will. It does lower the no escape zone of enemy missiles. It raises the same range of yours. If your going to argue that the internal fuel disparity between the platforms will be adressed by the Typhoons ability to keep high speeds on dry thrust, well the AL41F powerplant has just entered into LRIP and is rated somewhere in the 33000 to 44000lb class of thrust and is specificaly designed to allow supercruse for the Flanker series. Although it would have the same drag problems as the typhoon so were not talking clean F22 speed here. This just makes the k I netic difference worse.

Look, the Typhoons a good aircraft. Probably the best 4th gen western air dominance fighter in terms of raw performance. But it does have some major drawbacks, and it is outclassed by late model flankers. It may have been designed as a Flanker killer, although the Flanker was designed as an F15 killer, but the SU XX family has grown up quite a bit since then. And since the RAAF will need a clear qualitative advantage over our neighbors in on a platform v platform basis, in the 10 to 20 yr timeframe, and i dont see the Typhoon as giving us that.

Thumper said:

The upgraded Superhornet is one of the best all around fighters flying today. Saying that it would have any trouble at all against a Flanker is total ignorance. Elp you should know better all of your arguments have been debunked by actual Rhino pilots in the other forum you participate in.

The days when a fighter's effectiveness is based mainly on the ability to fly at M2.5, climb 50k feet/minute and pull 9gs are long over. Today weapons, sensors(and sensor fusion) and the ability to gather, analyise, and disseminate data take precedence over sher performance. No AC can outrun a missile. The person who gets the first effective shot in is going to live and kill the other guy no matter how fast he goes or how much energy he has.

Australia made a great choice. I think like the US Navy, they will come to see the SH less as an interim and more as a complement to the F-35.

The SH can be a very effective interceptor when coupled with the later models of AMRAAM and AESA. Consider just this one very obvious scenario.

One or two SHs fly clean without any external weapons (so they are somewhat stealthy). These AC use their AESA which is inherently an LPI sensor to detect track and target those nasty Flankers that Elp is so concerned about long before the Flankers even know what is there. They download the targeting information to the other 10 SHs that carry 10 AMRAAMs each. These 10 SHs then fire the missiles at the Flankers using the targeting information from the two clean SHs while well out of detection range of the Flankers. Result, many Flankers die. The missile carrying SHs then close to sidewinder range (all the while not using radar) and finish off anything that is left taking advantage of the SHs superior pointing ability and AIM-9X.

Today the only production AC superior to a Block II Hornet is the Raptor. Typhoon may one day challenge the SH in A2A if it ever gets a good AESA radar and Meteor. That must be tempered with the fact that the AIM-120D variant of the AMRAAM will be fielded next year. F-35 will also challenge SH but it will not be dominant in A2A due to the fact that (today) it has a limited number of missiles it can carry internally. In fact it will make a great supplement to the SH in A2A when it takes on the role as the target designating AC for the SHs.

Click to expand...

Why do you think that the NIIP N011M PSA wouldn't detect the "stealthy" Super Bugs at long range, or the weapon carrying ones for that matter? Its Range vs RCS performance is close to that of the APG 81 and superior to the APG 79. And yes the flankers have a datalink too, they all dont have to radiate, only one does. And thats assuming they dont have AWE&C support, which is not realistic. So much for your little ambush. Also the R77M has a range of around about 86NM with datalink guidence and terminal active radar homing. Again your little ambush starts to look a bit different. So the reason the F18E/F wiould wipe out these Flankers would be what? Its radar and datalink, then its missile range? I dont see a real advantage in any of these points, apart from sensor fusion and to some degree networking. I think you are severely underestimating the advanced SU XX family.

I keep hearing these Buzz words like net centric but no ones really outlined how exactly they are going to defeat more capable aircraft on a consistant basis, unless your equiping them with very capable and long range missiles (that out range your opponant) on LO platforms that can defeat low frequancy search radars, and the enemy does nothing to interfere with your information gathering ability. Sure it is the new "high ground" but does it relegate airodynamic/kinetic advantage to the pages of history as being irelevant? I'm not convinced.

If so then why is the F22 so capable in this aspect? Why didnt the USAF just build a larger, stealthier F35 with the APG 77? It definatiely would have been cheaper.

And yes, given a certain range an aircraft can outrun a missile.

And bringing up conflicts in the 90's is pretty irrelevent as these were all asymetrical. The RAAF would likely face a much more equal opponant with AWE&C support, quantitative parity or superiority, a degree of networking and decent training and tactical doctorin. Name one conflict where the platforms concerned (in fact their ansestors) faced off that met any of these criteria.