ELPJust a heads-up for those in Australia the 7:30 Report on the ABC tonight is carrying a feature on this fiasco.
Damn… somebody record it. My girlfriend watches ABC but she is traveling today.
ELPIf the SU is so much better, then why would it refuse to engage?
For the same reason an F-14 bombcat would blow by … and out of engagement range of a legacy Hornet,… to press on and hit a critcal air to ground target. (been done in exercises)Also, if the SU doesn’t engage, doesnt that mean that the SH defended what it was suppose to? If you tell me that the SU would just drive around the SH and get to the target anyways, I would have to reply that you obviously dont know anything about modern day tactics on fleet defense or defending a high value target.
Oh, I do. However given that a mission like Barcap isn’t perfect…. Given that missiles don’t hit their max printed range of their public consumption figures…. = a much shorter shot on a beam shot… even shorter on a trail shot. And that the sky is big and that there is no such thing as 100% coverage, 100 % of the time. Something fast like a big SU pressing on by and through a gap to hit a ground target like some piece of dirt, is no problem.
Also in adverse conditions… a SU ( or a lot of jets ) can out run a SH… the reverse isn’t true.A SH isnt a long range striker? What about the B1,2,and 52? All long range strikes will need refueling, period. Doent matter what platform. SH’s are running 8 and 9 hour strike missions into Afganistan and Iraq. So, what long range striker or bomber doesnt need inflight refueling?
Australia doesn’t have enough tankers to do anything but a small strike and not even sustained 24 hour ops with a jet like that for ( and Afganistan is a very good example for range of strike.) Here with it’s few tankers it will need more fighters to protect the tankers. Those fighters doing protection need fuel. And in the case of the range scenario you mention here a legacy Hornet is about 3 refuelings, a Super 2 or 3 and the now gone F-14 was 2 and once in a while 3 if it had other work enroute. If you are going to extend Australias few tankers that far out you are going to need jets to protect them and those short leg jets will need gas too. I agree with you the buddy refuel on the SH is nice however that is more in tune with carrier ops to top off a strike after forming up and to provide fuel in the marshall stack while getting a landing time. You can use little jets like this for long range strike. But you better bring some tankers in numbers. If it turns into a 24/7 sustained op, RAAF is going to need a few squadrons of USAF tankers on hand to help out. And granted here this is where I could be dead wrong…. Maybe existing OPLANs write USAF tankers into the mix on super serious contingencies. Hmmm.
I’m sure you can tell me aircraft X from country Y can fly 1200 nm and deliver payload z. So can a Rhino, Viper or Mud Hen. Let also not forget that the SH is also a tanker. It can carry approx 30K pounds of fuel (5 Wet) and defend itself at thesame time. Is the tanker mission glorious? No but it is needed in todays TacAir scenarios.
Defending itself against a big SU isn’t a given. Matter of fact with its wheezing perfromance it is going to be in some serious trouble. Real combat jets ( and here the brainiacs in Australian Defence used the words “air superiority” in their sales pitch)… aren’t just nice avionics. Forgetting to graft on a big set of balls to the Super Hornet means it will be only a very nice strike aircraft. Excellent maintenace for the line and the shop. Outstanding safety in all areas. A whole host of other efficientcies that are better than any other aircraft out there at the moment yet; dog slow.
How many tankers do you need for an airstrike X miles away? Australia isn’t buying a “Legion” of Rhino’s. So, why does it need a “legion” of tankers? I’m sure that the Aussies have enough tankers for the missions that they need to do.
They have enough tankers to support a relief operation of no particular schedule…. A tanker drag to a deployment and 1 heavy strike a day or where their only saving grace with the tankers, and here I will admit that this is about the only way they can pull off something long, is the Israeli method of 2 jets every hour or so taking out a few critical targets and over a couple days using slow knife cuts to break whatever enemy toys are in some future time…. ( not worried about todays threats or even 10 years from now) What we don’t know with SUs being cheap and cash flow being good in the Pacrim, are… how many SUs will be around 20 years from now… and …. the big SU also is in possession of some scary “growth potential”, over this time frame like big missiles that can cut down a Wedgetail or tanker from a long way away….R-172, R-37 and Kh-31 may not be a threat today or even 10 years from today. My thoughts are better to be safe than sorry. A lot of money is being handed out to pay for expensive weapon systems. Australian Defence going off and getting the Super Hornet and not having a fly off of other aircraft types, needs to be looked at hard. Just because some wonderful support equipment and supply chain managment is in place is no reason to get half a fighter. When you are talking air to air, Super Hornet is half a fighter among it’s peer group. Any advantages it has with carrier ops ( like it’s really awesome bringback to the ship, don’t mean much. Taxpayers could be of an opinion to think they are just there to get fleeced. And the “why” this buy was done, one couldn’t blame them (look at the long trail of past big dollar defence procurement gaffs) if they thought that way. These Super Hornets have to last a while. And they may have to last even longer as the last U.S. budget was announced shows a slow down of JSF production dramatically. This will slow arrival even though they claim it isn’t yet. There will only be more to come with our GWOT sucking up money. With our having to pay for GWOT, expect this to only get worse. Also today it was reported that more funds are going to be raided from new air assets ( DOD wide ) to pay for ground equipment for things like Iraq etc. JSF was mentioned specifically.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/3/13/92341.shtml
Team JSF is now offering some kind of deal for non U.S. partners to buy early, to offset this mess. I don’t see any advantage in that as you do not want RAAF to get the Block II avionics for JSF which they were at risk for getting anyway even if on schedule with the current schedule. There is no advantage to buying JSF early, as you want, as a JSF partner to have yours delivered with the fully functional Block III avionics.
JSF will be just a high dollar political football that policos can toss around.
We will all be damn lucky if JSF arrives on time. And no fault to the JSF program, it will cost more too. What does this mean for the RAAF? Those Super Hornets may have to extend for a longer time. Right now, 24 F-18F and a real gap filler purchase of F-18Es for a total of 100 Super Hornets…. Suddenly makes a whole heck of a lot of sense. … all the sudden looks pretty damn smart in spite of some of my negative comments…. which I would freely admit…may be non issue in the long haul of the F-18F in RAAF service. I am not trying to be negative. I like Super Hornet as a strike aircraft. I do think that RAAF isn’t some kind of cookie cutter solution. F-111 being integrated with JASSM makes some real no kidding sense. F-111 operating costs are expensive. Big deal. The capability it offers… if it was matted to JASSM…. just as one example is something worth keeping around a while. It isn’t going to fall out of the sky if it is kept until 2020.
Here is something to consider from a former top RAAF jet pilot…. today (er I mean tomorrow 😀 ) in the SMH…..
————-
There is nothing super about this Hornet
Peter Criss
March 15, 2007
The recent announcement by the Defence Minister, Brendan Nelson, that Australia will spend $6 billion to buy 24 Block II Super Hornets to fill a perceived, or self-generated, capability gap raises more questions than it answers.
How was such a decision reached when the Department of Defence is adamant that it did not ask for, or recommend, the aircraft? If the department did not provide the critical operational and engineering evaluations to underpin and justify such a significant impulsive buy, who did? Moreover, will the Super Hornet be capable of filling the role of the aircraft it replaces? And the final question is: at what cost, in human resources and national engineering capability terms, does this “interim, gap-filling” aircraft come?
While some of those questions can be answered fully only by the minister and his closest civilian advisers, others can be answered using unclassified information. One need go no further than a statement made by Philip Coyle, the former director of operational test and evaluation at the Pentagon, when giving evidence before a subcommittee of the US Senate Armed Services Committee on March 22, 2000.
The report is damning of the Super Hornet in areas critical to Australia’s operational requirements, while praising it for its improved aircraft carrier capabilities when compared to the original Hornet – something not high on our list of essential criteria.
Three sentences on page eight of the report say it all: “The consequences of low specific excess power in comparison to the threat are poor climb rates, poor sustained turn capability, and a low maximum speed. Of greatest tactical significance is the lower maximum speed of the F/A-18E/F since this precludes the ability to avoid or disengage from aerial combat. In this regard, the F/A-18E/F is only marginally inferior to the F/A-18C/D, whose specific excess power is also considerably inferior to that of the primary threat, the MiG-29.”
Forget about the new Sukhoi Su-30 Flanker family of Russian fighters proliferating across the region: all Hornet variants are acknowledged in the report as being no match for even the older MiG-29s. Space precludes quoting the report’s comments on the multitude of other areas where the Super Hornet is inferior to the 1970s-designed and 1980s-built original F/A-18 aircraft. Admittedly the Block II Super Hornet has a new radar and some electronic components not in the version Coyle gave evidence on, but the fundamental airframe and performance remain unaltered: it is heavier, slower, larger and uglier (its radar signature did not measure up to expectations) than the normal Hornet.
There is nothing super about this Hornet; perhaps “Super Bug” is a better descriptor. Evidently the underwing aero-acoustic environment and resulting vibrations are so violent that some weapons are being damaged in transit to the target on a single flight – dumb bombs are fine in that environment but not long-range missiles containing sophisticated and relatively delicate components.
As for its gap-filling ability, the first question is whether there is a gap at all. The high-speed, low-level catastrophic failure that Nelson predicts the F-111 is going to suffer in the near future is laudable only if true.
Perhaps the minister or one of his minders can explain why the F-111 wing being tested at the Defence Science and Technology Organisation has passed 30,000 hours of fatigue testing without failure. The F-111 fleet averages about 6500 hours after some 33 years in service. Is this “justification spin” more about being “worried about what it is that we do not know”, as a parliamentary committee was told recently by a senior air force officer, rather than sound reasoning based on professional engineering advice from experienced structural specialists?
My fear is the former. Certainly, with the Super Hornet carrying half of some of the weapons, half the distance, at half the speed of the aircraft it is replacing, one has to hope and pray that the minister has not been misled. Worse still, we must wonder whether he has gone off prematurely without ensuring the rigorous engineering and operational evaluation process that is so essential to justifying spending $6 billion has been scrupulously followed and all options carefully and fairly evaluated.
The old saying that a person who shoots from the hip is bound to blow off some toes rings in my ears. Presumably ministerial staff have procured a wheelchair as a part of their contingency planning – purely for “gap-filling” reasons, of course.
Peter Criss is a retired RAAF air vice-marshal, former air commander of Australia and one of Australia’s most experienced fighter/strike pilots.
—–
(btw I think he is out of line with the “ugly” statement. SHs look pretty cool )
ELPGood thinking number 99. Airstrikes even by the larger airforces [US excluded] are usually carried out by a small numbers of aircraft against specific strategic targets using modern precision bombing ordinance. The rule of thumb for tanking long range strike is usually 1 tanker per 4 strike aircraft. At that rate five tankers should be plenty for Australia, unless sortie rates were very intensive. I would have preferred an extra 2 tankers ,but waiting for them until the development of the cargo loading fascillities available already on the A310- MRTT but not [I think] on our five A330-200s .
at least not yet.
Not enough tankers for sustained ops including airframes don’t have 100% mission up times. Also for sustained ops, those tankers have to return to base recycle etc. The ratio of tankers to fighters depends on the range. A 1-4 ratio as you claim doesn’t mean much if each fighter for a certain long range strike requries three refuelings. And of course the number of aircraft used over a 24 hour period.
No matter. All water under the bridge.
ELPOne thing countries are really bad at are predicting the future for the next 20-30 years. Aussie fighter aircraft service lives will have to last that long. The current defence minister isn’t going to be around forever so saying the Super Hornet is a short term fix is an unknown. It may be around longer. The last U.S. budget passed by congress was critical. It slowed down the rate of production of JSF. All the JSF cost projections were based on saving money by having an uninterrupted production schedule. That didn’t happen. Given the current political climate in the U.S. and Iraq alone costing $10 billion a month, expect more of the same. That all buy itself is risk.
Flanker is cheap to get. The Pacific rim has and is getting more disposable income to spend on weapons. Saying there is no threat now or even in 10 years doesn’t cut it. Australian defence ignoring the big fat elephant in the living room and not addressing honestly, the loss of long range strike that is coming up in a post F-111 world is cause for concern. If long range strike isn’t important, at least say so. That makes Super Hornet a whole lot easier to digest. Especially with all the weasel words of SH being sold as having more “capability” than F-111. As it is now any hope of long range strike in a post F-111 world doesn’t happen until JSF arrives and the fix for that is to use the 5000lb rated external hard points on JSF to have drop tanks :rolleyes: ….. OR invest in some kind of uber range hypersonic high altitude missile that will hang off that hard point and give you a 2500 mile range with an SDB sized payload. Those are some weird freakin options. Being more honest about long range strike going away would be appreciated.
ELPYou are wrong, US planes usually participate in mexican air shows, since the early 1990s there have been USAF F-15s in Mexican local airshows.
Mexico has a more than a trillion economy, but the Mexican military is only an extension of the police, its power projection is very limited.
The report is not clear if they will or will not buy the Su-27s, they simply say they do not have something concrete and at the moment they won`t buy the Su-27 under the corrents conditions as previously was reported.
Since they had the plan to buy the Su-27 but they have declined all the offers the Russians have made
They also clarify they are looking for cheaper options to the Su-27s and therefore the Su-27 was more a Russian proposal than a Mexican navy concrete purchase.I think in Mexico there is not a militaristic policy and therefore there is not a policy of buying weapons for display as Venezuela does and like Brazil they are more interested in building civil aircraft since Bombardier currently builds jet aircraft in Mexico.
The mexicans are more interested in building and making money making Bombardier jets than just buying and expending it on Russian stuff
Thanks for making that more clear.
ELPUnfortunately the threat to be concerned about isn’t a legacy Hornet user.
Sell it to a big SU that flat out can refuse to engage an F-18F and drive right on by. Unless it comes across your engagement path, good luck.
The funny idea of Defence using “air superiority” as a reason to procure Super Hornet doesn’t inspire much confidence.
We can make a legion of small fighters do long range strike because we have a legion of tankers. Australia has but a handful. Trading in an aircraft with a 1200 mile radius for one with on a good day with a few weapons hanging 500 mile radius means your idea of having much long range strike just went out the window. An F-15 Strike Eagle in it’s K inspired variant with conformals and drop tanks would push that close to 700-750 mile radius for strike, not quite but close and certainly a compromise. SH isn’t even in that league. So someone like, oh let me guess, a medical doctor with zero mil aviation knowledge saying that the SH is more capable, would have to leave that out of the capability study. Trying to back pedal and stating JASSM will help isn’t much either. I wouldn’t base a whole air doctrine around JASSM.
If long range strike is no longer important, fine. No problem. Funny is no one wants to come out and admit that.
ELPThe Great Global Warming Swindle
Oh dear…. all of the Global Warming Alarmists won’t like this one bit. They have shouted down any opposing view. And here is the program that has a different view, as mentioned by someone already…here is the link…. I suppose everyone in this show will be hunted down by the global warming gestapo and silenced. :diablo:
Video about 1hr 15min
The Great Global Warming Swindle
ELPThe Great Global Warming Swindle
Oh dear…. all of the Global Warming Alarmists won’t like this one bit. They have shouted down any opposing view. And here is the program that has a different view, as mentioned by someone already…here is the link…. I suppose everyone in this show will be hunted down by the global warming gestapo and silenced. :diablo:
Video about 1hr 15min
The Great Global Warming Swindle
ELPThat means, a hypothetical fight of F-22 against so far mythical PAK-FA or J-XX would largely depend on…… maneuverability..
So the F-22 has to fight vaporware now?
ELPI competely understand what you are sayin but it seems that in every single Forum and Thread every one is bashing the SuperHornet,Im only an ex-gun slinging Grunt but I just cant see the USN and now the RAAF takin on board a fighter that just aint up to scratch,sure it has happened in the past( oz seasprite) Id love to know what combat seasoned ex Tomcat pilots think of the Superhornet,anyone read any articles?
Sometimes the purpose for something is just to be a warning sign to others of what not to do. I think the F-18 Super Hornet fills that mission very well.
—-
Also the people that think this thing has stealth ( which is being implied by Defence and clueless news sources), when any kind of weapons are hung on it, need a dose of reality. :rolleyes:
ELPMaybe – but probably not.
Unfortunately, too many are too quick to automatically jump to the conclusion “they are terrorists” – its often a fine line between terrorism and freedom fighting – and depends greatly on the point of view of the individual.
For instance, what if those 3 men had families that had been in houses bombed by the coalition when the war was official – could you blame them for wanting the US/Brits/whatever out – and taking action to that end?
I can’t blame them. They’re dead.
ELPOh sorry… a UK forum :p Here this is better…
ELPA case of beer to the squadron. On me. :dev2:
ELPDear oh dear. This is going to keep on until the 2020s isn’t it.
The Super Hornet is an interim buy. It will serve from 2010 until 2020 or a little beyond. Lets consider what its replacing, the opposition and the alternatives.
The Old – The F-111
The F-111 has speed and range. Unfortunately it is become harder to maintain and requires further modernisation to carry it through to 2020. Of course this would cost less than $6billion but then again given recent history the ADF and the Government would be loathe to possibly throw away more money on old airframes. On top of that if the F-111 is to face the vaunted Flanker then it is horribly vulnerable unless escorted. In that case its speed and range are irrelevant since they are limited buy the need to have Hornets along for the ride. The Super Bug at least has its own quite capable self defence capability, far in excess of a Pig with Snake. The strike capability of the Super Bug with JASSM and JDAM is formidable, given the issues that have been experience with AGM-142 and the fact that the new weapons given real precision strike capability in all weather, it probably exceeds that of the Pig.
The Opposition
Seriously what is the opposition? Indonesia has 2 (two, deux, zwei, II etc) Flankers and are struggling to get another pair. Suggesting that the RAAF will be going up against the bulk of the foreces of the PRC or India in the 2010-20 period is a tactic used by a certain Doctor but is as close to reality as suggesting the US will seek to annex Australia and make it the 51st state. At worst the RAAF could be facing a single foreign CV with dozen or so Flankers or Fulcrums. Lets not forget that the Super Bugs are replacing the F-111s. While I doubt the RAAF will employ them as they did the F-4Es in the 70s I still expect them to major in strike with the classic Bugs continuing as the main AtoA warfighters. Similiarly the once the Lightning starts to come on line they will go first to the classic squadrons and have the job of handling AtoA opposition.
The Alternatives
F-15, Typhoon and Rafale etc I’ve already written all wish to on this in post #132.
Daniel
JASSM hanging off of the F-111 sounds pretty good. :dev2:
ELPThanks Silva. 🙂 I wasn’t going to mention that link so as not to be too cruel but the people that wrote it seem to know a thing or two.
Sign In
