from a trategic point of view i think america would make a big mistake if it leaves airbases behind in iraq which it does need operationally (f-15 can be over iraq in 20 minutes from the gulf) as for the IRAQI airforce there will be a handover of the remaining operational fighters/fighter-bombers that are left in american hands to the iraqis by the end of this year they are only 12-15 as i heard i will publish the types when i know them, but i know the iraqi government is planning a tender to firms for inspecting them to get them to operational standerd.

Cart before the horse. Have to have a stable government in Iraq for a while before we give them fast moving jets. Some towns still resemble Dodge City. Since we needed about 4-500k leg troops to pacify Iraq originally when we went in there, thinking Iraq is going to be stable is whistling past the grave yard. We have a smaller ratio of troops in Baghdad ( talking trigger pullers not support troops ) than what New York City has of police.

Seeing as our plan to make Iraq stable is nothing less than moronic, the only way I see Iraq being stable now is getting an Ouija Board and contacting Sadaam for advice. Typical government operation. We fire the only guy that could keep that country wired together.

No of course not but it was originally sold to congress under a COTS buy plan. As the J was created as a civil design for a civil market that LM knew did not exist. This was done so they could use the COTS procurement rules. It worked for a while, even though early airframes delivered to the military were screwed up. Now it is on a complete milspec procurement method.

Hi you might remember me from such famous posts as “Combining the ARMY ARH and LUH”. I’m still writing that research paper by the way and I had a big issue come up.

If I wanted to take a COTS airframe (such as the EC-145 aka Lakota UH-72A) and take it into a tactical environment where it would be subject to enemy fire, then it would have to go thru Live Fire Testing. Platforms in the past which have been specifically manufactured for military purposes like Cobra, Blackhawk, and Apache were already built with this survivability issue in mind.

How do I “make” a COTS airframe more survivable? (A nail gun and kevlar?)
Whose responsibility is it? The vendor, tester, or customer?
Are there any COTS ARMY aircraft (rotary wing specifically) that were “beefed up” for ARMY use? If so, what is the process in altering an airframe?

I am getting confused as to when a platform goes thru a Live Fire Test and it is determined that a certain component is susceptible therefore some action must be taken to improve survivability & knowing that a platform will have to go thru live fire so you therefore modify the platform. Shoot first then modify? OR modify first then shoot?

Success will vary. An example of a COTS failure is C-130J. It initially arrived at units with a whole bunch of stuff screwed up, depending on the mission it was supposed to do. It was never properly R&D’d before a contract was written up. The weather version of it being a prime example. It also was never initially tested properly to see if it FIRST could do all the core dirt bike like ops of a legacy C-130. FOD issues were discovered with the engines. Of course all the necessary equipment a legacy C-130 crew would expect had to be added on and figured out after the fact of the, in this case a flawed contract. Now it is finally worked back into being a milspec program. All of this required a lot of extra money. There was NO money saved in going COTS with this airframe. In fact, a lot was wasted. So if anything, the C-130J program shows that you have to be really careful when drawing up a contract for an airframe that will be COTS. It many be the worst example of COTS but I am sure you can be successful doing this purchase method too.

Could be interesting in that she may be the last queen ever. Who knows?

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=18096&rsbci=0&fti=111&ti=0&sc=400

I am originally from Michigan. But I would rather see all the carriers renamed so they were not names of Presidents. I liked the older naming system better.

Back on topic….

A few thoughts I had that might be interesting…or not.

Yes I would agree at first as some mentioned that there isn’t that much commonality between the upgraded early Aussie Hornets and the Super Hornet….at firstglance…However “commonality” worked once as a snow job with our politcos when we initially got into the Super Hornet. The J model C-130 also got away with this trick…

Consider though that RAAF does have a few commonality things in the support equipment area. They just got new combat crew simulators to replace their old F-18 sims. These new combat crew simulators for their upgraded older Hornets are based on Super Hornet combat crew simulators. The new system ( HACTS ) Hornet Aircrew Training System to be purchased at 100million for 3 sets. One is already in place at fighter town Williamtown and another should be in place early 2007. A third is now installed at Tindal and they will be linked together so as to give some interactive linked training. They will at some time be linked to the instrumented range at the Shoalwater Bay Training Area range so as to have a virtual environment of that area for the combat crew simulators.
Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System is also being added to the old Hornets. This will also be set up for the new combat sim mentioned above.
HACTS will also be worked up to help simulate Aussies new NCW ( net-centric warfare environment ).
HACTS will also help out when the older Hornets have their center barrel replaced as less airframes would be available for training while that refirb happens.
HACTS also has a nice mission debrief section with nice big flatscreens. All of this is same/similar to what our USN Super Hornet crews do.
So you can see, just on that selling point alone….. Whether it goes through or not an F-18F sale to RAAF has some “commonality” already in place.
As much as I think F-18E/F as an airframe isn’t so hot. ( Weak traditional fighter jet performance )… The logistics and weapon/sensor/avionics could be a really smart move for the RAAF. Again… we are just learning what AESA can do. It is already just as a traditional A2G strike helper with the Super Hornet… done some amazing things in testing. Just as the Wedgetail is going to be even more scary when they figure out all the things that can be done with AESA/MESA beyond it’s traditional initial requirement.
I can see a benefit of Aussies going with a Strike Eagle. RAAF already works with the Singapore AF for boom tanking their F-111s at times. Adding a cooperative learning curve as mentioned already in a previous post with Sing, Korea, Aussie Strike Eagles could be an advantage. Strike Eagle has an awesome combat crew sim.
My 2cents, I think the logistically SH is an “OK” idea for the RAAF. Operationally is another kettle of fish. Great avionics, luke warm airframe. It carries a wide variety of weapons and the avionics will do a lot of great things up to including AESA run.. BDA “photography” of a strike… high bandwidth transceiver for a number of uses. ECM/ECCM. With the F you have a sensor setup that gives the appearance of the backseater doing strike work using the AESA and the front seater doing A2A work at the “same” time. Even though it isn’t. I like the idea of two engines over water. Say what you will but F-18s have had to shut an engine off before…. 😉 And yes the F-22 engine tech in JSF can show that the engine is the least of your worries on up time, where USAF F-22 maintainers have mentioned how surprised they are of lack of engine related issues with F-22. History shows that for smaller air arms, a single engine jet can and does at times mishap at a higher rate. We can dump 6 or more F-16s a year and it is no big deal to us. Time will tell. However for such a small population base as Australia, 15-16 billion dollars for 100 JSF airframes for the whole program is real money. I always think over time, at the end of the service life, you will have more two engine jets left over than one engine jets. So IMO a two engine jet is better value for the money, even though the operating costs are a bit higher.
For best value all 4th gens should be looked at, however if SH absolutely has to be done, I would prefer all E model F-18s as while the backseater AESA helper sounds interesting, you are adding weight that could better be used on fuel.
(F-18E) 14,400 lb (6,530 kg) (F-18F) 13,550 lb (6,145 kg) of gas.
Where a lot of ground targets are just going to be handed off to you anyway over the network by an off-board platform ( Wedgetail, UAV, another Super Hornet or JSF ). I’d rather have the gas. Sorry if that puts some F-111 Wizzos hoping to upgrade, out of a job.