TribesWe already own the Growler airframes, they’re the 12 we bought pre-wired to accept the Growler EW fit.
As for submarines, they’re a pressure vessel much like an airliner and have a fixed maintenance/refit schedule based on the number of pressure cycles they undertake. This is why we sometimes get down to 2 subs but also why sometimes (never reported, who wants to hear a success story) 4 subs. If we want to have 6 subs available for operations we need 12 hulls, and we’ll sometimes get 5 available and other times get 7.
I’d like another AWD, but it would need a different radar/combat system since we bought the last SPY1s and they aren’t being made anymore so whatever we buy would be out of step with the rest of the fleet.
I’m pretty sure the announcement was for 12 new build EA-18Gs, meaning the the prewired F-18Fs will continue on their original bridging role.
I conur re the subs and AWD. One thing the media tends to forget (ignores?), its that it costs a lot of money to have all the fleet at a high degree of readiness. While that may be useful when at war, is it really a thoughtful application of resources in peace-time?
TribesFar from me to exonerate Eurocopter, the issues with both the Tiger and NH90 are well known. I was just hinting that the blame for the delay was not all Eurocopter’s given the pattern arising from previous projects (Super Seasprite, Collins, Wedgetail, MU90).
What pattern? Kaman was never able to meet contract specifications with the SH-2Gs or demonstrate that they had the capacity to do so, and issues with the Collins class were resolved fairly quickly once Kockums was removed from the project. Deleveries of Wedgetail to Aus, South Korea and Turkey were all late, but eventually met the contracted requirements. MU90 integration work was completed succesfully although late (although the Mk54 has been assessed as a bettor option for integration with airborn platforms). The “trend” I see is that the DoD is unwilling to accept systems that are not fit for their intended purpose or do not meet contracted performance levels. Are you saying that’s “bad”?
TribesAn external observer could draw a parallel with the Seasprite debacle and look at other Eurocopter customers successfully achieving IOC, and then come to a different conclusion as to who is proving to be what…
IOC is a long way from full operating capability.
Seems like other NH-90 operators are having the same issues as the ADF. http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/rotorhub/italian-nh90-afghan-deployment-hampered-teething-p/ Also, remember Sweden bought UH-60s to fill the gap caused by NH-90 delays.
Yes, the ADF dumped the SH-2G(A). That was the correct decision. Time will tell if persevering with the NH-90 proves to be the smart option.
TribesAn AESA equipped fighter will only provide comparatively limited, point electronic attack capability. Hence the acquisition of the EA-18G in addition to APG-79 equipped F-18F Block 2s by the USN and RAAF.
TribesAustralia to get 12 new E/A-18G Growlers for total of 36 Super Hornets
Also note that first 3 F-35 not scheduled to arrive in Australia until 2020 and no plans for fourth Air Warfare Destroyer.
Australia commited to 3 squadrons of F-35
This would seem to indicate that only 72 will be acquired for 3/75/77 Sqn and assumes 18 for 2 OCU. Basicaly a legacy Hornet replacement with 36 strong Super Hornet fleet to be retained.
A fourth squadron of F-35s was never formally committed to, so nothing’s changed there. But Chief of Airforce has stated that he sees the Growlers being kept on in addition to the 100 strong fast jet fleet.
By the time the deliveries are completed for the initial three squadrons, the original 24 F-18Fs will be getting pretty old, and the the type will be approaching the end of its useful life, so I suspect the F-35 fleet will get to around 100.
TribesI’ve read your comment on page 5. Not to mention that I sort of hate when I’m in a forum I always get a “C’mon one day this forum you’ll learn a lot things”. But anyways I’m not a F-35 expert or other aircraft expert but I’m a expert in the Super Hornet because that’s my favorite aircraft. Anyways it’s top speed I know it’s not that great but c’mon the Super Hornet is still fast even faster than cars or most planes that are built in Mach 1. But even though I would really like to see it with the EPE engines so it could become a better DogFighter with that 20% thrust it should be pretty maneuverable with its AMRAAM and AIM-9x. Thought it could be the best DogFighter and can be compared with eurofighter and sukhois T/W ratio and A2A skills for the Super Hornet. Anyway if you didn’t know these aircraft have the same speed.
Two questions: How old are you? Where are you from? (what country)
I’d just leave it with the first question. National agendas, perspectives and blind spots fuel way too much of the “debate” in this forum as it is……
TribesThe FAA has approved Boeing’s 787 battery fix
TribesIf they go ahead with the purchase of the 12 EA-18G and 12 F/A-18F, none of the first batch will be modified to EA-18G.
So the final numbers would be 12 EA-18G and 36 F/A-18F. They would probably keep the training role rather than send it back to the USN.
So No 6 would operate the 12 EA-18G and possibly a couple of F/A-18F. No 1 would remain as strike. Then probably another squadron for training (possibly No 75 as they were last planned with F-35A?).
Then No 3, No 2 OCU and No 77 with F-35A.
The notifications are a (more than) little confusing. Could still be 24 F-18Fs and 12 EA-18Gs. Time will tell.
TribesThe situation for Australia is completely different: left to our devices we couldn’t field a Cessna, and our participation in F-35 isn’t going to change that.
The ability to build e.g. the world’s finest landing gear is strategically irrelevant, and the practice of awarding contracts based on superior Australian ‘industrial participation should be excoriated by the defence community, not embraced. The defence of the nation is not a jobs program. :rolleyes:
The industrial objectives were not to develop capabilities to build complete combat aircraft, rather to gain access by Aus companies to the global F-35 supply chain.
The decision to buy the F-35 is a distinct decision. Program participation does not oblige countries to buy the F-35, although it offers them preferenential access should they choose to do so.
As to Cessna’s: http://www.gippsaero.com/our-capabilities.aspx Yes, i know they were recently bought by Mahindra.
TribesThe same issue with the F35… all the senior RAAF bigwigs keep saying its great, we need it…. and the senior public servants also say its great we need it… (to not look like fools).
Its that simple.
Sounds more than a little like the everyone else is wrong but me argument, including the USAF, USMC, USN, UK, Turkey, Netherlands, Norway, Italy etc
You need to be able to state the case that:
[*]that “buying into” the F-35 program was not a wise decision given the outcomes. ie the industrial participation objectives of “buying into the program”, and the value of contracts awarded to Aus industry.
As to shoes/equipment, is it correct to say nothing was done? http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/lsd/iss/about.cfm
TribesNot when the Labor government suffers from the same rot and is receiving advice from the same corrupted defence bureaucracy. Labor continued Australia’s intervention in Afghanistan also, but this is not an affirmation of the wisdom of that mission so much as it is of Labor’s cowardice.
Do you mind if I give a blunt reply?
This is an aviation forum. I suspect most here are not really interested in a poster’s personal political views. I suspect fewer still, are interested in what (at least in an Australian context) would be considered extremist political views.
I suspect there are forums for political discussions. This is for an aviation forum.
TribesThe RAAF should drop the F35 sooner then later (i think we have committed to 12 so far?) and there should be a senate inquiry into the whole thing.
I’d argue this:
[*]The Australian National Audit Office have already audited the RAAF’s air combat capability planning. If something was going to come out, it would have been then.
[*]Tenders as a procurement method often don’t work in the buyer’s interests. Their primary role is, after all, to ensure supplier access. The USAF tanker acquisition is a case in point, as is the selection of the Tiger ARH by the ADF. In the latter, the successful tenderer essentially admitted that their tender document was faulty, but only after the contract had been signed.
TribesThis could be read as:
[*]12 additional airframes are being acquired to maintain F-18F strength at 24 aircraft.
In short, all that has changed is the Growler acquisition as envisaged by Chief of Air Force recently when he stated that the ideal fast jet fleet would be 100 F-XX plus 12 Growlers.
http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2013/02/26/minister-for-defence-transcript-joint-doorstop-at-avalon/
Note the life expectancy on the Supers – 2030 or 2035 only.
Also note the reference to the ability of the KC-30s to refuel F-35s “when they arrive”.
TribesRegardless of what it sounds like to you, the raven radar is “in a production-ready configuration that is at least “two generations” beyond the fixed antenna radar,” according to Selex Galileo.
In other words, F-35 has some catching up to do, like going from
60-degree off-boresight, to 100-degree off-boresight, like that on Gripen.
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/2012-07-08/selex-galileo-leads-europes-e-scan-driveRegarding Rafale & F-35, is either F-35 or its radar fully operational yet ?
Northrop Grumman: demonstrated capacity in the design and support of AESA in the form of 180+ production AN/APG-77 radars delivered to the USAF. F-35 program data on the AN/APG-81 available to Canada as an F-35 partner. Key AN/APG-81 technology back fitted to the AN/APG-77v1.
Raytheon: demonstrated capacity in the design and support of AESA in the form of around 200 production APG-79s fitted to in service F/A-18F/Gs of two defence forces. AN/APG-63(v)2 fitted to in-service F-15SGs of the RSAF.
Selex, Euroradar and Thales: “you can trust us”.
TribesBoth Rafale & Gripen has reached standard production radars
Regarding Gripen, one radar on one aircraft doesn’t sound very “production” to me. Has the Armée de l’Air actually accepted an AESA Rafale into service and declared it fully operational yet?
Sign In
