Well as others have said regarding Mr Fitzgibbon’s remarks about the F-111 hardly surprising, even still, Pontius Pilate would have been proud. :diablo:

And on that note I’ll wager that we’ll see the RAAF legacy Hornets replaced by the Super Hornet as well. One more major cost blow out and or delay in the F-35 program and you can start throwing serious money down on that eventuality. It’s worth remembering at this point Australia has until the end of the year to formally sign off on the F-35 deal, so nothing is set in stone.

The question I would like to know is WHY! 😮 The way I see it (please correct me if otherwise, I’m only a peasant), the Strike Eagle would be better suited for export; it seems to have similar capabilities as the Super Hornet, except with more raw performance and payload capability (I think I remember Boeing themselves saying the SH and S Eagle were evenly matched)….

Or is the super hornet’s price and ease of maintenance advantage the selling point here?
….Perhaps the Super is just Boeing’s baby at the moment. 😮

Well you have as I see it gone at least some way to answering your own question. That is, the Rhino is relatively cheaper to maintain than the Mud Hen, which has always had something of a reputation of being a maintenance pig. That point alone however should not be seen as the clincher in any possible deal.

As I see it the reasoning behind Boeing pushing the Super Hornet (new toy on the block reasoning aside) is the desire to ultimately drive down the procurement cost of the aircraft by securing foreign orders. By doing that then the chances of the USN acquiring more Super Hornets increases, coupled with the sky rocketing cost of the F-35 and continued delays in the F-35 project and it doesn’t take Washington insider to see what Boeing is playing at.

Ergo, it stands to reason that Boeing would gain little more than the money involved in a small foreign sale of the Strike Eagle as the USAF is not in the market to acquire any more Strike Eagles. Thus far of course the only signed Super Hornet deal is the 24 plane purchase by the RAAF to replace the soon to be retired F-111. The irony of course is that one can argue that the Strike Eagle especially one equipped with an AESA radar and the F110 engine is a more suitable replacement for the F-111 than the Super Hornet.

The former Australian Federal Government allowed itself to be used as a Pawn by Boeing in its ongoing dance with the USN. Defense procurement reviews by the new Government aside, it seems to be a forgone conclusion that Australia will operate the Super Hornet post 2010. Ultimately the decision Australia probably has to face now is at what point do we say – “Sod it” and jump into bed with Boeing and go all the way. The current purchase of 24 Super Hornets is meant to be the replacement for the F-111. However this deal does not address the ongoing problem of the RAAF’s legacy Hornets and the program to replace the centre barrels in these aircraft. One argument is for the RAAF to simply replace all its F-111’s and Legacy F-18’s with the Super Hornet and put the F-35 on ice. The reasoning being that Australia in the foreseeable future doesn’t actually need a 5TH Gen aircraft. Post 2015 should the strategic climate dictate it then the RAAF could always look to acquire a mature fully operational F-35.

Exactly. Every day that any cancellation decision is delayed will drive up the cost penalties.

The other question that needs to be asked is how far has the RAAF gone in the rundown of the F-111 fleet. Is it beyond the point of no return and therefore too late to reverse the decision to retire it in 2010?

Tas

The stated aim of the RAAF has always been to maintain full capability of the F-111 right up until the day the aircraft is stood down. I think had there been a genuine desire to degrade the operational capability of the aircraft then the integration of the AGM-142 would never have been completed. The same can probably be said for modifying the cockpit to be NOG compatible.

We use a centerline and right inboard for external tanks. A tank on the left inboard would mask the ATFLIR in some situations. And sitting on an ejection seat for anything longer than a couple hours is not exactly comfortable. Now add to that comming back to the boat at night in bad weather and things get interesting.

INO, could the ATFLIR (or equivalent) be mounted on the centerline point of the Rhino, or Baby Hornet for that matter? If it could then I would have thought that having the ATFLIR on the centerline would allow you to mount two tanks on the inboard points without the masking problems that you mentioned.

It would be worth seeing Japan get the Raptor if only for the acute embarrassment it will cause to the Australian Government. 😉

The only thing getting the Super Hornet by 2010 does, is allow Australia to go off and help the U.S. on some ill advised fishing expedition and be more plug and play with their ops…. more than likely on some OPERATION: Useless Dirt scenario in the sand box. I wonder if the average Aussie taxpayer thinks it is worth all that money?

Well you would think in an ideal world the average Australian taxpayer would see whats going on and scream – ENOUGH ALREADY!!

Sadly though the last ten years has seen an already apathetic voting public in Australia slip into a state of mind that is akin to a dog that has been kicked one to many times. Every time there is yet another Defense procurement stuff up the public just whimpers and trudges on. The official slogan for the Howard Government should be – “My fellow Australians, stop thinking, your government will think for you.” 🙁

Impressive load…………..8-SDB’s, 2-AMRAAM’s, and 2-AIM-9X’s! All at supercruise and in a stealthy package…………:D

And to think that the Australian Government continues to dismiss the Raptor because of it’s supposed limited strike capability, yeah right. :confused: