pfcemRubbish. I’ve shown you the production timelines for the last 2 F-15E derivative orders. Those timelines completely disagree with what YOU alone are saying.
Those production timeline conclusively demonstrate that F-15E derivatives were/are in production & could be delivered in the timeframe Australia is receiving its F/A-18E/Fs.
F-15E itself hasn’t been in production for over 10 years, only derivatives. The only current orders Boeing has are Singapore and Korea and we are talking about less than 40 airframes remaining, without additional orders. Where is the “capacity” to “significantly ramp up production” coming from?
Again, F-15E derivatives were/are in production & could be delivered in the timeframe Australia is receiving its F/A-18E/Fs.
The capacity comes from the fact that the very production line that is currently producing F-15E derivatives has produced F-15Es at a faster rate than it is currently.
Superior avionics? Like what? APG-63(V3) is an old radar with a new AESA array, based on technology taken from AGP-79…
Sniper XR (if chosen) v ATFLIR which IS chosen? DEWS v IDECM III? HART? Which of these are superior. Honestly?
“More options in weapons”, er what? What weapons has Australia chosen with the new platform or is already in use that can’t be used on both platforms?
As to your potential buyers, we know NOTHING about the end-user licences for these aircraft. We DO know that we cannot just sell them to whomever we please and there is NO reason whatsoever to think that it would be easier to sell secondhand F-15’s on the market than it would be to sell secondhand Super Hornets.
These aircraft would be competing directly with Boeing’s new build products in the market. I tend to think that this fact will make these aircraft impossible to sell to anyone bar the US.
Yes superior avionics. Much more space inside a F-15 airframe than in a F/A-18E/F airframe…
The simple fact that there are many more operators of F-15E derivatives & that there is enough interest/demand for more of them to prompt Boeing to propose the F-15SE.
I do get it. I think you are underestimating the SCALE of work that needs to be done to build a Growler type capability into a tactical airframe. The work has been done, for the Super Hornet, the F-15? Definitely not. Electromagnetic spectrum testing/? Nope hasn’t been done.
Wingtip mounted ALQ-218 pods?
Oops, they can’t go on the wings of the F-15 can they?
ALQ-99 and Harm missiles? Sorry F-15 only has 2 under wing hardpoints and the ALQ-99 requires them as does HARM…
Internal carriage of ALQ-218? Hasn’t even been looked at.
There are so many changes involved in the Growler over the F/A-18E/F that your offhand comments about converting an F-15 into an EA-15 are ludicrous.
Whilst it might be able to piggyback off the systems used on the Growler, integration and testing on the aircraft will take years, just as it did with the Growler.
For an Air Force that just had it’s SOJ onto B-52 canned, I don’t see where the funding is coming from for an even more difficult and technically complex project?
No you don’t get it & I am no longer willing to even attempt to explain it to you anymore.
The “gap” is the lack of air combat capability between the retirement of F-111 and the introduction of F-35.
The “time” is irrelevant. What is important is RAAF’s ability to provide air combat options. The F/A-18A/B fleet with standoff weapons and new refuellers WAS to be the replacement for F-111 strike capability, remember? But unfortunately delays in all those programs and the lack of availability of legacy Hornets through increasingly expired fatigue life meant they can no longer shoulder the burden alone, hence the need for a bridging capability.
It’s got nothing to do with making sure 1 and 6 Sqn’s have an aircraft to fly and everything to do with making sure RAAF has a fully capable combat squadron between 2010 and 2020 when there will be a bit of an upheaval in ANYONE’s terms in RAAF combat capability…
The gap is due to the retirement of the F-111s prior to their being replaced by F-35s.
If “time” was irrelevant then there would be no need for a stop gap as Austalia could/would just wait for its F-35s…
RAAF investigated the issue and RAAF agrees with my POV, not yours.
Anyway it’s a pointless circular argument. RAAF will be getting Supers.
Something I am more than comfortable with, as a bridging capability.
Indeed, you have your head in the sand & are unable/unwilling to pull it out.
pfcemSo all user bought F100s for their F-16s, F-15s, F-14D, B-1A/B, B-2,F-2 only. 😀
I didn’t say that. :rolleyes:
pfcemF-35 is too important not just to the US, but also to her allies, to rely on only one engine…
Nonsense. Nearly all combat aircraft in history (save for the F-16 I doubt most could even name another) have relied on just one engine.
People need to pull their head out of this BS dream that alternate engines are some great thing.
Even the F-16 did not need an alternate engine. The issues with early F100s was due to the F-15’s & F-16’s flight performance which stressed the engines more than any had been previously. Most all the reliability issues had been resovled with the -220, the F-15 did not need more thrust than it already had & the USAF deliberately keep from increasing the F-16’s thrust in order to not threaten the F-15’s dominance.
pfcemWhat exactly do they have much more to gain? Explain..
The gains come from the continuation of the program (as apposed to it being shut down if it is discovered that those in the program have lied about the aircraft’s flight performance), continued trust & respect, et cetera…
All of which leads to not only the completion of the already intened sales but the likelyhood of additional sales. And the possibility/likelyhood of selection for additional programs.
Makes no difference. LM testing people are not allowed to spoil the image of the company just because they don’t work for marketing division.
Yes it does. You don’t understand the difference between a test pilot & a marketing spokesman?
Nonsense… What do lives of the customer pilots or national security have in common with what Beesley talks to the press?
The consequences of Beesley not being honest are truly disastrous – orders for hundreds of F-35s.. As you have said it, a disaster..
If the aircraft can’t do what he says it can do & some other pilot attemps a maneuver that the F-35 should then be able to to butt can’t…
No, if Beesley lies about the F-35 & it is found out (which it would) then he could/would lose his job & the entire program could be put in jeopardy. Not to mention the lost convidence & respect that for Beesley would likely prevent him from ever being paid to fly ever again & for LM could/would lead to fewer contracts in the future.
Another nonsense. In ten years noone gives heck about what Beesley has said about the aircraft today. The orders are secured, PR image is perfect, that is all that matters.
It won’t be 10 years. If fact other pilots have aready flown the F-35 & non of them have contradicted Beesley.
Wrong.. Every single word is instructed. And for a good reason..
Not in this country & not in that company.
pfcemMany things COULD be done. The point is WHY and for WHAT benefit?
That’t the point.
Contrary to what you have been saying F-15E derivatives have/had been in prodution, Boeing would be more than happy to configure a F-15E derivatives specifically tailored to Australia’s desires & could easily ramp up F-15E derivative airframe production in order to deliver Australian F-15E derivatives in about the same time as it could deliver F/A-18E/Fs.
The only thing F-15 brings to the table that Supers don’t, is a fraction more range, some payload options (JDAM/Paveway only, JSOW and other SOW carriage will be identical) and a bit more airframe performance.
No it brings significantly better range/payload, more payload options, superior avionics, superior flight performance, more options (avionics, engines, weapons & potential buyers if/when Australia wished to get a return on its investment & sell them) all at a procurement cost that is insignificantly different from the F/A-18E/F.
The downside is a drawn out procurement process, no savings benefit, so the cost you complain of will be even greater and a less capable EW platform that shares NO commonality whatsoever, even if only training efficiencies, with your current fleet and an aircraft with reportedly a less capable radar system.
There would only be a drawn out procurement process if Australia drew it out. It does not matter which avionics, engines, weapons, et cetera. The integration of them to the F-15E platform has already been done & paid for, all Austrailia would have to do is pick & choose which ones it wanted. The only thing that really could/would have potentially cause problems/delays would be if Australia demanded its F-15E derivatives be as stealthy as its F/A-18E/Fs are. Which with the plan being to most likely keep them for less than 10 years really should not be any big thing.
These ‘stop gaps’ are replacing F-111s, there is nothing Australia could aquire that is less common that that.
Sorry, I don’t agree at all that the F-15 was the better choice for RAAF under the circumstances. If the capability was intended to be a permanent solution, that didn’t have to enter service in less than 3 years from contract signature fine, I’d support the Strike Eagle too.
But it isn’t.
An F-15E derivative would be a more capable aircraft, would cost about the same to procure & with the intent being to not keep them long, their higher operational cost would not be a big deal.
As I have said there are valid reason for chosing the F/A-18E/F but for what Australia needs, why it needs them, how much it is costing them, an F-15E derviative is a more capable platform with a greater probablility of Australia being able to find a customer to sell them to.
The devil is in the detail though, my friend. Different radar and weapon systems, different software and EW systems etc ARE significant differences.
But they are just details. It is still the same airframe, the engines, avionics et cetera are interchangable & upgradable.
Perhaps, IF the F-15E is actually invested in by USAF, IF Australia’s were to be of a similar configuration (unlike Korea and Singapore’s which operate different engines, radars and weapon system software loads to USAF) we MIGHT be able to piggyback on their upgrades.
The F-15E is invested by the USAF! It will remain in USAF service about as long as the F/A-18E/F remains in USN service, already has a major upgrade planned with a high likelyhood of another later on in their lives (only of significance if Australia kept its for a long time) and could be on virtually any configuration Australia wants & would be fully supported.
We can DEFINITELY piggyback on USN upgrades for Supers though and as has been stated, ad infinitum,the entire point of BACC is to REDUCE risk to Australia’s air combat capability, not to increase it.
There are enough risks for RAAF’s air combat capability already with JASSM, Wedgetail, KC-30A, F-35 Lightning II, P-8A, Project Vigilaire and not the least, Hornet Upgrade Project (specifically with the FLEI remaining) all experiencing various issues.
That is why there is not one element of BACC that is “developmental”. All weapons, sensors and avionics of the SH’s are in-service with USN and have been ordered “off the shelf”.
There is more risk in the creation of the hangars, aprons, munitions magazines and maintenance facilities for the BACC project, then there is in the procurement of the aircraft, sensors and weapons themselves, precisely to offset the other issues, I’ve already mentioned…
An F-15E derivative doen’t have to involve any more risk than the F/A-18E/F. In fact the only way it would is if Australia demanded its F-15E derivatives be something radically new like the F-15SE.
SH has been offered to Japan and the other Countries as I mentioned, so there are equally as plausible “additional users” for SH as there are for the Eagle. Unlike the Eagle, the F/A-18E/F is actually in the running for some new competitions. The Eagle isn’t actually entered in any current competitions, AFAIK.
Yes the the F/A-18E/F has been offered to many countries. Funny how most of them chose an F-15E derivative though…
There is enough interest in future F-15E derivatives to prompt Boeing to come up with the F-15SE. Which by the way can be either new build or an upgrade option for existing F-15E derivative customers (with upgrades obviously not be quite the same as a new build but noit for the lack of ability to change/upgrade avioncs, engines, weapons, softwars et cetera – about the only limitations would be the differences between the reduced RCS F-15SE airframe).
The derivative users of the Eagle however are all of wildly differing variants, GE F110 or P&W F100, APG-70 or APG-63. Our Super Hornets aren’t.
Not wildly different & most everything that is differnet is interchangable.
Not so sure of that. Korea’s initial batch of 40x F-15K’s cost USD$4.2bn in 2002 dollars. It’s FX-2 batch of 21x fighters cost USD$2.3b in 2008, but without the extensive support package Australia needed to acquire, due to the earlier batch of fighters and support already ordered.
Adding inflation between the years to that price doesn’t favour the acquisition cost of the Strike Eagle, nor do the on-going maintenance costs…
Actually if you bothered to do the math you would see that those priced are very close the what Australia is paying to procure its F/A-18Fs…
It already has, at least in the USA, however it ordered it’s first batch of 12x F-15’s in 2005 and received it’s first F-15 in November 2008, with a follow-on order of 8x F-15’s in 2007. These won’t be delivered until the end of 2012.
Korea ordered her F-15K’s in April 2002 and received the first model in October 2005. The last of 40x aircraft was delivered in October 2008.
As can be seen, Boeing took over 3 years to deliver the very first jet of the two most recent F-15 orders and Australia will be receiving her first Super Hornet in 2 years and 5 months after contract signature. The reason being? An existing high volume production line that RAAF could plug into and take existing customer orders. No such opportunity exists with the F-15.
As a result, Australia will receive 3 extra aircraft, in a timeframe some 2 years shorter than Singapore will receive her F-15 order.
With the Super Hornet, RAAF will reach IOC at the end of 2010 and FOC at the end of 2011/begining of 2012 and we will have an operational lifespan of at least 9 years.
With F-15 it seems likely that it would be 7 or less, going on the build rate of current orders and that assumes we order the existing, off the shelf variants that the current customers have on order. Any development work, we might want would only add to that delay.
Sorry, your logic simply does not follow. F-15E derivatives were already in production, there was additional production capacity & delivered per customer order (both options/details & timeframe).
There was a long standing requirement to replace the EA-6B Prowler in USN service and funding was provided to do it. There has been no such funding in place to directly replace the EA-111B Raven in USAF service, indeed the USAF has relied on USN EW capability since the retirement of the EA-111B and the USAF replacement was eventually decided to be the SOJ fitted to the B-52 and that project was on life support for multiple years and finally cancelled with no replacement whatsoever.
That is why it is a dubious prospect at best, that F-15 might be converted into a specialised EW variant. I’d believe USAF purchasing EA-18G Growlers, before I’d believe they’d get authorisation and funds to acquire an EA-15…
You just don’t get it. The work to create the Growler is already done & can (with much less effort) be applied to the F-15E platform.
So what? RAAF found the Super Hornet and it’s planned upgrade path met it’s requirements for a BACC.
:rolleyes:
Well the F-35 can’t be acquired earlier. That is not spin, that is reality…
As to the F-111, the gap would be there even if they weren’t being retired, not because they can no longer fly, they clearly can, what they no longer do, is provide assurance that RAAF has a viable air combat capability.
Even the most rabid anti-JSF/Super Hornet critic (APA and their ilk) admit that the F-111, on it’s own in the Asia Pacific region, no longer provides viable capability, hence why they pushed to have the F-22 acquired and future RAAF force packages comprising both types, in order to keep the F-111 safe.
Neither the Super Hornet or the Strike Eagle directly replace the F-111, because both do it’s job, PLUS the air combat job, the Hornet currently performs. These aircraft don’t need dedicated escorts, which is why I argue they are not “direct replacements” for the F-111, but rather additions to overall air combat capability.
F-111’s strike role is being replaced by enhanced standoff weapon capability for RAAF and also, as outlined in the White Paper, for RAN and also by enhancement to long range strike capability inherent in SOCOMD.
F-111’s “firepower” role is being replaced by increased capability in legacy Hornets and Super Hornets (witness the expanded VER usage on legacy and Super Hornets), additional Army firepower (attack helos and new artillery and mortar capabilities) and additional RAN standoff and land attack firepower.
No, the reason for the gap is the time difference between F-35 FOC & the early retirement of the F-111s.
I don’t see that it is.
1. Someone has to pay for the production rate to be expanded. Boeing or the customer. If it’s Boeing, they won’t be happy…
2. Boeing’s limited work orders, as previously mentioned only 65 airframes in total, with all current orders to be completed in less than 4 years (presuming no further orders since 2007, as has happened) will be finished more quickly, meaning greater costs in ending production that have to be borne with the expanded production and more income over a much shorter time.
That might look good for a project manager until 2013, but said project manager won’t be shining in 2014…
The more airframes built per year, the lower cost per airframe. This is because a significant amount of cost to built the airframes remains more-or-less constant reguardless how many airframes are built. The more airframes that are built, the more airframes those ‘fixed/contant’ costs are spead out over thus reducing those costs per airframe.
Known to be greater than Super Hornet, I agree…
Procurement costs known to be about the same & operational cost while higher not that significant if Australia doesn’t keep its “stop gap” airframes long…
Or perhaps even less, which is the point. To bridge the gap, the exists now and will after F-111 is withdrawn completely we needed capable new fighters by 2010. Only Super Hornet could manage that.
Other options could have worked as well if things had been managed differently, but they didn’t.
Whatifs are all well and good, but ignoring parts of the puzzle isn’t going to help decide the answer…
No, the F/A-18E/F is not the only platform that could manage that, it is just the platform that was chosen.
pfcemSorry Jackonicko you are just as guilty as nhampton of not comparing aplles-to-apples.
You are not comparing costs is the same years & disengenously applying more favorable later year exchange rates to earlier years costs.
pfcemHe certainly does not speak about shortcomings in the public, as long as they can be hidden. You are quite naive when you believe he will tell you anything and that’s what it is all about. I think nobody claims Beesley is a liar or not reliable, but he won’t tell you anything due the reasons stated a thousend times before. If there are problems he discovers he will report them to the team, that doesn’t mean these information makes it to the public, there are a lot of things you may never learn about as a layman.
On the contrary.
There are those here who are calling Beesley is a liar and not reliable. And they are referring to what he has said, not about what he has not said.
pfcemThe F117 isn’t faceted because someone woke up one morning and decided to build a flying diamond, but because he had exactly the same laws and principles in mind, which are result of extensive research. Now, I’m pretty positive that F22 is more stealthy at certain aspects than F117 (although marginally by my estimation). However, I also believe EADS’ claim that EF is more stealthy than F22 at certain aspect(s?), although that would be marginally as well. All of this is mainly semantics and less important as such.
Anyway, the verification of what I wrote in my previous post, comes from F22’s (and F35) design and its sharp shaping (surface angle reduction) suggests that designers followed the same philosophy used on F117, but adapted for different role.
After all, F22 has high cruise speed and really doesn’t need as much stealth as F117’s Mach 0.9 and so Raptor can turn the tail and run, while F117 is left hanging on its LO (and possibly ground hugging) only.Now, B2 it’s still largely classified. However, B2 is a generation after F117 and lots of F117’s missions experience around the world (known and covert) have actually been inbuilt into the B2’s LO airframe.
It’s quite possible that USAF found F117’s layout too draggy (performance lowering) and unnecessary stealthy, since it would be undetectable on a required flight profile anyway. So, this experiences have been inbuilt in B2 and smaller stealth fighters.
For example: B2 is belly flat and has some curvature around the cockpit ridge. So, if the enemy illuminates B2 from below (any azimuth), flat fuselage+wings (mono-volume) gives the best chance that the B2 will slip undetected. If however, B2 gets illuminated by an airborne (fighter) radar of the same flight level, it’s still enough LO to prevent detection, because it has no vertical stabilizer and separate fuselage. The only aspect of B2 which isn’t as LO as other aspects are, is from above (around cockpit ridge). However, if the enemy fighter illuminates B2 from above, there are good chances it will have to perform a Doppler scan and enable B2 to mask its LO (by any standards) signature in the ground clutter and there’s always a “beam-riding” option against Doppler mode, etc,…In the end, it’s always a trade off between performances which are usually contradicting.
Everyone would want to have a plane that has zero drag, zero fuel consumption, 30 missiles, 1000km radar range, Mach 5, etc…There’s no such thing and this same rule applies to LO degree, as well.Finally, I don’t think this is counter conventional wisdom, since THIS IS conventional wisdom :).
However, its possible that LM designers used some other RCS optimizing techniques that I’m unaware of and if someone know anything about that, please post your ideas, datas, links to articles and so on, so we all may see what’s new in the world of stealth.
The F-117 is faceted because stealth technology at the time of its design was limited to flat surfaces.
The B-2 is a generation after the F-117 in steath technology & includes the (due mostly to much greater computing capability) the ability to apply steath priciples to curved surfaces but like the F-117 is mostly ‘making a stealth shape fly.
The F-22 is a generation after the B-2 where as stealth technology had progress to the point where high aerodynamic performance & stealth could be combined.
The F-35 is a generation after the F-22 but with the improvement being more in cost, durability & maintainability than in superior shaping.
pfcemSorry, not sure who would want to buy an F-15SE?…
Someone either not cleared for the F-35 or needing new aircraft prior to when F-35s could be delivered to them.
Remember that the F-15SE is in response to customer request so somebody must be interrested…
Basically all current F-15 operators (except for the US) have been identified as potential customers.
pfcemIt’s really funny, how some people imagine weapon manufacturers :D…
Yes it is.
Especially those trying so despirately to come up with some reason to discredit what the only people who know jack about what they are talking about say.
Every manufacturer is a trader as well and tries to sell produced weapons.
Well, we all know who and what the traders are (no offense) and traders themselves know that too.This is why they invented contracts!
I mean, it’s romantic to perceive LM as “altar of justice and honesty” and LM’s PR division, is working around the clock to make such impression, indeed.
In reality they’re just merchants trying to invest as little as they can and sell as expensive as they can get away with.Now, I’m not anti-American here, but just repeating well known social facts. Make no mistake, same goes for Russian and other traders, too.
Except that they have much more to gain by being truthful than they could even hope to by not.
Now, as for Mr.Beesley, he’s a test pilot and also an LM employee>if I understood correctly. He speaks what has been cleared by LM (I though that was a common knowledge, but it seems that it needs to be emphasized, after all).
As such (LM’s employee), his statements can’t be taken into account, since that would be a legislation category > “conflict of interests”, right?However, it’s one thing to quote him, but it’s something completely else to imply what he “really” meant, without some serious scientific argument and especially since he isn’t here to clarify/explain.
The paradox is that he doesn’t even invent the things he says, but LM’s PR div, so F35 fanboys, should really stop dragging Mr.Beesley’s name around. It’s a distasteful, at least.
He is a test pilot period. He does not work for LM marketing division, he works for LM systems test & development division. His professional reputation, his job, his life & the lives of his fellow test pilots, the lives of customer pilots & forces relying on the F-35 doing what he says it does, the national security of the customer nations all are very much reliant on him being as honest & truthful as possible – the consequences of not doing to could be disastrous. Everything he says will at some point or another become verified by others who fly the plane (in fact to some degree o another much already has).
Especially in the US, companies are so worried about potential legal/contractural issues makes it a very bold accustion indeed to imply that Beesley is not being as honest & truthful as possible. Yes he is limited in what he can say, but nobody is instructing him on what to say…
pfcemThey said ” it could match the frontal-aspect radar cross-section of the Lockheed Martin F-35.”
No they didn’t but some are interpreting what they said as meaning that…
Also it is interesting to note that in earlier communications they have indicated that the SE stealth is mainly good for a2a and not a2g.
Yes it appears that the F-15SE’s stealth is to be optimized more towards ground-based radars.
Point is, when you meet another fighter that fighter has a weak radar (compared to ground based stuff) and to get the RCS so low that it becomes “effective” in the sense that you get first-look, first-shot, perhaps you don’t have to go down to 0.000xm2 or whatever the F-35 will have. If I recall correctly an RCS below 0.01 m2 will already give you a huge advantage. According to some sources.
True, what you ‘need’ is for your RCS to be low enough that you can detect/track/target the enemy at a greater range than they can do you…
pfcemBACC is about risk management.
The developmental risk Australia is prepared to accept is already inherent in F-35A (NACC) which IS the future air combat solution for Australia.
Nothing that required any development work would ever have been chosen for the bridging capability.
Period.
Doesn’t change the fact that it could be done. Not that it would need to any way. Australia could have easily enough picked from already paid for developments of F-15E derivatives & ended up will a much better F-111 replacement (even if just a ~10 year stop gap) with many more options on how to get a ‘return on investment’.
The only “in production” F-15 examples are the F-15K and F-15SG which are both significantly different platforms. F-15E’s haven’t been in production for years and would not have met Australia’s requirements. Only evolved variants.
Both F-15K and F-15SG are significantly different platforms, different from the USAF’s F-15E’s and Australia would have been forced through necessity to choose one way or the other, ie K or SG models, or self-fund an entirely new and orphan variant.
None of these would have seen FOC before 2013/14, just like RSAF’s F-15’s and 6-7 years of service would be a very poor return on investment. They would have been of differing specification to USAF models (both Singapore and Korea both use GE engines whilst USAF uses P&W) and the likelyhood of re-selling them in 2020, would seem to be minimal.
RAAF’s F/A-18F’s OTOH, are the exact same specification as the USN, except for some metric gauges and ILS changes. Because of this, and also the issues with end-user certificates, it seems far more likely that we could sell these back to the USN when we’ve finished with them.
Nonsense. As already pointed out, only Korea and Singapore utilise an F-15 variant that Australia could reasonably accept as a briding aircraft between F-111 and F-35 and these use different engines and radars to USAF models and are significantly different to each other in sensor and avionics capability.
RAAF’s Rhinos will be of identical specification in airframes, engines, radar, EW, weapons integration (and hence software loads) etc to the USN’s Rhinos.
No, all F-15E derivatives are the same platform. They just have different detail options. Austraila, just like all other F-15E derivatives customers would be getting basically the same aircraft but pick & choose which detail options it wanted. The simplest would have been a F-15SG with the addition of Harpoon integration of the F-15K.
USAF F-15Es are going to remain in service for quite some time (a similar time as F/A-18E/Fs will in the USN) and will have at least one (possibly two) major upgrades [the same for F-15E derivatives in service with other customers]. Just as Australia intends for its F/A-18Fs to remain at the same standard as USN F/A-18E/Fs, Australian F-15E derivatives could do the same but with more options both interms of what standard to procure & possible upgrade to and for potential buyers if Australia chose not to keep them beyond the initial 10 plan.
As does the Block II Super. It is in the running with a very good chance of winning in India and Brazil. How many competitions is the F-15 currently entered into?
No, the F/A-18E/F currently has just one operator (two including Australia), there are five F-15E dirivitive operators.
There is a potential of one or two (Brazil &/or India) additional F/A-18E/F operators by 2020, there will still be at least five (possibly one or two more) F-15E dirivitive operators…
The acquisition cost to Australia of F/A-18F Supers is USD$3.1b. The rest is in infrastructure, weapons, sensors and support costs for operation of the 24x aircraft for at least 10 years.
Furthermore, the Supers are funded to operate at a far higher flying rate than either the existing Hornets or F-111’s ever were, seeking to maximise the return on our investment.
The acquisition cost for 24 F-15E derivatives would be about the same…
It would be lovely for Government to fund more than 5x KC-30A’s so that RAAF didn’t have to rely on such methods or others, but unfortunately they won’t under present circumstance.
I prefer to think that ANY capability enhancement is a bonus and the tanking capability, whilst not adding much overall is a more positive step than negative and the capability MIGHT just have other uses, than tanking other F/A-18’s…
When you have proper tankers, the ability to buddy tank doesn’t allow you to do anything better.
Super Hornets should be able to fly slower than KC-30A’s, right? 🙂
Contrary to what you may have heard, the problem with the KC-30 is not that it can not fly slow enough…
As shown with Singapore’s acquisition, even the SG standard Eagle couldn’t be built in time to suit our needs, unless you think Singapore is deliberately dragging it’s feet with it’s acquisition timeline???
Quite the opposite. Singapore will get its 1st F-15SG before Australia gets its 1st F/A-18F.
This seems a ludicrous proposition. USAF can’t even get a standoff jammer funded for inclusion onto a B-52. There is no WAY they’ll get an EF-15 funded and no way Australia would ever attempt to fund something like this, themselves.
And yet somehow the Growler got done…
Indeed and any other platform faces exactly the same issue. End-User certificates are a ****** of a thing, as NZ has found out with her Skyhawks…
But with a F-15E derivatives, there would be more possibilities. Australia could not be relying on one potential customer…
I hardly think the USA would be all that inclined to allow Australia to sell 24x 5-6 year old advanced F-15 examples to anyone on the “open market” either. Boeing would be rather upset by this action, I should think…
Why not, if doing so provided Boeing with 24 additiaonal F-15E derivative sales? Unlike the F/A-18E/F, there are other F-15E derivatives out there and in the search for potentially more F-15E derivative sales Boeinghas proposed the F-15SE…
Who? Follow-on sales to existing users is about as likely as it’s going to get, I’m afraid. SH seems to have more possibility of sales, because at least it’s being offered to Japan, Malaysia, Norway, Netherlands, Canada, India and Brazil. Apart from Japan, F-15 hasn’t even been offered let alone entered a formal competition for these Countries.
F-15E derivatives are currently in service or on order with the USAF, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Signapore & South Korea. Boeing has identified Israel, Japan, Signapore, Saudi Arabia & South Korea as potential customers for its F-15SE which is a response to requests by one ore more of these.
No it isn’t. It’s to provide an air combat bridging capability for 10 years, to see us through until our future solution of choice, F-35 is chosen.
You would hardly being seeing additional AMRAAM acquisitions (soon…) if the BACC aircraft were only for strike operations. 😉
Still spinning I see. IF the F-111s weren’t being retired early &/or the F-35s could be aquireed earlier there would be no ‘gap’ to fill.
Indeed. $150m a year for 17x platforms that give us very little in return…
So instead of spending $150m a year for 17x platforms, Australia has chose to spend $6 billion over the next 10 years (that an average of $600 million a year) on 24x platforms as a ‘stop gap’…
Except the actual production and delivery rate of current orders…
…prove it to be so.
If Boeing were generous enough to wear the cost of ramping up production themselves, sure…
A higher production rate is a benefit to Boeing…
Come back to me with the total sum of these figures after these Countries have operated their F-15’s for 10 years…
The procurement & operational cost of the F-15E derivativs is already known.
Government took the unusual step of including the support costs for 10 years, in their original publicly released costings. Very few else do that.
Because they may only keep operate them for 10 years…
pfcemThat is the same thing and you know that very well. The difference is only in the roles – my job does not bring me into situations where I am speaking for the whole company – therefore there is no pressure imposed on me.
Beesley, OTOH, is being interviewed on regular basis. During these interviews he is a speaker for the whole F-35 project and his words have great impact. If LM are half as intelligent as I think them to be, then Beesley has exact instructions on what to say and what not. How much of these claims are true is beyond my consideration – but I personally don’t see LM as a dove of truth and honesty – they are hard-core businessmen in the first place. And if it’s lying that helps them secure another $2.5bn order, then they WILL lie without a blink of an eye..
As a source of relevant information, Beesley is competely compromised and you know it.
Complete & utter nonsense!
Beesley & LM both have much more to lose if what Beesley says is found to be a lie. If the F-35 does not deliver the flight performance Beesley has said it does, all orders could be lost.
pfcemThe 24 F/A-18F (there are no single seat F/A-18E in the order) are not a direct replacement for the F-111, they bridge to the F-35A.
They are a “stop gap” replacement for the F-111s being retired in 2010 until sufficient numbers of F-35s are in service. The F/A-18F are expected to remain in service with the RAAF for at least 10 years.
You mention F-15SE – these are a proposal which would require development funds – realistically they would be available about the time the F-35A is available.
There is nothing so radically new about the F-15SE that could not have been proposed & developed in time for Australia’s needs.
The F/A-18F is in production. The F-15SE would also be an orphan aircraft. As for an EF-15, this is even worse!
F-15E, F-15SG, F-15K all have different radars and equipment standards.
F-15E derivatives are in production & in service with many more operators than the F/A-18E/F.
The F/A-18E/F with currently just two operators (the USN & soon the RAAF) is much more an ‘orphan/unique’ aircraft then the F-15E & its derivatives which while all different in detail could all potentially be brought up to a much more common standard in the future.
By 2010 RAAF F/A-18F will have less airframe fatigue than equivalent USN Super Hornets. The plan is to keep the aircraft standard the same as the USN and then possibly offer these back to the USN.
So, 24 F-15E derivatives would have more than just one potential buyer…
The RAAFs experience with the F-111 is that they cannot afford unique aircraft (orphans) -it costs too much to run and upgrade.
The F/A-18F is unique! It does not have anywhere near the commonality with the F/A-18A-D as people are made to believe. If it were a mear 24 would not cost Australia $6 billion.
Its only 5 KC-30A, the RAAF is also purchasing buddy tanking equipment. Buddy tanking adds another option.
The point is that if the mission range/endurance is so great that you need aerial refueling (which would be much less so for a F-15E derivative than F/A-18E/F), Australia will have proper aerial tankers to do so with.
Buddy tanking takes combat aircraft & turns them into poor excuses for tankers. Great for CAWs but a waist of combat aircraft for land-based forces.
***
we were discussing Australia’s rationale for ordering the SH over the F-15
the F-15SE was not announced at the time Australia made it’s decision and is thus irrelevant to the discussion
There is nothing so radically new about the F-15SE that could not have been proposed & developed in time for Australia’s needs.
It’s an additional option that provides value in certain situations (such as when you don’t want your tanker to get too close to the front lines)
as far as reducing combat aircraft, well after the F-35 is operational, you wouldn’t be sending the SH in against heavily defended targets anyways, so using them as tankers is no loss
if you need them, they’re there as an option
if you don’t need them, then they can perform as regular
it’s called FLEXIBILITY
What about the flexibility of being able to carry more fuel to begin with thus reducing the need for aerial refueling? 😉
well sure you COULD if you want to spend billions in development and wait years for it to be developed
OR you could just buy it off the shelf
By the time Australia actually converts any of its F/A-18F to “Growlers” there could very well be an ‘off the shelf’ EF-15…
well the US certainly won’t do it, so if Australia wants it they would have to self-fund it, which is, shall we say, not cost effective
Oh really…not only is it possible that the US will, it is possible any one or more of the several other F-15E derivative customers might.
look, i’m not going to say they couldn’t sell F-15s, because i’m sure they could
HOWEVER there are some complications
The F-15s they would get wouldn’t be standard with any other country, so the other country would have to add a new set of support infrastructure
Certainly not impossible, but it does reduce the attractiveness
Despite the detail differences between the various F-15E derivatives, they are all still ‘common’ enough to be brought to a similar standard & if Australia were to have chosen some advanced F-15E derivative (say for example some form of F-15SE) there is a good likelyhood that one or more other customers would procure similar F-15E derivatives (Boeing has after all identified roughly a half dozen potential F-15SE customers).
On the other hand, the SHs they are getting are USN standard, making a sale back to the USN easy (especially since they won’t have taken the abuse of carrier landings)
plus since they are buying from the US, they could get a wink-and-a-nod agreement to buy them back in the future, where they can’t do that with any other country. (i’m not saying this happened, just that it’s a possibility)
Sorry, there is no guarantee the USN will be interrested (or would be allowed the money for) 24 used F/A-18Fs ~2020. And there is no guarantee that there will be any other F/A-18E/F customers.
With an F-15E derivative there are many more potential buyers…
no, stopgap for the F-35
Stop gap from early retirement of F-111s until enough F-35s are in service.
No matter how you try & spin it the reason for the ‘stop gap’ is to fulfill the F-111’s roles for ~10 years.
Australia can look at their neighbors and see that the odds of needing something more than the SH before the F-35 arrives is low
Indonesia’s military is in shambles plus they have become a lot more friendly recently
Malaysia isn’t a threat
China isn’t going to do anything major in the next 10 years where the US couldn’t squash themthe need for something beyond the SH capabilities just isn’t there in the near term
thus it will suffice until the F-35 arrives
in other words, get over the F-111, look at the CURRENT situation and current REQUIREMENTS
the SH is more than sufficient
I am over the F-111, so is Australia.
Note how there are those who even cry about the F-35 not being ‘enough’ (range/patload) to replace the F-111.
I am not saying the the F/A-18E/F is not good for Australia but that for the reasoning behind getting them in the 1st place, a F-15E derivative is a much better choice. It is a more capable aircraft that does not cost much more (about the same to procure & if you may only keep them for ~10 years the operational cost wont be that much more) & affords many more possibilities if/when Australia is done with them.
***
1. And the F/A-18F is available in the timeframe we actually need it. Boeing was ahead of production for USN aircraft, which is why there were “slots” available for RAAF.
Singapore ordered her F-15SG in 2005 with the first production model rolled off in November 2008 and production deliveries not happening until 2nd quarter of 2009. Final deliveries are not expected until 2012.
Australia ordered F/A-18F in 2007 and production deliveries will occur in 2009, with FOC to be reached in 2012. Australia will therefore reach FOC in less than 5 years from contract signature with 2 Squadrons equipped with a total of 24x F/A-18 aircraft.
Singapore will only receive the last of it’s 20x fighters 7 years after contract signature…
No reason why F-15E derivatives would not be available in time…
And increasing the production rate of F-15E derivatives (such as simultaneous production/deliveries for/to both Australia & Singapore) would reduce the procurement cost (to both).
2. RAAF has no particular corporate knowledge of F-15, but is most definitely “Hornet Country”.
Whatever, the F/A-18E/F is not as similar to the F/A-18A-D as you would like.
3. RAAF evaluated F-15E and in the configuration we would actually want it in, (ie: AESA radar, AGM-154C JSOW, Harpoon integration etc) estimated that the aircraft was around $30m dearer per aircraft than F/A-18F.
They should have checked with other F-15E derivative customers…
4. RAAF estimated the APG-79 radar system to be several magnitudes more capable than any radar available (in 2006/7) with the F-15E.
Australia wasn’t going to take delivery of any aircraft in 2006/7…
And deliveries of the APG-63(V)3 to the USAF began in late 2007/early 2008.
5. RAAF identified that significant savings in training time could be found with SH acquisition compared to other types. Existing Hornet pilots can convert to type with only 5 flights and existing simulators can be used for either type with a simple software upgrade. (Though additional simulators were included in the acquisition, as well).
There was a bit more too it, than an attempt at cost savings. Basically a cheaper, yet more advanced aircraft that could be in-service years sooner, versus an aircraft with a fraction more range, payload and performance is what it boiled down to.
It is no great surprise that the Super Hornet was chosen when you look at ALL the factors.
Yeah significant savings…so much so their 24 F/A-18Fs are costing them more than any F-15E derivative is costing others.
pfcemlower RCS
Not according to Boeing…see F-15SE 🙂
buddy tanking
Australia is procuring KC-30 tankers…
Buddy tanking in lue of proper aerial refueling takes an already limited number of available combat aircraft & reduces it further.
growler
You can do every bit as much or more to the F-15 to make an EF-15…
Yes I know it hasn’t been done yet but it could & who is to say that it won’t…
after the F-35 arrives, the SHs can either be sold to the USN or used in these utility roles
There will be more potetial customers 24 F-15E deirivatives in the future than F/A-18E/Fs…see response to Peter G.
remember these are STOPGAP planes
Yes a “stop gap” for F-111s…
***
And most importantly the F/A-18F is not an orphan aircraft!
Neither is the F-15E.
The F-15E will remain is USAF service longer than the Australian “stop gap” aircraft are expected to (& about as long as the F/A-18E/F will in USN service). There are already nearly a half dozen operators of F-15E derivatives & as many or more future potential orders for F-15E derivatives as there are for F/A-18E/Fs.
Sign In
