People around here seem to forget that the best option for those countries not offered participation in the F-35 program is going to be F-15 derivatives for decades to come. The Super Hornet had better get some additional foreign orders or it’s future is decided by default.

Seems as if it is about to receive further USN orders. However it is up to 500+ aircraft with these new multi-year orders, so it cannot be said to be a failure…

Unlike Eric, I very much doubt any future orders from Australia for the aircraft. It is being acquired to do a specific job (provide a combat capable squadron with a reasonably advanced type for a 10 year window to cover us until a much better aircraft is available) and not much more.

If the F-35 were to fall over entirely as a project (which is unlikely in the extreme), Australia would need to take a serious look at the options for it’s long term future combat capability and simply ordering more Supers, would NOT be the chosen path…

Under such circumstances however, I would suggest our Growler options most definitely WOULD be taken up and so the Supers would at least be PART of the future solution, I just seriously doubt whether they would comprise the total capability…

Rollout & delivery are two differnet things.

Singapore’s 1st F-15SG was rolled out 03 Nov 2008 – that’s 8 months before the expected rollout of Australia’s 1st F/A-18F.

And this is suprising how. given it was ordered more than 2 years earlier?

Singapore’s 1st four F-15SGs were delivered 07 May 2009 – that’s 2 months before the expected rollout of Australia’s 1st F/A-18F.

The difference in delivery dates is likely to be similar to the ~8 month difference in rollout dates.

Delivered? Only for the flight test program I am afraid and for initial training.

Australia’s first batch of Supers will be flown to Australia before the RSAF F-15’s are even finished and we will be nearing IOC (end 2010) before the Sings see any F-15’s in-country.

Nice try but with the Singapore F-15SGs aleady ordered, Australia would not have had to suffer start-up delays…production of Australian F-15s (unless some radical new developement such as F-15SE) could have begun immediately.

Neither did Singapore as the production line was already going for the very similar F-15K. They still took almost exactly the same time as Korea.

Sorry but 40 aircraft from March 2005 to August 2008 (were delivered in August) is a delivery rate of about 1 per month (deliveries occur in batches rather than single airframe at a time however).

That was the original schedule, but it wasn’t achieved…

Korea & Singapore chose their delivery schedules…the length of time between when they ordered thier F-15s & when they recieved their 1st F-15s &/or when they recieve their last is not necessarily the same as it would be for Australia.

Again, nothing but opinion. You cannot verify this comment in anyway.

No, the (V)4 was developed along with the (V)3, it just has not received any orders yet but is ready for production.

Again, Boeing who is conducting the RMP program and Raytheon who is building the V4 both state differently, but hey, your unsupported opinion is worth more than their’s I suppose…

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f15/news/2008/q4/081030a_nr.html

http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/technology/rtn07_f15win/

It is so simple. The F-15 producton line was (or was as good as) running & producing airframes. All Boeing would have to do was increase the production rate (even doing like it did with Austrlia’s F/A-18E/F & deliver Australian airframes from already running production slots) so no need for delay for Autralian F-15s.

The best part is that it was already known that both Korea & Singapore had options for additional F-15s and all five non-US F-15 operators are/were known to be very likely (if not already openly expressed) to be looking for additional aircraft for there fleets in the near future.

Production rate of WHAT? Unlike the F/A-18E/F production line there were no additional “slots” available, unless you’d like to try and argue that Singapore might have been willing to forgoe her own aircraft for Australia.

In such small build runs, (24x aircraft max, remember Korea is assembling her own aircraft at Kai Industries, so the “assembly line at St Louis is only doing Singaporean aircraft). The F-15E itself hasn’t been produced since 2004, when the last of the USAF orders rolled off the production line.

This “full rate” production line you speak of has been going in “fits and starts” since then. The forst 8 Korean F-15K’s were wholly produced and assembled in St Louis, the rest were done in Korea. You’ve then got a nearly 2 year break before Singaporean F-15’s started production and now they are the only ones undergoing assembly AND production in St Louis.

Your increased production rate, would have seen production aircraft rolling off the line, before the flight testing was complete. Apparently some think that is a terribly bad idea.

Your arguments are getting weaker and weaker and of course, remain entirely unsupported…

Signapore took delivery of four of its 1st batch (12 total) of F-15SGs 07 May 2009.

The 1st of its 2nd batch (originally an option for 8 more that was increased to 12 [bringing the total order to 24] when the option was exercised) are expected to be delivered in 2010.

Australia isn’t expected to take delivery of its 1st batch of F/A-18F until 1Q10 (1st quarter of 2010)…

No, that’s when they will be flown to Australia. The first SH will be delivered to RAAF by Boeing in July 2009. 3x more aircraft will also be delivered to RAAF by the end of 2009 and these aircraft will be used for converting RAAF pilots and ACO’s to type, in the United States, just as Singapore is doing with her initial 4x F-15’s at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho USA. Except these won’t be flown to Singapore in 1st quarter because of that whole, “need to flight test the capability” for 12 months, issue…

No matter how YOU spin it, there is no getting around the FACT that Singapore’s F-15SG was ordered in December 2005:

http://www.boeing.com/ids/news/2005/q4/051212c_nr.html

And the first model, F-15SG1 was rolled off the production line in November 2008 with production deliveries to commence in 2009. The F-15SG also has to undertake a 12 month flight test program,as stated clearly by Boeing to confirm the modifications inherent in the DERIVATIVE version ordered by Singapore. It is also being delivered with APG-63(v3) AESA radar, a radar even Raytheon obliquely refers to as being inferior to APG-79.

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2008/q4/081103b_nr.html

The last aircraft will be delivered to Singapore in 2012. Boeing states this in black and white. FOC in RSAF service won’t occur until 2013 at the earliest and most likely 2014.

For a supposed direct replacement of an aircraft from 2010, that’s a pretty poor choice…

APG-63(V)4.

Everything the APG-79 is but bigger & more powerful.

Everything the APG-79 is, except in-service you mean? Remember that risk reduction requirement, that just keeps nagging away?

If we needed such a radar in 2014 or later, we’d be well served no doubt. USAF IOC is planned for 2014….

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f15/news/2008/q4/081030a_nr.html

You don’t know much then.

I can read what Boeing, RSAF, USAF and Raytheon actually write about their platforms and products, which is more than you can say, apparently.. .

Where has Boeing said that it sees demand for up to 5 customers willing to place additional orders for F/A-18E/F?

Last I checked it was just two (India & Brazil).

It’s more than 5 actually…

1. India.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/fa18ef/news/2008/q2/080424b_nr.html

2. Brazil.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/fa18ef/news/2008/q3/080815b_nr.html

3. Greece.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/fa18ef/news/2009/q1/090310b_nr.html

4. Denmark.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/fa18ef/news/2008/q3/080827b_nr.html

5. Japan.

6. Canada.

7. Kuwait.

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssAerospaceDefense/idUSN0549528220090505

If Boeing is/was so convident in the F/A-18E/F’s export potential then why is it working so much on F-15E derivatives?

Let me see. Oh yes, it wants to sell both types and keep open it’s multiple fighter production lines, strange that a business should want to sell as many of it’s products as it can…

Besides, potential future orders are just that potenial. Where as there are allready four F-15E derivative (plus one F-15C) export operators and none for the F/A-18E/F…

Boeing clearly sees more potential in it’s F/A-18E/F’s than it does in F-15E derivatives then doesn’t it?

F/A-18E/F is currently entered into 4x active fighter procurement competitions.

F-15E/K/SG/SE is entered in none.

F/A-18E/F has been proposed to at least 3 more countries, only one of which additional F-15’s have been proposed – Japan.

What are you smoking?

I could ask you the same thing. Clearly whatever it is, it isn’t helping your recollection…

The actual delivery dates of existing F-15 customers proves that if Australia had selected an F-15E derivative that they could be delivered when Australia wanted them.

Again, only IF production and flight test programs could be sped up somehow, because both Singapore and Korea’s production schedule are slower than Australia has for the Super Hornet.

To believe that the production rate could be sped up, you have to believe that Boeing’s F-15 latent production capacity is greater than the rate at which they are actually delivering their current F-15 orders.

You’ve shown NOTHING to prove that.

I’ve shown conclusively, supported by Boeing’s own statements, that the RAAF’s 24x Super Hornet’s will be delivered sooner than Singapore’s 24x Strike Eagles, the bulk of which were ordered some 2 years prior to RAAF’s order.

Spin all you want. Doesn’t change the facts.

Show me some, then and prove me and RAAF wrong. So far all you’ve provided is unsupported opinion and casual dismissal of facts supported by Boeing statements…

Don’t get all excited about ALQ-99s and EA-18Gs. It is the diet coke of jammers and the Navy knows it.

It is also the only offensive EW capability US Tacair will have…

As for the Strike Eagle etc in Australia, forget it. While it may be practical for any number of reasons, little of Australian Defence procurement is about practical. Boeing isn’t going to let this one get away (Super Hornet). There is a huge risk that if the F-35 runs into trouble you will see yet another batch of Super Hornets purchased. The whispers are in the shadows. For Boeing, it is all about the sale.

The Super Hornet has a really good chance of making up the entire fighter inventory for Australia. And that has been Boeing’s plan for a very long time.

Er, no it doesn’t. No-one in RAAF or ADF wants to be involved with Supers beyond 2020-2025.

In the rather unbelievable case that the F-35 is completely cancelled, RAAF will be looking at other options. I would suggest the Eurofighter consortium might want to freshen up their powerpoints presentations if that were to occur…

As for the F-15 Strike Eagle and Silent Eagle, under-rate it at your own peril.

Never have. They are impressive aircraft, they’re just not the right aircraft to fill the gap left by legacy Hornet availability issues and the retirement of the F-111, given the timeframe we have to deal with these issues.

IF we were arguing about whether the F-15’s should have replaced F-111 and some of the Hornet fleet in the mid to late 90’s, I’d be the cheerleader for them you always accuse me of being…

Unfortunately Defence had little to no money then, as can be judged by the paucity of major defence acquisitions at that time, but the absolute plethora of upgrade projects…

Bizarre thing was originally the F/A-18F was selected for the wrong reasons, but circumstances changed….

USN had already integrated the AGM-158 JASSM before they decided to not purchase any missiles. The RAAF will use the underlying software for JASSM – a freebie in weapons integration terms!

Maybe.

If JASSM passes it’s new round of testing in the USA and the weapon isn’t cancelled. DMO stated recently that SLAM-ER will be acquired as a replacement for JASSM on the legacy Hornets, if JASSM is cancelled and you’d have to think that SLAM-ER would also be employed by the Super Hornets, if it were acquired.

Personally, I’d like to see the weapon employed by AP-3C as well, but first things, first. Let’s see what happens to JASSM…

In the meantime, RAAF will be using the Harpoon Block II and AGM-154C JSOW for it’s standoff weapon requirements initially on the Supers, with JDAM-ER and possibly JASSM, JSOW-ER and SDB I/II with maritime attack and movijng target engagement modes further down the track.

No matter which way forward we proceed, our weapons capability will be massively improved over the next 2-3 years with 2011 in particular going to see a sharp increase in the potential lethality of strike operations the RAAF is capable of…

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’.

Many things COULD be done. The point is WHY and for WHAT benefit?

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.

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.

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.

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.

The devil is in the detail though, my friend. Different radar and weapon systems, different software and EW systems etc ARE significant differences.

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.

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.

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…

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…

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.

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.

The acquisition cost for 24 F-15E derivatives would be about the same…

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…

Quite the opposite. Singapore will get its 1st F-15SG before Australia gets its 1st F/A-18F.

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.

And yet somehow the Growler got done…

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…

But with a F-15E derivatives, there would be more possibilities. Australia could not be relying on one potential customer…

So what? RAAF found the Super Hornet and it’s planned upgrade path met it’s requirements for a BACC.

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.

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.

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’…

Yep. But unlike the $150m a year, (that equates to at least $1.5b over the 10 year period. What was that support contract for Super Hornet worth again?) it will provide useable capability. Something the F-111 does not do now.

For that $1.5b over t10 years, RAAF has barely 6 or 7 F-111 airframes operational at any one time. That is the extent of our operational “strike” capacity under current arrangements. 6-7 aircraft.

When F-111 goes to Red Flag (and operates effectively only in the presence of a support package more extensive than RAAF will EVER be able to provide) and subsequently boasts about it’s “availability rate” F-111 ops in Australia come to a virtual grinding halt.

If you can get a Senior officer to comment openly, you’d find that the effort required to “surge” these aircraft for an operational deployment, (of limited value for us when you look at it, because it’s only possible mode of employment is in the presence of support assets we will never have ourselves) effective ruins our domestic capability.

A higher production rate is a benefit to Boeing…

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 procurement & operational cost of the F-15E derivativs is already known.

Known to be greater than Super Hornet, I agree…

Because they may only keep operate them for 10 years…

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…

They said ” it could match the frontal-aspect radar cross-section of the Lockheed Martin F-35.”

I highlighted what I suspect is the key word…

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.

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.

So what they may be indicating is not that the RCS is the same as the F-35 in m2, but rather that it will be able to “match” the capabilities in terms for first-look, etc. If my sources are right (and if my memory did not fail me…) then it would indicate that F-15SE should be able to obtain an frontal RCS of below 0.01m2.

Which other 4.5 jets could probably also get, but only in clean condition…

L

True, I agree any reduction in RCS is always going to be useful. The SH Bk II is proof of that, with current users describing the RCS reduction measures as “tactically significant”.

I don’t see any F-15 variant “equalling” the F-35 in VLO configuration though. Not with those air-intakes…

I really like the F15 SE concept but I don’t know what to think about the RCS frontal aspect….

Is it worrying for the F35 that a bigger non fully stealth design (from the outset) can match its RCS or is it a huge achievement for boeing ??:confused:

It raises some questions…

I think only the Boeing marketers truly believe the F-15 will have the same front on RCS as the F-35.

Maybe not even them. They aren’t including “radar blockers” in the design for instance, that even the Super Hornet has… :rolleyes: