Jason SimondsThe problem is that all other buyers of this supposedly wondrous omni-role fighter will be relying solely on it for their first punch air-to-air. As you say it is an absolutely perfect fit for the USAF, who can back it up with Raptors to do the heavy work when it comes to air-to-air and SEAD/DEAD, but no-one else can. It probably is superior to threat aircraft in BVR (so long as it has the combat persistence anyway and doesn’t need a kinematic advantage) – I’d be rather worried if it weren’t. But it’s still exceptionally limited in its A2A weapon load and is not primarily an air-to-air oriented platform no matter how much it is marketed as a ‘5th gen air superiority fighter’ as it has been to my country. It’s fine for the US to say ‘well it’s nothing special in X scenario but that’s no probs because we have Raptors for that’, but it is distinctly not fine for anyone else. We aren’t paying for just a strike fighter, we’re paying for the RAAF’s primary air-to-air platform for the next 30-odd years and I wish people here would actually recognise the ‘S’ nestled in the acronym for once.
The A2A payload argument is ridiculous. Any user can pay to have the A2A payload increased if they wish. The internal clearances on the F-35A’s bays are significantly greater than that of the F-22. L-M has confirmed that greater internal AtA weapons carriage is on the development path for this aircraft and is currently planned for Block 4/5 standard F-35’s.
It is interesting that an F-35 with a potential of 6 or more AMRAAM’s carried internally isn’t considered to have sufficient “firepower” but an F-22 with a maximum of 6x internal AMRAAM missiles is considered to have sufficient ATA firepower…
It is also interesting that critics are quite happy to include capabilities on threat aircraft, (such as ALF-41 engines, supposed “supercruise” and AESA radars) which do NOT exist as operational capabilities, but the same benefit is not awarded to the F-35…
Nope the F-35 is thoroughly outclassed.
Even in “power to weight” according to some. But what is the power to weight, exactly?
Well according to KNAAPO, the SU-30MK2 (used because it is the most modern current variant of the SU-30) includes 2x 12500kfg ALF-31 engines (max afterburner at sea level) and has an MTOW of 34000kgs’s. That gives a p:w of 0.73 according to my calculator.
According to L-M the 43000lbs F-135 (19545kfg – max reheat at sea level) equips the F-35A, which has an MTOW of 27700kg’s. According to my calculator that gives a p:w of 0.72…
Wow, 0.73 compared to 0.72. What a stunning difference…
…against thoroughly incomparable foes in every single arena, from equipment to training to maintenance, and with offboard support for most of the time yes. It’s a great fighter but it’s not God because it can win in a match between Goliath and his ten other slightly smaller pals and David with the flu and a broken slingshot.
That is the real world, my friend. Would you rather academic paper comparisons of aircraft in isolation, when they are NEVER going to fight like that?
Jason SimondsLet’s not forget that this is the manufactures tailor made brief.
Lockheed Martin is up to their nuts in guts with troubles in their crown jewel – the F-35
Let’s not forget that there was a brief given out by the USAF, when the McDonnell Douglas F-15 program was in trouble and out of favor with Congress.
It was claimed that the F-15/Aim-82 combination could achieve a 900-to-1 kill ratio against the MiG-21!Sorry but it’s the age old argument about West’s ability and wiliness to compensate by the employment of the full capability of their so-called superiority of BVR AAM’s and radar.
The West still hasn’t a fool proof IFF system.
Predominantly this is the principle reason that during the 1991 Gulf War, the powerful might and the technological edge of the United States could not be used to down Iraqi aircraft without visual I.D first
I have no idea about the Russian’s or the Chinese IFF systems capability and reliability either.
So I do not fully put my full faith in BVR radars and AAM’s
I am pretty certain that all kills with the ‘all singing, all dancing’ Aim-120 AMRAAM have been achieved and executed WVR envelope.
So in my book, and especially when my air force (the RAAF) is going to be putting all its eggs into this F-35 platform, I would think and want it to be an equal, if not better WVR performer in air-to-air combat, for if the Soviets/Russians didn’t think along these lines of real world combat, they would not have put so much time and effort into developing and fielding the likes of the powerful thrust/weight ratio and agility of their Fulcrum & Flanker series of fighters.Next we will be talking about the elimination of the gun/cannon on the modern fighter, as being obsolete – again!
Regards
Pioneer
What a load of rubbish. The US fighters chose NOT to fire to attempt to minimise blue on blue engagements. This says NOTHING about their lack of capability to do so.
By the same logic, Australia, which ONLY launched precision guided munitions in 2003, is an example I suppose, of the fact, that they can ONLY launch PGM’s?
No, not all AMRAAM kills have been WVR. Dutch F-16’s downed Serbian MiG-29’s at greater than 25 miles with an A variant of the missile…
Subsequent variants of AMRAAM have improved capability…
WVR combat is akin to a “knife fight in a phone booth”. It is extremely lethal and all the agility in the world matters little, when both sides operate helmet mounted sighting systems and missiles with a high off-bore site capability. No pilot in his right mind, WANTS to enter such a fight…
As to the F-15, it is currently sitting at around 101 air to air kills for no air to air losses. Give it a break, it’s living up to it’s reputation and not just in the hands of USAF pilots, either…
Jason Simondsjust a thought that came up.
with the US Navy no longer operating F-14D’s and S-3’s, doesnt that make the ship kinda vunrable to enemy attacks :confused:
Rubbish. An F/A-18E/F / AMRAAM combo and the E-2D Hawkeye, plus the AEGIS/SM-2 AD setup is FAR more capable than that which existed when Tomcats were attempting to lug AIM-54’s around the place.
When F-35C replaces the legacy Hornets and SM-6 replaces SM-2, it’s going to be far superior even to the current setup.
The threat against current US carriers, should IMHO be measured against the number of successful attacks against them…
Jason SimondsWAS being the operative word. The incorrect part of your statement is that F-111 is to be replaced by F-35. It isn’t.
The F-111 has ALREADY been replaced, with the Super Hornets.
This discussion will go on for a long time…. re-read whats been written.
The Super Hornet was bought to BRIDGE THE GAP WHILE WE WAIT FOR THE JSF. IS this NOT CLEAR Enough???I dont fathom why you dont understand this?
The Super Hornet is only there until the JSF arrives…. IT is NOT the F-111s PERMINENT replacement.
The government has not announced any changes to its proposal yet to run with ONE aircraft for Australias defence. (yes anyone with half a brain will see how stupid it is to have one aircraft type as their front line of defence, but that isnt the discussion here)
You yourself even quoted
“Dr Nelson at the Super Hornet announcement:
“As it is intended to be a “bridging” capability, Minister Nelson said that a future government would make the decision in 2014 whether or not to acquire a fourth operational squadron of JSFs to replace the Super Hornets at the end of the next decade, and that it was his view that that should happen.”
BRIDGING CAPABILITY……REPLACE THE SUPER HORNETS…. Is this not clear enough?
Not at all, and there is no need to shout.
We actually have no idea whatsoever, what the current Government plans in relation to future air combat capability, beyond the Super Hornet and related acquisitions and the current “enabling” acquisitions and Hornet upgrades.
They have NOT formally committed to the FORMER Government’s plan of acquiring F-35 as it’s sole NACC solution. Defence Minister Joel FITZGIBBON has in fact stated many times that the decision is pending the release of Phase 2 of his Air Combat Review. Phase 1 confirmed the Super Hornet.
Phase 2 was meant to be released in April 2008, then it was pushed back to December 2008 (when 2nd Pass Approval was due for NACC) and co-incidentally, or perhaps not, when the KC-30A options, Australia held were due to expire and now Phase 2 has been pushed back to whenever Government decides to release it’s vaunted Defence White Paper.
Currently the thing is on it’s 3rd re-write…
We can continue to quote Howard Government era speeches and policies to your hearts content, but even Defmin Fitzgibbon would NOT be seriously considering EA-18G Growler aircraft as a temporary solution…
He has talked about acquiring these in replace of some of our Rhino F models, on more than one occasions, and notably, unlike with the F-22, the Government has formally requested the EA-18G be reviewed for export.
Personally, I think it very unlikely that the current Government will spend $6.6 billion, plus (plus will be even more likely IF EA-18G aircraft are acquired) and keep a capability for a period of only 13 years and then spend billions more to acquire another aircraft…
One possibility, seeming remote at present, is that BOTH “up to 100” F-35 aircraft AND the Super Hornets are retained in-service.
This would be a significant expansion of RAAF capability, given that we would be operating 5x frontline fighter squadrons at that point (6 if you include 1 and 6 Squadrons as individual squadrons, but I don’t because we don’t have the planes)
The requirement behind this idea, is the current expansion of the Australian Army, under it’s ELF and HNA programs. The 4x squadron structure was designed to support an army of 50,000 with 6x operational battlegroups.
With Army expanding to 55,000 and 9x operational battlegroups, ADF will be capable of deploying for greater periods, or to deploy larger force packages for the same periods as now. RAAF at present has not been funded for a similar increase in capacity and with current economic conditions, this may not happen. The economy is cyclic however and what may happen in 14 years time, is unclear at present…
Jason SimondsPhase 2A/2B of the AIR-6000 New Aerospace Combat Capability (NACC) project is the F/A-18 Hornet replacement project and will be acquiring 75x aircraft. It was intended originally to provide the F-111 replacement as well.
So which part of my statement was incorrect? You just stated it was intended to replace both aircraft.
WAS being the operative word. The incorrect part of your statement is that F-111 is to be replaced by F-35. It isn’t.
The F-111 has ALREADY been replaced, with the Super Hornets.
SO again…. I have stated this in my earlier post. However your now saying the government has cancelled the F-111 replacement? The Super Hornet are a stop gap measure until the arrival of the JSF…
Perhaps. Phase 2C hasn’t yet been decided upon. ALL that HAS been decided so far is that Super Hornet is replacing F-111 from 2010 and will be in-service until 2023 on current plans and RAAF needs 75x new fighters to replace it’s legacy Hornet fleet which is rapidly reaching the end of it’s FLEI…
Where did you get your figure of 75? For 8 yrs now it has been stated many times in the media by defence and defence ministers who have come and gone that we were going to buy “around 100”.
Check the timings in DCP. Phases 2A/B are going to acquire 3x squadrons worth, plus aircraft for 2 OCU (Hornet Operational/Conversion unit), plus attrition and test/development aircraft. That adds up to 75.
Phase 2C acquires the remaining 25, if they are in fact ever acquired.
So again please tell us where you got 75 from?
AVM John Harvey and Dr Brendan Nelson.
Dr Nelson at the Super Hornet announcement:
“As it is intended to be a “bridging” capability, Minister Nelson said that a future government would make the decision in 2014 whether or not to acquire a fourth operational squadron of JSFs to replace the Super Hornets at the end of the next decade, and that it was his view that that should happen.”
From the RAAF website…
Australia is assured of maintaining its air combat capability edge with the Government’s decision to acquire 24 F/A-18F Block II Super Hornet multi role aircraft. At a cost of approximately $6 billion over 10 years, the acquisition of the Super Hornet will ensure the transition to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter over the next decade.The acquisition will include 24 aircraft, initial support and upfront training for aircrew and maintenance personnel.
And?
Was someone disputing that RAAF is acquiring the Super Hornet?
From the Defence Dept website….
Phase 2A/2B is intended to acquire the first tranche of new multi-role combat aircraft to replace F/A-18 Hornets and the F-111 aircraft fleet as they are withdrawn from service. Phase 2C intends to investigate acquisition of complementary systems and possibly acquire the final tranche of new multi-role combat platforms.
Background The Government has identified that this capability could be provided by the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) and has as a result joined with other partner nations in the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) Phase.
A statement from the 2006 DCP, which preceeds the inclusion of BACC (Super Hornet acquisition) into the DCP, proves what exactly?
How can the Phases 2A/B of AIR-6000, replace the F-111 from 2013? F-111 as we have already established, will be replaced by Super Hornets under Project 5349 (otherwise known as BACC)from 2010.
Jason Simonds2. The initial acquisitions was ALWAYS going to be 75 aircraft.
Yeah, when I read the original post I was thinking “yeah, and?” because I thought the current buy was for only 75 as well.
Oh well, trading 71 Hornets for 75 F-35s is still a plus-plus.
How peoples memory fail so quickly…. :rolleyes:
I haven’t forgotten a thing about this issue. Check the Defence Capability Plan if you don’t believe me.
Phase 2A/2B of the AIR-6000 New Aerospace Combat Capability (NACC) project is the F/A-18 Hornet replacement project and will be acquiring 75x aircraft. It was intended originally to provide the F-111 replacement as well.
However with the F-111 retirement brought forward, Bridging Air Combat Capability (BACC) project established, Super Hornets ordered and the CBR upgrade cancelled on the legacy Hornets, NACC Phases 2A/B are now soley the Hornet replacement part of AIR-6000.
Phase 2C is the “follow-on acquisition of multi-role fighters / complementary systems” phase and will aquire up to 25x more aircraft.
There are no guarantees on HOW MANY aircraft will be bought, beyond 75. The Chief of RAAF and ADF have mentioned “up to 100” aircraft. They’ve never given a precise figure for good reasons…
The JSF was going to be around the 100 mark.
It was to replace BOTH Hornet and F-111.
Or have we already forgotten why we have ordered Super Hornets as a “stop gap” measure because the F-111 is being retired soon and the JSF wasnt going to be ready in time?????
No, but you weren’t correct in your earlier remark, so why continue to belabor the point?
Jason SimondsEr, there’s a few issues here.
1. Australia hasn’t ordered any F-35’s.
2. The initial acquisitions was ALWAYS going to be 75 aircraft.
3. Mark Thompson has NO more insight into defence than any other member of society and considerably less than those actually interested…
Jason SimondsThat’s sounds just like the company info-mercial.
You could chin-strap a GPS to a donkey, and then call it a “super donkey”. But still it is just a donkey.
It’s fuselage is over 4 feet longer. It’s wing-span is 4 feet wider, it’s engines produce an additional 4500lbs of thrust each and it carries 14700lbs of fuel internally compared to the 11000lbs on the legacy Hornet and even the GAO recognises that the airframe is 75% unique compared with the legacy Hornet.
But I suppose you’re right. It’s the same donkey…
I look at Australia’s security picture and ask for what reason does Oz need a hugely expensive (and old!) strike-fighter. Is some nearby country planning to bomb your island back to the stone age? Are terrorist camps springing up in the outback? Piracy on the high seas? Did Rupert Murdoch and FoxNews blackmail someone again?
The Australian Government chooses to maintain a combat capability overmatch against any POSSIBLE regional adversary.
You are quite right. No State within SEA has any intention of going to war against Australia and this is unlikely to change in the forseeable future. Does this mean we should bury our head in sand however and hope that no-one decides to change their intentions towards us, whilst simultaneously forgoing our capability to assist in International Coalition efforts?
As part of this, it chooses to maintain a combat fleet of around 100 up to date fighter aircraft, plus enabling capabilities.
The F-111 for a variety of reasons is no longer viable as a combat platform, according to the RAAF.
Our platform of choice to replace our entire fighter fleet, the F-35 is not ready for production in the timeframe we need to replace the F-111. The SH is seen as the perfect bridging fighter aircraft for our needs.
Not the most capable perhaps, but capable enough until F-35 arrives.
Jason Simonds(Tirade mode/on)
The F/A-18 Hornet reminds me of an elderly, timeworn general who just wants to rest in peace, but is kept alive by medicine men because the emperor, despite years of warnings from all quarters, convinced himself and others that this man was one for all seasons, and that is was not necessary to find a suitable replacement, because old soldiers never die.
Perhaps you don’t see the irony because you are not from the United States, or maybe you don’t follow every move in naval aviation with the same kind of enthusiasm. The F/A-18 should have been put out to pasture years ago. The navy has been milking this cow for over 40 years, and it did not even start out as a navy project.
When Hank Chouteau piloted the Northrop YF-17 on its first flight in 1974, it had been in development since 1966. The air force was more impressed with the F-16 and as we fast forward to 2009, an aging air force reject has somehow become the “super” pride of the U.S. Navy.
In 1979, when the F/A-18 was on carrier landing trials, I thought it was a great value to the taxpayers and a fantastic upgrade to the A-7, but with the understanding that it was already a pretty old design and would probably have a limited service life. Using it as a replacement for other mission types was questionable then, and still is. The Crusaders, Phantoms, Tomcats, Intruders, and Vigilante’s are long gone and I do not see the Super Hornet as anything more than a long-in-the-tooth compromise solution. Jack of all trades, master of none.
My navy, how far it is fallen since the heady days of the mid-1970s. Yes I know they’ve added some new bells and whistles to the bug, but, how much will Australia be paying for this middle-aged wonder, all up? …
(Tirade mode/off)
Uh-huh.
You, like everyone else, are perfectly entitled to your views. Suffice to say, I disagree with them. Especially given how different the Super Hornet actually is to the Hornet…
In answer to your question, Australia will have spent AUD$6.6 Billion on it’s Super Hornet capability (according to current plans) in 2023.
Jason SimondsIs EA-18G proposed to India by Boeing? Does any official source claim India is even considering this version? Is any official source claiming the US congress will agree on an export of this version to India? You seem not to be aware of the fact that not everything is sold to anyone!
EA-18G has NOT passed through ITARS as yet, which is managed by the US State Department.
It can’t be offered to anyone just yet. Australia formally requested that the aircraft be examined for it’s export potential, mid last year.
So far, even we haven’t been able to order the aircraft…
Jason SimondsTitanium is that quantity isn’t that easy to come by.
Soviets weren’t the only nation to build Titanium submarines for a reason.
Rubbish. The largest known (and entirely untapped) reserves of titanium in the world were found in Australia (New South Wales) in October 2008.
They haven’t even started mining it yet. The yield is currently estimated at $300b worth of raw product…
Australia and South Africa are already the biggest Titanium suppliers in the world…
Jason SimondsIn what kind of scenarios does RAF see any need of STOVL ?
Hello?
JOINT Force Harrier…
Jason SimondsTrue, but there will be far, far fewer Boeing employees and subcontractors than there were earning their keep from that 35 year old aircraft.:dev2:
So, what are you saying?
RAAF should be nothing more than a domestic job creation program? 🙂
In any case, Rosebank engineering and Tasman Defence provide most of the engineering capability behind the F-111 support under sub-contract to Boeing IDS Australia.
If there is one type of company that ain’t going to find getting work in Australia too difficult, it’s aerospace engineering companies…
Consider Defence work alone.
At RAAF Amberley, 17x F-111C’s are currently maintained.
4x C-17’s are maintained.
12x Caribous are maintained, plus short term deployments of other aircraft types.
Come 2010/11 there will be:
24x Super Hornets.
4x C-17’s.
12x King Air 350’s (more or less).
5x KC-30A’s, plus other aircraft types on short term deployment. The Government is almost CERTAIN to sign off on ADF’s “super base” concept (to save a boatload of cash).
It is more than likely that RAAF’s transport force would be consolidated at Amberley under such plans, so you can add 24x Hercules to those aircraft numbers too. (RAAF Richmond has a bleak future…)
The work isn’t going to run out….
Jason SimondsSo the F-111 support industry, having seen their cash cow exit stage right, is yearning for the next best thing; a unique to Australia F-15 variant?:diablo:
Boeing supports the F-111 in Australia…
Boeing manufactures and supports the F-15…
Boeing manufactures and supports the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet…
The “support” argument is the WEAKEST argument I’ve yet seen in this so-called debate.
I wonder why Eric Palmer is such a proponent of it, then?
🙂
Jason SimondsWell Jason Simonds.
I can’t blame you for choosing SH over F-15+ or anything else concidering all the logistic/economic benefits, it simply tilt the scale in favor of SH, not least the free meals from USN.But, (as you could assume) 20% range advantage for F-15 is quite something.
F-15 also has greater speed but i have been reading worrysome reports on cracks and fatigue, so there is probably some speed limit imposed on them now, making them more or less equal.
F-18 also has the reputation of being the most reliable aircraft in US service.Secondly, to my knowledge, everything not needed for combat beside a couple of sidewinders is removed from SH and replaced with a large load of EW equipment to transform it into Growler, so i don’t think it makes economic sense to do that at home, it’ll be better to just order a couple of them from USA.
No better then convert an F-15+ into a EW aircraft in other words, beside the US experience doing it with F-18.
You still benefit from the commonality with Hornet tho.
As I said, the F-15+ is a great aircraft. I just don’t think it’s the right aircraft for RAAF under present circumstances.
As to the Growler, any Australian orders, will be new build aircraft. No orders for the Growler have yet been made, Growler is in fact still undergoing assessment through ITARS, as I understand things… All RAAF SH orders are the “F” model at present.
BACC is ALL about risk reduction. RAAF has PLENTY of risk on it’s hands as it is. It can do without any on it’s bridging aircraft…
If RAAF choose Growler, it will be identical to USN variants and some Growlers will replace the “F” models on order.
Current economics may preclude the Growler however…
Sign In
