What pressure is there to provide a hose and drogue option for the F-35A?

Customers so far:

USAF – booms;
Holland – DC-10 with booms, as used with their F-16s;
Norway and Denmark – do they have any current in-service tankers?
Australia – boom equipped KC-30s on order;
Turkey – KC-135.

That leaves Canada with their A-310s, which no doubt could be equipped with the new EADS boom for a lot less than the cost of modifying the F-35A. Wasn’t the boom tested on an A-310?

Australia, Israel, Canada all utilise pod based hose and drogue refuelling options and will continue to do so.

Australia’s KC-30A’s will be boom AND hose and drogue equipped…

MESA Wedgetail just agreed with RAAF on a 10% capability reduction in order to be delivered “anytime”.

That “10%” reduction in capability doesn’t refer to radar range performance, but rather data-fusion efforts.

The ESM system and the MESA radar system are having a few issues, working well together. One is a sensitive passive listening system, the other is a god almighty active radar system…

Is it a surprise, that they are having a few issues, sorting both of these?

No wonder has ever said, nor will ever say, that these systems don’t work just fine as discrete systems…

Dear Mr Simonds

No offence intended
as follows

None taken, brother. I just think this is an interesting topic, but it has been criticised on the basis of SO many mistruths and perpetuated and distorted mainly by those who have a commercial interest in seeing RAAF’s plans abandoned in favour of their own…

I understand the different between leasing and charity
I was not implying that the good old US of A was just going to give us the Super Hornets!

But at the end of the day these Super Hornets are only supposed to be a ‘stop-gap’ measure to cover up the fact that the Australian Government of the day stuffed up with their ‘jumping in boots and all’ with committing the RAAF (and the whole of the ADF!) to the F-35 program.
So being the good allies that we have been with the United States, since the Second World War, yes I think they could have done us a deal with a lease arrangement of Super Hornets!
After all it is not a new thing to lease combat aircraft.
With an ironic bit of deja-vu, didn’t the RAAF & Australian Government of the day in the 1960’s not commit to an advanced ‘joint service aircraft’, which promised the world in capability and cost value, whilst it was still on the drawing board, and not even built, let alone flying yet?
Oh yes the TFX program (The F-111)!

But at least that time the United States Government was willing to lease an alternative ‘stop-gap’ aircraft until the bugs were ironed out.
This lease was 24 x McDonnell Douglas F-4E Phantom II’s.
I must admit I have no idea what the deal was or how much it cost Australia, but we leased them and used them, without committing massive amounts of infrastructure ‘balls and all’, for the simple reason that they were just a ‘stop-gap measure’, until the real aircraft we had committed to was ready!
So what is to happen to these Super Hornets when the F-35 is finally delivered?

That is a number of very good questions.

The differences in these cases are quite stark.

1. The lease was provided because we HAD ordered the F-111. Australia has NOT ordered the F-35 as yet. There is therefore no financial incentive for the US to “offer” us a lease of their own combat aircraft.

2. The USAF had a MASSIVE F-4 Phantom fleet to draw upon for a lease. It’s commitments in Vietnam were beginning to wind down and as per usual aircraft reductions are quite common after a massive war. Neither the USAF nor the USN has massive fleets of either the F-15E or F/A-18E/F fighters for us to draw upon and while US tactical fighter operations might be slowing down somewhat after the heady days of OIF, the aircraft numbers just aren’t there to go and offer aircraft leases…

3. The F-4 Phantom was offered on a 3 year lease, purely to overcome technical problems in an aircraft intended to be delivered in 1970. These delays pushed aircraft delivery out to 72/73.

The Super Hornet is intended to run for 13 years +. It is not a “stop gap” but rather a replacement capability. With the F-4’s, we could not modify them. We could not integrate weapons or sensors of our own choosing on them and we were wholly dependant on US provided training for pilots, WSO’s and maintainers.

The Supers will be OURS in the strictest sense of the word. We will maintain our own training capability, we can integrate whatever weapons and sensors we choose to put on them. Indeed RAAF has already decided to integrate JASSM and JDAM-ER on them. Neither weapon are used by the USN and we can sell them (subject to US approval as always with US equipment) whenever we like.

With regards to the F-35 acquisition, I know exactly what will happen. The F/A-18F capability will be maintained.

NACC (Next generation Air Combat Capability) is the project name for the F-35 acquisition. It is running in multiple phases. The first acquisition phase is intended to acquire an aircraft to replace the legacy F/A-18A/B capability with up to 75x aircraft purchased. These aircraft will be used to equip 3, 75 and 77 Sqns, 2 OCU and AOSG.

1 and Six squadron will in the meantime continue to operate the Supers.

The next acquisition phase of NACC will acquire up to an additional 25 aircraft to replace RAAF’s “strike” capability. Now, perhaps the Supers will be maintained in this role as the NACC solution, perhaps they will be replaced by F-35’s. Perhaps the Government will acquire a UCAV capability (if one is in operational service by then) to replace the strike capability, I have no idea, but this phase won’t run until at least 2022, so I expect the Supers will most likely be retained in-service until the decision is made to proceed.

A distinct possibility is for the Super to be maintained in-service until it can be replaced by a UCAV capability. I think there are any number of roles it can perform well in the 2020 – 2030 timeframe and offensive EW capability is not the least of them…

All of that however is a LONG way off with many elected Governments to get through before we see any of these changes. An interesting last note on the F-4 Phantoms though. If Government had been willing to fund an air to air tanker in the 70’s, (in fact that capability was not funded until the late 80’s, early 90’s) then RAAF WOULD have kept the F-4 Phantom in-service and the F-111 would have never seen service with the RAAF… An interesting thought, no?

No sorry mate, I have to admit that I do not read everything!
Can you lead me to a source for this?

That’s okay, it is available on the Australia DoD website, but is a fairly dry and tedious read. Suffice to say the major recommendation is for a “2 pass approval” system for Australian Defence acquisitions.

It works out like this:

1. ADF identifies a capability gap and submits a proposal to the Defence Capability Development Group (DCDG) for consideration of an acquisition project.

2. DCDG assesses the validity of the proposal and it’s relative priority in the overall scheme of defence acquisitions. DCDG in conjunction with Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) subsequently advise Government of the proposal and through ADF command submit the proposal to Government for inclusion into the Defence Capability Plan – DCP – (or seek approval for a rapid sole source acquisition if an urgent requirement – usually operationally based – is identified. The Special Forces Javelin missile acquisition before OIF is a good example of this).

3. The project is approved for inclusion in the DCP. DMO and DCDG then begin the task of seeking proposals to satisfy the capability requirement. Once a list of suitable proposals is identified they are taken to Government for First Pass Approval.

4. First Pass approval is granted (or not) and DMO/DCDG begin the task of refining the proposals to a specific short-list of options for Government approval.

5. Once the options are developed they are taken to Government for final approval on the “Second Pass”. Once Second Pass approval is granted the funds are released and DMO can go and buy the approved capability on ADF’s behalf.

That is the succinct form of Australia’s defence acquisition process. Obviously Kinnaird goes into much more detail, but that is the basic process. There is nothing suggested ANYWHERE in Kinnaird that any of these stages can not run concurrently, so long as the process is abided by and there most certainly isn’t any suggestion that the process needs to take any specific length of time, so long as the requirements are developed sufficiently and the proposals are sufficiently mature to satisfy the requirements that led to the capability gap…

The Super Hornet acquisition was a text book version of the Kinnaird Process. The C-17 and M1A1 AIM acquisitions were visually similar to an external viewer, yet for some reason the process used to acquire these 2 platforms isn’t give anywhere near the attention, the Super Hornet “draws”.. I guess there wasn’t too many Defence Industry types offering competitors to the M1 and C-17, within Australia, eh?
.

Yes – That’s the ‘so-called’ competition that many aerospace companies responded to at their expense and effort, just to be flogged off half hardily.
I do not blame the RAAF for this, as it was interfered with by politicians so much!

So why then accuse RAAF of practicing less than due diligence? The SH was assessed along with the F-15E, Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen and all the other modern Western fighters during the AIR-6000 process. At the time it was terminated (2002) RAAF had completed more than 75% of it’s technical evaluation of ALL fighters potentially viable for the next generation fighter project. It as a responsible force, maintains a keen interest in airpower developments world wide and kept “watching briefs” on particular platforms of interest. The SH and F-15E were 2 of these…

I have no objection to giving our pilots the best chance possible to achieve their mission and return home alive.
But up until this decision the RAAF was more than happy enough to have neglected this reality of the paramount importance of EW/ECM and SEAD for how many decades (even after the lessons learnt over Vietnam and the 1967 & 1973 Arab-Israeli wars?

No, RAAF was never “happy” about this situation, but RAAF like any other Government agency, has to work within a budget. Out of interest, exactly how many small to medium airforces around the world, maintain a genuine offensive EW capability, within their relative structures?

Mate do not get me wrong – I am not one of these advocates that think the F-111 can soldier on until the year 2099……….
Its most unfortunately though – especially after the disaster of the fuel tank cleaning issues and those poor ******s, who have succumb to cancer related illnesses, in relation to cleaning them, that the government would support a F-111 SLEP program, to allow the F-111 to continue in service until the F-35 was excepted into RAAF service.
Ok there would be costs in upgrading them (but when I say upgrade, I do not mean re-make the F-111 from the inside-out, as some advocate!)
But this would surly be cheaper, what with flight training system already in place, existing maintenance facilities etc…….than the introduction of a completely new make of aircraft, new engines and avionics – all requiring ground crew retraining etc… for what only 13-years, just to have them retrained again for the F-35?

Yes it would be cheaper. But it would not be more capable than the SH option. Yes, the F-111 has more range. But in a tactical environment to use the range, you need to A) use a tactical fighter force to clear out all threats to this large bomber and therefore rely on half the force to do the job the ENTIRE force should be doing, or B) escort the bomber on every mission with a tactical fighter, thus reducing the F-111 to whatever range the fighters can manage or C) be willing to operate the bomber un-escorted in high threat environments…

A. Is not cost effective. If half of your force is unusable during the “toughest” part of a campaign, what use is it?

B. Escorting the bomber with a tactical fighter is how the RAAF currently employs the F-111. It does not want to continue doing this because this approach affects concurrent operations capability. Hornets have to fly OCA/DCA missions just to allow the F-111 to bomb something. If you had an aircraft that can do it’s OWN OCA/DCA AND strike missions simultaneously, your Hornets are free to do other missions. F-111 cannot do this. Super Hornets and F-35 can.

C. Who wants to fly a 40 year old bomber, with 30 year old sensors (radar and EO/IR) and 25 year old weapon systems, without a fighter escort into a modern IADS, supported by AEW&C and Sukhoi fighters? Not the RAAF…

No the Super Hornet can not match the range of the F-111 – we both agree!
As you have said yourself the F-111 is a strike bomber and not a Tactical Fighter!
And although the F-15E can not match the F-111’s range it is better on range/payload than the Super Hornet full stop.
And this is very important in a strike interdiction role.
The Super Hornet will also need far more airborne refueling support to achieve any worthwhile range.
No I must stick with ‘my’ preference for the Strike Eagle over that of the Super Hornet!

At what cost? The SH needs more refueling you say? To achieve what? How far does RAAF need to go? RAAF F/A-18A and F-111 strike packages meet it’s current range requirements.

Are you saying F/A-18F Super Hornets are going to offer LESS range than F/A-18 A aircraft?

JASSM and it’s 400k range are going onto the SH as well as the legacy Hornets. F-111’s only carry the 90k ranged AGM-142 Popeye and 130k ranged Harpoon ASM.

Know how many JASSM’s the F-15E can carry? 2-4. Know how many the SH can carry? Guess…

The F-15E has a bigger bomb load and it has a marginal increase in range (less than 20%) yet uses boom refueling. Yet it doesn’t carry JSOW (which is a USN weapon) whereas our Hornets and Super Hornets will carry JSOW and it’s JASSM and Harpoon carriage options are the same as the Super Hornet.

Know how many boom refueling options RAAF will be able to provide in years to come?

The answer is: 5.

Know how many hose and drogue refueling options RAAF can provide?

The answer is a minimum of 10 (assuming no buddy refueling pods for SH and no KC-130J or KC-17 refuelers are developed, RAAF’s options will be greater if either of these proposals are carried through, however neither of these will operate a boom refueller). Boom has a higher fuel flow rate than hose and drogue, but a KC-30A can support up to 14x tactical fighters (assuming each aircraft is given one single fuel load per flight) and can accommodate 2x hose and drogue equipped fighters simultaneously where as boom can only accommodate one.

Reckon a KC-30A could refuel 14x boom refueling equipped fighters as quickly as 14x hose and drogue on actual operations (where they might have 2x tankers at best)? I don’t…

After the USN got rid of it’s Grumman A-6 Intruders, followed by the debacle of the Avenger II program, the USN had no other choice but to commit to the Super Hornet, as its prim strike interdiction aircraft.
The US Navy has the advantage of usually naming the time and place of were and when they are going to launch strike-interdiction missions – as they operate from floating airfields – aka ‘aircraft carriers’. This often negates the range issue!
Australia on the other hands for both political and infrastructure reasons usually operate from the continent of Australia!

When has Australia operated air combat elements from the continent of Australia, on actual operations?

I can think of one single time and it was when the continent of Australia was actually bombed…

So why exactly do we not have the “advantage” of where and when we are going to launch, based on historical analysis?

Besides this, do we not have the advantage of WHERE we will base our aircraft, within Australia? Tindal, Darwin, Learmonth, Scherger are all far northern bases, but are geographically separated by simply enormous distances.

Show me an airforce that could launch from their mainland and hit all of these (besides the US).

I never claimed this!
Again the RAAF has been happy to have put their F-111’s and the crew in harms way since the F-111 was put into service.
So with the RAAF Super Hornets, are you saying that they will be escorted to their targets by…….other Super Hornets or would they just dual-role and self -escort and strike?

Perhaps, but unlike F-111’s SH’s CAN self-escort. F-111 is a sitting duck without a fighter escort. Tactics, not platform limitations, will dictate whether the SH is escorted on strike missions or not. With the F-111. There was no choice. Escort it, or refrain from employing it.

The F-111 has not been utilized by RAAF on operations. Ever. The closest thing it has ever done to a “combat” mission were reconnaissance runs over East Timor, with the Indonesia Government briefed on the missions, before they were ever conducted.

Any operational missions, would have seen the F-111’s escorted by F/A-18 fighters (or Coalition fighter aircraft, as appropriate) and consequently constrained to whatever range the tactical fighter escort could manage.

Sorry I don’t know where this came from.
But if we (the RAAF) was to get F-22’s, I would probably be happy to for go the F-111’s – only after the F-22 were delivered and in service!

But why? The F-111 makes a very pretty hangar queen, I admit, however I fail to see the use of a bomber aircraft that can only be used once it’s area of operations has been completely sanitized of any air or modern ground based threat?

Do we need to drop THAT much “iron” on an enemy? Even a legacy Hornet can lug 10x 500lbs bombs if necessary. How many un-guided munitions, do you think RAAF will ever be allowed to drop, on an enemy?

Do you know that EVERY single munition dropped on a target by RAAF (130 odd laser guided bombs) during Operation Bastille (Operation Iraqi Freedom to the Americans) had to be approved by the Chief of the ADF, BEFORE the weapon was launched?

Do you honestly think that Australian ROE’s will be relaxed? Do you see any particular strength within Australian politicians to allow our airman, “weapons free” status?

With conformal packs, the range/payload gained by the F-15E, would still be far better than the Super Hornet, which would have to give up offensive payload for drop tanks to get anywhere near the range of F-15E.

You seem hung up on range. Our current Hornets don’t have the range of the F-15E either. Do they not meet RAAF’s range requirements?

For the last time, the F-111’s can NOT use it’s range in the majority of situations you seem to envisage for RAAF.

F-15E provides a marginal range increase over SH. At a greatly increased price.

Again in regards of the leasing of F-15E’s – that’s called politics, and at the time John Howard was smoking Bush’s pole that hard and that much, I do not think it would have been to difficult to achieve!

So, why did “he” choose the Super Hornet then? Both are American fighters. Both are even made by Boeing. Would GWB really care which American fighter, Australia chose to buy? (Excepting F-22, which is not, nor ever has been available for purchase).

Fact of the matter is, that Boeing would have made a better profit from the F-15E than it does the Super Hornet. Also the Super Hornet production line has a far bigger backlog of orders, than does the F-15, so it would seem to be in Boeing’s interest to keep the F-15 line running as long as possible, yet Boeing offered the Super Hornet Block II.

I wonder why…

As I have stated – any Strike Eagle would be better as a Strike-Interdiction platform than the Super Hornet!
Depends how good little Johnny was with Bush’s pole!!!!

Why, because of range? See above. The range factor isn’t quite so hot, when you look at things in reality. Especially, when you have a budget to consider as well…

Weapons – same, except for JSOW which F-15E doesn’t have. Typical strike weapons for RAAF will be JASSM, JSOW and Harpoon. F-15E and Supers will maintain similar weapons loadout (ie: max of 4x such weapons) per aircraft.

Sensors – inferior radar (APG-79 > APG-63), inferior EWSP and signature management (no towed decoy on F-15E and much greater RCS on F-15E), roughly equivalent EO/IR options (ATFLIR similar to Sniper XR).

Offensive EW. F/A-18G Growlers can be obtained and swapped out for already ordered F models. No such option with F-15E.

Do ‘I’ want a fast jet to replace the F-111 in 2010, or not?
Hell I just want an assurance that the F-111 replacement will be vigorously evaluated, if manned, that its crew is given the best chance of survival, the chosen platform will tie into the over-all ADF strategy, rather than the RAAF just purchasing it because its ‘fashionable and shinny’ (as I think a lot of the thinking / fantasizing of the JSF / F-35 was and is by the RAAF and the then Defence Minister!)
As I have said the F-111 is finished more on the grounds of politics, than anything else.
So what is done is done!

Indeed the F-111 is dead and buried and the first 2x RAAF Super Hornet roll off the production line in July this year (2 months ahead of schedule) with 4x Supers delivered by December 2009.

SH is the only advanced fighter available to Australia that could have achieved this.

Well I think Boeing would be saying this!
Hell they have had no luck as yet to sell its Super Hornet to anyone, with the exception of the RAAF!

SH isn’t quite finished yet. It has currently been shortlisted for 2x prominent aircraft acquisitions. How many is the F-15 currently involved in?

No wonder they have a boner about this sale.
They have put big bucks into the Super Hornet (Opps I meant the American Tax Payers did!) marketed and flogged a dead horse all around the world to try and get a single sale.
And hay what do you know – South Korea and Singapore opted to purchase the Strike Eagle instead![/quote]

Both Singapore and South Korea were looking for a large fighter. SH is at best a “medium” fighter.

What does this tell you?
I have worked with the Singaporean Army on many occasions, and they take their defence real serious (maybe we should take a page out of their book!!!).
They are not in the habit of purchasing a weapon or platform because a Boeing Aerospace executive could **** against the wall, and show in an air show performance of the Super Hornet (in a clean configuration) doing its thing.

That South Korea and Singapore had different requirements to Australia. For one thing, both operate the F-16, too. Does this mean Australia chose wrong, when it opted for the Hornet over the F-16?

Every Super Hornet demonstration I have seen, has been in a combat configuration. SH was at Avalon in 2007 and did it’s routine carrying 2x “captive carry” SLAM-ER missiles, plus 3x tanks and AMRAAM/AIM-9X variants.

I’ve yet to see any rival aircraft demonstrate such performance.

No South Korea and Singapore chose the Strike Eagle, (yes even though an older in airframe design!) as being more capable and better money value / capability.
Oh and did I mention that I’m pretty sure that Andrew Peacock – (ex-Federal Liberal Party MP, who had a lot to do with Australian Defence!) was an executive at Boeing Australia?Jobs and deals for the boys I ask you?

For the last time, Boeing manufactures both the Super Hornet AND the F-15E/K/SG. How exactly then would the “boys” get jobs if your preferred aircraft was chosen over RAAF’s?

As to Singapore and SK, they both chose different versions of the Strike Eagle. Your strawman argument doesn’t hold up, if only because both are of different capability…

Andrew Peacock had no IDEA that RAAF was even contemplating the acquisition of a briding fighter (the Super Hornet project is actually known as BACC – Bridging Air Combat Aircraft). He retired the DAY after the Super Hornet project was announced?

Jobs for the boys? Hardly, he gave his up…

Don’t know about you mate, but I don’t believe everything I read.

Apparently you do. You didn’t know that Peacock gave up his job, despite Boeing pulling off a stunning fighter sale…

As far as head of the fighter mafia?
Did the USAF ever threaten to put a horses head in his bed?
He wrote ‘The Pentagon Paradox’ many years after the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 were in service, so I think you’re a little geographically embarrassed there mate!
Have you read ‘The Pentagon Paradox’?
There is some very interesting info in there, regardless of what you think of him!
Did you read his earlier books on the F-14 and F-15?
In fact most of the criticism he wrote about the F-18, A-18, F/A-18 Hornet and the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet has proven to be correct.
Oh and no I haven’t read the F-22 article yet!
But I will take a look – thanks

You should. His criticisms are that of a very bitter and increasingly irrelevant man. Fact is, USN could NOT have got a new fighter as cheaply as the Super Hornet. The SH is not a perfect aircraft by any means, but it is very good and capable fighter, particularly in it’s Block II + configuration and provides exactly what it’s users require of it.

There are MANY myths about how poorly the SH performs. Unfortunately for the critics, these myths are shown for exactly what they are by ACTUAL aviators. You can read about this issue here:

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/06/marine_superhornet_070617/

I hate to say it mate, but when I’m on leave I will dig out my copy of your mates book ‘The Pentagon Paradox’ – for there is information in there that gives the manufacturers (General Dynamics/LTV’s and Northrop/McDonnell Douglas’s figures as to the additional weight attributed to carrier capability incorporation into the respected YF-16 to F-16N and the YF-17 to F-18.
But I think it was something like 4,000 lb’s additional weight contributed to the carrier compatibility F-18 (note I use the designation of the original F-18 as opposed to the later F/A-18A Hornet)
In the end this is relevant, in terms of range and Power to Weight Ratio

Power to weight is not even a measurement used in aircraft. You might perhaps be referring to thrust to weight?

In any case the weight differences built into a fighter designed for carrier operations comes from the strengthened airframe. It is a structural integrity issue and is not something that can be “removed”. The airframe weight is heavier, because the airframe is bulkier and stronger. The landing structures are stronger and heavier to take the increased stress on landings, but also to handle the heavier airframe weight. It simply cannot be removed without a redesign of the airframe.

That is why Northrop designed a land based version of the F/A-18 known as the F/A-18L. This aircraft was basically the same as the F/A-18A carrier version, except it had a much lighter airframe and had superior performance and agility (9g limit instead of 7.5g for the USN variant etc) but unfortunately a buyer would have been up for increased cost. The subsequent result was: 8x customers bought the F/A-18A/C (only 2 of which actually used them from a carrier) and none bought the land based variant…

Mate as for the Su-33 and Russian carriers…………………………..that’s all pretty deep and all.
Sorry I used the designation Su-27/32/33 as a generic description.
I didn’t even give the Su-33/Russian carriers a thought.
**** is that tub Admiral Kuznetsov still afloat?

Yep. It’s serviceability is extremely debatable, but it still floats…

Btw, as a matter of interest, the SU-33 carrier variant of the Flanker takes off from a ski-ramp of all things… A 20 ton fighter using a SKI-RAMP!

I’d be amazed if any of these have EVER launched with more than 50% fuel…

As for your analogy about the Su-27’s performance as an airshow freak show of sorts, well I have seen the Super Hornets performance at air shows also!
I wasn’t all that impressed.
Especially when the older F-16, still turned tighter and climbed faster.

Well every airshow I’ve ever seen the SH has performed same in a combat configuration. Go to Youtube. Virtually every airshow the SH’s do, feature’s stores. It however is not a spectacular aerodynamic performer, by modern fighter standards, I admit that.

You’ll be hard-pressed to find a better high alpha/low speed aircraft however and it has been a LONG time, since sheer aerodynamic performance was the deciding factor in modern air combat.

I find it quite amusing to see people talking about the F-22 and other high performance fighters and the “kinematic” advantage they have with their supposed supersonic launch of BVR missiles (as if they are flying supersonic on a constant basis or something).

Any modern fighter flying at a mach 0.8 cruise speed at a decent flight level with a good FCR and the Meteor BVR missile (or similar ramjet powered missile) provides a significant kinematic performance advantage over any AMRAAM variant, fired under almost any condition.

If this kinematic advantage is so all important, I wonder why those in charge of fighter platforms with acknowledged less than stellar aerodynamic performances aren’t clamoring to get such a capability in-service?

Are they stupid?

Or could there in fact be a REASON why?

My ideal comparison of the Su-27 and F/A-18E/F would be to fuel them to operational standards, put on a standard weapons load, then get them to do their aerial dancing until they each reach ‘bingo fuel’

And this would prove, what? Which is the better airshow performer?

RAAF needs a combat capability. The Roulettes are equipped with an aircraft sufficient to put on a good airshow…

Regards
Pioneer

P.S. lets keep this a good forum and not a pissing comp:)

Agreed.

Cheers mate.

F-16s are very close to being the most worthless assets that Iraq can buy at the moment. Don’t see a single thing they could do with them given the problems they have.

Is there any reason Iraqi F-16’s couldn’t do this?

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=-XoUemm9dSE

BY 2011 THERE WILL BE A NEW AIRFORCE WITH strike capability in form of fighters (jet) in at least 3 squadrons, you may not know that there are few airframes left from the old iraqi airforce in the form of:
1. handful of chinese F-7B i dont know their condition
2. one or two su-25’s
3. a number of pc-9’s that escaped being destroyed

there were talks with france on gazelles but the french offered 2nd hand ones or older versions thatn the IrAF hoped

i know iraq has 36 f-16’s on orded my guess is it will NOT happen since the americans are pulling out completely.
the IrAF will eventully go back to its roots flying su-27 and mirage 2000 in fighter role and i dont know what in the strike role,,,,i recommend talking to the british on ex-RAF tornados.

They will have Hellfire armed King Air 350’s by then too…

HMAS Collins was 85% built in Adelaide… I watched the construction over time while I was with my father whom had a reason to be there., yes the swedish components were poorly built, and not the only source of problems, but 85% means it was built here. is a 787 not built in America if the wing comes from Japan????

You may bad mouth Mr Howard now, but hes been the 2nd best prime minister, and history will view his greatness.

Back to topic…..

If expeditionary warfare is one of our future goals, why only 5 KC-30A’s and 4 C-17s?? I’ve been told we are receiving 2 more C-17s, but are there options open for extra KC-30A’s?

RAAF signed on for 3x options on the KC-30A’s. These however were due to expire in December 2008.

Unless the Government extended these options somehow and haven’t yet made that decision public, (perhaps keeping it aside for the White Paper, whenever that may be released) then these options have expired.

There is of course nothing stopping Government signing contracts for new-builds, except of course it’s own lack of interest in providing for Australia’s defence, adequately.

And congratulations you just proved a point… well done.

And now back to the thread.. “Not HMAS Collins…”

Really? How did HMAS Collins get here then? By magic?
Please be specific… came by: sea? rail? airship?

It was assembled and launched at ASC in South Australia in 1993.

Kockums built the components and major sections for the boat and delivered them by sea to Australia.

The boats following Collins were manufactured, assembled and launched within Australia.

There is an upgrade kit being marketed for the Harpoon that gives it some land attack ability vs. fixed land targets. One must assume that this would include all the software to fly those kinds of missions. This is one of the reasons Israel was complaining of more marketing efforts of the Harpoon to Egypt not too long ago.

In order for something like this to be truly effective over long range it would need datalinking to back up GPS updating of the INS not unlike JASSM or Tomahawk IV. If the GPS signal was inhibited somehow over such a long range there is a big risk of the INS not being refreshed enough and therefore not being able to give you a useful CEP. A problem brought forward in JASSM tests in 2007. Of course if money is of no object there is always the option of backing up GPS for cruise missiles by giving them back route-terrain matching like early cruise missiles, or even star trackers.

The GPS signal in JASSM was dropping out as you well know (or should know), due to evasive manoeuvres the missile was required to conduct in the terminal phase.

Whether Harpoon Block II is required to conduct such evasive manoeuvres or not is a matter of debate.

What is not debatable is whether or no it possesses a “land attack” capability.

JDAM does.

Clearly Harpoon Block II does, too…