SU-30MKM EW is MAW-300 passive MAWS (AFAIK MAWS not fitted to any F/A-18E/F)=.

The Super Hornet uses the AN/ALQ-214 IDECM Electronic Warfare Self-Protection system.

This system includes MAWS capability. This capability is not identified by the use of a separate moniker, ie: MAWS-300, but IDECM certainly does have a MAW function.

How else will they know when to “roll out” the “turd”? Just let her loose, whenever painted with a radar?

🙂

Anyway, the pic of the Aussie Superbugs is sweet, cannot wait to hear about first DACT encounters with the MKMs. 🙂

How about these ones?

and

🙂

i didnt know they werent offered aesa originally
isnt there a recent offer to buy back their 18d for the sh/b2 ?
i heard one reason they didnt go with the sh originally was because usa held in trust the bulk of the missile stock, same as they did/still do ? with sg and russia would release the full buy to them

The RMAF sought the Super Hornet as it’s future combat aircraft, it made a request through FMS for up to 18x Super Hornet Block I aircraft. That’s why they weren’t offered, APG-79 AESA. It didn’t exist in 2001…

In relation to the SU-30’s alleged superiority, again, people are only considering kinematics here. It’s other detrimental features are of course glossed over. Air Power Australia WOULD be proud…

In any case, I vote we discontinue the “Super Hornet v SU-30” argument in this thread and keep it to it’s thread title. It’s tired and using the Malaysian’s decision as some sort of evidence is simply ridiculous. For one they simply couldn’t afford the Super Hornet and 2) look at the supply arrangements they have in place for their current fighter aircraft and you’ll SEE why “capability” is almost the least of their concerns over future combat aircraft…

Why the F-model? Is it me or is that the principal version of the Super Hornet now? I much prefer the single seat E model.

They are primarily being acquired for their strike capability. RAAF considers the strike capability of the F model, superior to the E.

Plus half the fleet is coming pre-wired to allow for a Growler conversion down the track, if necessary…

Australia’s shrinking air force

THE nation’s air combat force has withered to its smallest size in a generation, with less than half of the country’s fighter jets available for operations.

At times this year as many as three out of four of the RAAF’s 86 fighter jets have been grounded due to maintenance, upgrades or safety concerns.

Of those warplanes that are available, only a handful can be sent into combat because they do not yet have sufficient electronic protection to survive against modern air defences.

The Weekend Australian understands that only 21 of the RAAF’s 71 F/A-18 Hornets are currently available, while the 15 ageing F-111 strike bombers were only cleared to fly again last week after being grounded early this month when an in-flight emergency forced a safety review.

The parlous state of the frontline air force has added urgency to the arrival of 26 F/A-18 Super Hornets that were purchased for $6 billion by the Howard government and are due to start arriving next month.
Full Story

RAAF’s response:

27 February, 2010
Letter to the Editor – The Australian

The article on Air Force’s air combat aircraft by Cameron Stewart in ‘The Australian’ (Saturday 27 February) is not an accurate reflection of Air Force’s current capability and readiness.

Air Force maintains a potent air combat capability, which will be further boosted within weeks, when the first of RAAF’s next-generation Super Hornets will arrive in Australia.

For obvious reasons Defence does not publicly release availability numbers of air combat aircraft. However, Cameron Stewart’s article may be referring to the period of operational standby over Christmas, when Air Force maintains its normal level of high readiness for short notice tasks, while many of our people including maintainers are taking well earned leave with their families.
The newspaper story made only passing reference to the much publicised Hornet Upgrade (HUG) project. This project is successfully delivering state of the art fighter aircraft which will be ready to operate effectively in the threat environment of the next decade. F/A-18s involved in the upgrade are off-line for a period of time, but this is a staged process to ensure Air Force always maintains sufficient capability to fulfil Government tasking and crew training.
The F-111s are ageing aircraft which have served Australia well, but are now approaching the end of their operational life. Air Force is retiring its F-111s at the end of 2010 and is acquiring a fleet of 24 Super Hornets as an interim replacement for the F-111, before the cutting edge F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is delivered to Australia.

Air Force is experiencing some challenges with the ageing F-111s. Again, it is widely acknowledged that the F-111 is increasingly expensive and difficult to maintain and operate. Despite this, a few uninformed commentators continue to call for F-111 operations to be extended beyond 2010.

The arrival of the first group of Super Hornets next month marks a new chapter for Air Force and a major leap in air combat capability. The Super Hornet is a true multi-role aircraft that, when flown and supported by the high calibre people within Air Force, will ensure Australia’s regional air combat capability edge through to the introduction of the F-35.

Air Marshal Mark Binskin
Chief of Air Force

RAAF will be engaging its enemy over marine airspace and so the presence of the desert well within its territory does not matter. So it’s a non-issue for them. Don’t know what heights it typically flew in US over the desert sands considering that it was designed for marine airspace. It’s possible that sand is a non-issue but it would have been better if at Jaisalmer, instead of mere temperature soak and flight, they asked for SH to do low level flight akin to flights at radar evading heights over the desert. Would have been good to ascertain its worthiness for A2G role in one of the likely theatres of operation.

Yeah, because of all the entrants, the Super Hornet doesn’t have much operational experience flying over sand…

Iraq and Afghanistan are so green…

Don’t look at engine in isolation. Individually, yes, F414 is good engine with long life and high thrust. But as a part of the system(plane) that incorporates it, look at the TWR achieved. A good engine praised for its long life and maintenance but unable to competely undo the weight penalties of the naval frame.

As I said earlier, and have others, it is powering current editions. These are performing reportedly to IAF’s satisfaction.

As an option, improved thrust and fuel burn engines are available, should a customer desire. It is not such a strange offer and any “lag” will be factored in to contract negotiations, however IAF still has to pick either before it ever becomes an issue. As an example of how customary such offers are, both Dassault and Eurofighter Consortium have offered the same thing I understand (developed engine variants) and I’ve no doubt L-M are offering a choice of engines, with their F-16IN…

Yes but when a clean airframe of one can outdo the clean airframe of another it can be assumed that with equal combat loads the performance lead of former over the latter would persist. And there are enough videos of clean other aircrafts and clean SH.

An extremely broad generalisation is relevant how, to a fighter acquisition program? Do you not think that IAF is assessing how these aircraft perform with likely operationally loads for their planned operations? Do such things, as maintenance, support, fuel burn, operational effect etc not come into these considerations, or is kinematic performance the sole goal post as many hereabouts who delight in pointing out the blinding obvious that the Super Hornet is not the most kinematically impressive fighter aircraft in this competition, seem to think? Those who are fixated on such issues, A) don’t understand truly how air combat effects are generated and B) most certainly don’t appreciate the finer points of how and why combat aircraft are designed for their role and subsequently chosen by smart users.

I’d suggest virtually no-one outside the trials and the respective manufacturers (for their own products) are aware of exactly what configurations are being assessed and how. For one thing, they relate to classified information and strategy for the IAF and for another, they involve commercial in confidence issues for the manufacturers.

The point cannot be avoided however, that the Super Hornet proposal for the IAF’s RFP must have met certain performance requirements as an absolute minimum.

And it is one thing to do daring manouevers in 20,000-40,000 ft altitude band elsewhere when you have greater clearance from the ground than to do the same when the ground position itself is at 16,000 ft. The pilot would be far more circumspect in his audacity and manouever options.

And yet you are still fixated on kinematic performance…

Sorry that doesn’t explain. “meets their requirements”! If you mean participation in competition then virtually any plane that flies supersonic and carries weapons is in it. The only ones that aren’t are because one company wouldn’t field two products simultaneously or it is 5th gen or it is made by India’s rival.

Yeah, that’s how it works. India brings aircraft into their Country for flight trials, without bother to assess whether or not it meets their basic requirements.

It then provides staff, facilities and consumables and conducts trials in it’s own airspace, using manufacturer supplied aircraft and personnel to find out what it can even do…

Oh and pays for the privilege of all this, too…

The political clout is for a yank plane for mmrca, whichever wins. And you know very well, why India is not keen on F-16. That’s why f18 is forerunner compared to f16. And these reasons do not affect other nations that have opted for f-16.

I’m not so sure of that. I see a situation in the middle east not too dissimilar to South West Asia where the F-16 is widely used…

Old trick. Become specific the moment someone points to idea your companies, militarymen and experts have pushed into media all these years. Likewise, show me where have I said that it was specifically you as an individual who tom-tomed the kinematic performance as a predominant feature. 😉

Plenty of old tricks. Dodge, duck, weave and address points that suits your own strengths and opinion and avoid others…

Again, I don’t especially care either way though. I don’t work for Boeing, contrary to some people’s opinion (strange that no-one has ever accused me of working for L-M despite my opinions on the F-35, tending to be stronger in a positive way than for the Shornet, but never mind).

I do believe the Super Hornet to be a capable aircraft though, that tends to be treated rather unfairly at times. I also offer the opinion that if sheer kinematic performance were the be all and end all of fighter aircraft, then designs like the F-104 Starfighter would have tended to be more popular over the years…

Very small, thin wings, low drag aeroshells, big motors and small operational war loads…

Curious on the time to develop part; do you think that due to the amount of cash likely to be thrown at it or for other reasons?

The amount of cash will definitely be important. I think the extreme political focus on this project will help massively too. The Eurofighter Consortium from a casual observers view, seems anything but focussed…

Just wondering – Whats your thoughts on the JSF UPC price at which the program start to fall apart, or at what date do the partners opt out because its too late? some in the program would find it easier than others to opt out..

I.e UPC= US$110m and another 18 months!

Cheers

My thoughts on the JSF can be summarised like this: I don’t think it will take as long to develop as the Eurofighter did, nor cost as much in full rate production as the Rafale does…

Let the howls of protest begin!!!

Seriously though, I think you’re asking for my views on political decisions yet to be made in 9+ Countries. If I could forsee that, I could probably tell you the lotto numbers for next week, too….

I would suggest in Australia’s case, that the F/A-18A/B’s would have to be almost entirely grounded, permanently, before our political masters will consider an alternative…