OK lets run this by you….

I have a software package I’d like you to install to your computer, I assure you it is benign, and will not hamper your computers operation…:D

Although I havn’t finished it yet – It will be the best thing ever! its fifth generation protection designed to protect you against hostile external forces.

Testing has been a little slow – so if you could chip in a couple of hundred dollars I’ll give you a early delivery slot, please note early delivery slots are more expensive -but hey!!!..

I can’t tell you whats in the package, but rest assured its all good. :diablo:

The cost is only 50 dollars (in then year 1984 dollars, with testing and forcast cost growth its only about $100), outside accounting firms are estimating its over $250 a copy, but they are all wrong.. as explained by the our latest inhouse cost forcasts which is $300 minus the cost saving programs were initiating next week, where we “imagine” its going to save over $250 dollars per unit, so were right on track for the $50 target
Now how do you feel about that?.. Good deal or what?.

Or using your ‘very little to worry about’ statement how about the UK holds all the software as part of its 5% funding of the program and restricts the US access.

Why don’t you try arguing this around the other way (just imagine the UK holding the software and the USA being ‘untrusted’) and see if it makes any sense.

Cheers

Hello Bill Gates, I just bought Windows 7. Because I paid for it, can I have the source codes too and not just the Beta version?

What, what do you mean I can’t have them? It’s mine to do with as I wish isn’t it? Stop impacting my operational sovereignty over my computer!

I paid good money for them, your intellectual property be damned…

Probably been seen before, but I like them…

and

Maybe the RAF could take the S. African kits. Call it economic regeneration funding, as the kits are made in the UK. 😉 We could do with tankers that can refuel helicopters, & for deployments where an A330MRTT is overkill. One in the Falklands would be handy, for example. But supposedly, this would require the permission of AirTanker. Stupid contract. 🙁

Agreed. Short term monetary gain outweighing larger strategic concerns, what a wonderful idea…

I don’t understand why UK didn’t pay for it’s KC-30’s upfront and then rent them out to AirTanker?

Apparently operational sovereignty is only relevant if we’re discussing the F-35… 🙂

Malaysia has ordered refuelling kits for its A400M. They’re plug & play: the aircraft need no conversion, & the kits can be switched between aircraft.

http://www.cobham.com/about-cobham/mission-systems/media/news/177.aspx

That doesn’t give a breakdown between South Africa & Malaysia, but I think Malaysia ordered kits for all 4 A400M it’s buying.

I’m guessing South Africa won’t be getting theirs now… :rolleyes:

Its got me stuffed………… So what happens to the vast amount of time, ‘money’ and technical maintenance training of all the effort put into the purchasing of the Aim-132 ASRAAM?

It continues to provide good service for the legacy Hornet fleet, which is ALL it was ever meant to do. Hence why it was never integrated onto the F-111’s or the Hawk Mk127’s…

SH is ALL about risk reduction. Not having a WVR missile on it for up to the first 5 years of it’s service (how long it took to integrate onto the legacy Hornets) doesn’t sound like much of a risk reduction to me. MUCH better just to spend $50m and get AIM-9X, which of course is already integrated on Super Hornet.

ASRAAM was purchased at a time when RAAF only had AIM-120A and Sparrow BVR missiles in-serveice. It therefore mostly wanted additional long ranged weapons capability, the ASRAAM having an acknowledged advantage in this regime, compared to AIM-9X or Python IV (which it competed against for the RAAF contract).

Hornet also didn’t have a HMS so a tighter turning missile, was not really as much of an advantage compared to the range and “speed off the rail” of the ASRAAM when it was selected for RAAF in the mid-late 90’s.

Our Supers will come with AIM-120C7 straight off the bat and the -D model down the track however and the legacy Hornets will run a mix of C5 and C7 until their LoT (no idea if RAAF plans to integrate the -D on the legacy Hornets, given they wil have 2-3 years of service left when it is introduced) so BVR weapons capability is no longer an issue for RAAF.

At the end of the day it is clear to me that the RAAF never truly looked hard and in depth into all the options with its purchase of the Super Hornet. I am convinced that it was more a political decision of the last Australian Federal Government to purchase the Super Hornet.

I think you are doing the Bridging Air Combat Capability project office a bit of a disservice here. There are some VERY clever people there, including Grp Capt Steve “Zed” Robertson who really DO know what they are talking about when comparing combat aircraft. Given the number of RAAF pilots who have conducted multiple – multi-year exchanges with USAF/USN/USMC and RAF, do you REALLY think the RAAF doesn’t have a VERY good idea about the capabilities of these services respective fighters?

It may not gel with your personal tastes, but to accuse the RAAF of incompetence in choosing the SH over whatever “pet” aircraft you happen to like, is a bit much.

One thing about the Super Hornet is insurmountable, NO other jet fighter production line in the world could have supported delivery of new build aircraft 2 years and 4 months after the order was placed and an in-service date of less than 45 months after ordering…

To me – As for tanker / airborne refueling as a force multipliers – to support the Super Hornets – its will not take a determined enemy with a touch of genius to work out very quickly that by splashing a couple of tanks which the main strike force is critically relying on is a far more intuiting and productive target to splash than a multiple array of Super Hornets!

Hence why the RAAF and every other competent air force employs TACTICS and escorts the tankers/AEW&C aircraft with fighters, provides strong self-defence capability for the platform themselves AND operates TSL’s (tanker support lines) which is an artificial “line” which the tankers do NOT cross, which is beyond the known capability of the enemy to realistically strike. What you are assuming is that RAAF is unaware of the value of it’s own assets and that no force protection procedures are possible…

Clearly that is not the case, if you judge these things soley on the numbers of tankers and AEW&C aircraft shot down in modern conflicts, ie: none…

After all almost every neighbor to Australia has been using tankers / Airborne refueling in their orbat for over a decade+ – whilst our politicians deliberated wether it would be seen as provocative…………………. (but hey that’s just my thoughts!!!)

RAAF has had tanker capability for it’s fighters since the early 90’s. It’s B707 tankers are now retired, but tanker capability is still provided for RAAF by USAF/USN assets on exercise (and ops) and by Omega air services, until the KC-30A’s come online in 2010.

The RAAF’s Super Hornets are being equipped with buddy refuelling pods, as with USN practice as well…

One thing is for certain for a long time now, the ADF has been following trends, instead of set them for its own unique requirements!!!!

Hmm.

First customer for KC-30A in the WORLD.

First customer for Wedegtail AEW&C in the WORLD.

2nd international customer for P-8A.

First international customer for Super Hornet.

Only Country in Asia/Oceania to join F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program as a Partner nation and invest money in the program as a level 3 partner.

First Country in Asia and the 4th Country in the WORLD to order very low observable fighter aircraft – F-35 Lightning II. (USA already operates VLO aircraft, UK and Netherlands have already ordered F-35 aircraft, 3 and 1 respectively).

First and only international customer for JASSM.

First and only international customer for ASRAAM.

Only nation in SEA to operate HF based, extended range over the horizon radar system.

Partner nation with USA (only 2 users) on WGS “wideband” satellite communications capability.

First international customer for Juan Carlos LHD, named Canberra Class LHD in Australian service.

1st international customer for SPY-1D Series 7.1 AEGIS combat system.

Partner nation in ESSM development.

Partner nation in Nulka EW decoy system.

1st international customer for M777A2 155mm howitzer.

First nation in Asia/Oceania to deploy Excalibur artillery PGM and Excalibur portable fire control unit.

1st international customer for Tiger armed recon helo.

!st Country in the world to integrate Hellfire missile onto Tiger armed recon helo.

1st Country in Asia Pacific region to acquire and deploy NH-90 helicopter.

Nah you’re right. ADF has never set ANY trends…

A decision is planned for 2012 on upgrading 12 of the F/A-18F to EA-18G. Same year a decision on the followon F-35A purchase for a total of 72. Later in 2010s a decision is due on the last 28.

So its either one squadron of F/A-18F (possibly some as EA-18G) and three F-35 or four F-35 squadrons. Preferred choice is 4 F-35 squadrons.

The AU$6 billion is for 24 F/A-18F (unit cost probably $65 million – US?) with the adiditional costs for 10 years flying including support (its either expensive setting up depot level maintenance in Australia or equally(?) expensive back in the USA, simulator integration and three years training.

Confirmed weapons are AIM-9X, ATFLIR, AGM-154C-1, JASSM, buddy stores along with JHMCS and NVG.

HUG (Hornet Upgrade Program) is an ongoing phased upgrade.
2000 – 2002: HUG1.0 with new CNI with embedded GPS, secure comms, IFF interrogator, upgraded databus, interim EW software upgrade, ASRAAM wiring. 59 converted by March 2002.
2002-2003: HUG 2.1 with APG-73 vice APG-65. 14 were actually deployed to Al Udeid, Qatar during the Iraq invasion and flew attack and attack missions.
2006-08: HUG 2.1 with ALE-47 decoys, JMCS, Link 16. 55 delivered by Dec 2007 (IOC). HUG 2.4 ran same years with AAQ-28V Litening AT Block II targeting pods (IOC Jun 2007).
2007-11: HUG 3.2C for 10 airframes (was 49 with 20 options), as the airframe fatigue was found to be less than expected.
2008-11: HUG 2.3 with ALR-67(v)3 RWR (IOC Nov 08)
2009: Fitted with BOL chaff decioys.
2011-12: HUG 2.3 with El-8222 jammer pods

Originally planned
2012-15: Non 3.2C retired. This is moved to the right two years.
2017-18: HUG 3.2C with option to extend to 2020.

With the F-35 delays the F/A-18F takes the pressure off the F/A-18A retirement dates.

JASSM is NOT going on the Super Hornets, at least not yet. (There is no plan at this time to integrate JASSM onto the Super Hornets. USN conducted the majority of the integration work already, so JASSM could be added quickly, but there is NO plan or funding for RAAF Supers to gain JASSM).

On top of those weapons, you can also add: Paveway II, Paveway III, JDAM, AIM-120C-5 AMRAAM and AGM-154C (as well as C-1 variants) to the confirmed weapons list for RAAF’s Supers…

Future weapons are almost certain to include Laser JDAM, JDAM-ER and future AMRAAM variants and possibly an anti-radiation missile if the Growler option gets approved…

I don’t see how the SH can replace the F111. Granted it can replace the legacy Hornets, but to replace the 111 you need a Su34. The rest won’t really take up the role.

Which leaves you either legacy Hornets or a new type. Why not rent the surplus gripen instead?

Nic

1. The F-111 doesn’t fly into combat unescorted, so it’s range is restricted to whatever it’s escorting fighters can manage. The Super Hornet has a better range than legacy Hornets. Given this scenario, the Super Hornet most definitely CAN replace the F-111.

Additionally the Super Hornet provides increased air to air combat capability, that the F-111 never could.

2. RAAF is purchasing these things called air to air refuellers. Apparently they have a remarkable ability to extend the range of aircraft.

3. ADF is purchasing long ranged standoff weapons. Weapons that are difficult and costly to integrate onto the F-111, but easily integrated onto a modern aircraft such as a Hornet or Super Hornet. The Royal Australian Navy will also get very long ranged cruise missiles in coming years.

These decisions effectively increase the ADF’s strike capacity beyond anything the F-111 was ever able to achieve…

So a Super Hornet can’t replace the strike capability of the F-111, but a Gripen can?

Give me a break…

Well if you ask me the F/A18E/F was a mistake. They should have MLUd their current fleet and make them last until the JSF arrived (provided they wanted it that bad). Save that they could rent a plane (I can think of a lot of available Gripens) as a transitory measure that would cost much less that purchasing such an expensive stopgap.

Nic

We have MLU’d our current fleet. Unfortunately, we are still lumbered with the F-111, which should have been replaced by a fighter aircraft in the early-mid 90’s and we wouldn’t have required the Super Hornet acquisition.

The F-111 fleet costs a fortune, delivers nothing much of use any longer (RAAF can barely put 6x operational airframes into the sky on any day of the week) and does nothing to alleviate the ageing problems our Hornet airframes are suffering from.

Australia should have gone and rented JAS-39A Gripens should it? What a colossal waste of money that would be.

Maybe Sweden would have upgraded them for us at their own expense to C/D standard so they would at least be interoperable with the rest of ADF? Maybe Sweden would integrate our choice of weapons and sensors at their own cost in a window of less than 3 years, at their own expense, eh?

Maybe Sweden would provide us with refuellers at their own expense so that Gripen-A’s would actually have the range we need for a strike aircraft?

Obviously a lot of thought went into your last comment. RAAF could really use this sort of help, obviously they don’t have a clue…