Revival_786
New Member
Canada does not need a strong military. The money that would have gone to the military is going to free health care :canada
Australian Hornet Upgrades (HUG)
- Thread starter gf0012-aust
- Start date
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
The Kiwi's have also stated that they require an aircraft which is capable of the tactical transport role and also the aerial fire support role, a capability they severely lack since the demise of their air combat force, this is why I think they'd opt for something like the A109 or perhaps the Westland Lynx. I believe they also want the aircraft to be marinised so they can operate them off their soon to be acquired 'sea-lift' ship. I'm not certain about this requirement though...
My understanding of the NZ issue is this. NZ has chosen not to play an active role in the region vis a ve miltary conflict. THis choice led to the disbandonment of the air wing (A4's). When the NZ gvt decided to disband the air force fighter wing, they made it clear that the aim of there military force would be mainly as a peace keeping force. Not a peace enforcing force (something which Oz still maintains).
NZ will not reactivate its air wing untill the gvt changes its foreign policy in addition to understanding that the ANZUS treaty would be threatened even further if there armed forces keep deteriorating.
NZ will not reactivate its air wing untill the gvt changes its foreign policy in addition to understanding that the ANZUS treaty would be threatened even further if there armed forces keep deteriorating.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #25
Welcome DRUB. The issue for New Zealand is that it also is rapidly hitting a point where it may not be able to deploy for peace keeping as well.DRUB said:
They have some severe disconnects to address. If their intent is to try and support problems in Micronesia with Australia, then there begins to be a question of the role of their SAS teams. They are not able to effectively defend their territorial waters, let alone their international waters in the Antarctic. Increasingly there appears to be a greater burden being placed on it's principle ally Australia. We certainly don't begrudge them that as our ties to NZ are arguably stronger than our ties with the US and the UK.
You may not be aware of the fact that both of our constiutions allow for one country to merge with the other under the approp referendum. Irrespective of our close relationship, the issue of national, mutual and international obligations is causing NZ to lose influence not only at the broader Internaional level, but more significantly, within Micronesia - previously NZ was the major player here. That is a role that is now being picked up by Aust when "Ethnically", NZ because of its Maori heritage was the more recognised pivot point.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Well said as usual gf, I would also add that the defence policies of the current NZ government are illogical. They state that they are planning to develop forces suitable for peace-keeping operations only and yet to date have denied the NZDF the very capabilities such operations require. Their socalist government under Helen Clark, decided not to acquire a 3rd ANZAC frigate thus leaving their frigate force very unbalanced, and leaving the RNZN with the ability to only a deploy a frigate for a maximum of 6 months. Once that is up a period of delay will occur before they can deploy another frigate. They have also decided that they will not significantly upgrade their P-3K Orions and will basically only leave them with a maritime surveillance aircraft of limited capability with no capability to conduct operations against the very targets it detects!!! The rationale behind this is that according to Helen Clark, "no submarine has been seen in NZ waters in years" thus the ability to prosecute an engagement against such an adversary is obviously surplus to NZ's needs. This rather ill-educated view disregards the fact that MPA's are equally effective against surface targets and in fact are used mainly in that role these days. Now that NZ has no combat aircraft (to speak of,) the P-3 could have usefully filled the maritime (and even littoral with appropriate weapons) strike role that the A-4's used to perform, without much extra cost or difficulty, but apparently maritime strike in the defence of NZ or in defence of deployed forces is never going to be required by NZ, whereas surveillance of the same maritime targets is!!! The list goes on and on. The Hercules fleet is old and decrepit and barely serviceable. The 2 ANZAC frigates NZ possesses is only equipped with the 5 Inch gun, 1x Vertical launched system which mounts 8 Sea Sparrow (NZ is not even acquiring Evolved Sea Sparrow) SAM's and Mk46 torpedo's. The ships also operate SH-SG Kaman Super Seasprites which possess a reasonable capability (although less than Australia's SH-2GA Super Seapsprites) and also fire the Maverick air to ground missile and Mk 46 torpedo's. The ships however possess no other offensive or defensive capabilities of any kind, besides 0.50Cal machine guns and probably small arms. No Close in weapons systems (like Phalanx), no other SAM sytems (like Mistral etc, which the NZ army already operates) nothing. These ships are even recognised by the NZ government that their ability to operate in even "medium intensity" conflicts (which the rest of the force is apparently designed for) is extremely limited and could be a severe liability for allies which may have to protect NZ's own ships!!! NZ does have a program to acquire a sea-lift ship, so that should improve NZ's deployment options, but they will have no capacity to protect such a ship and I find it extremely unlikely that such a ship will be adequately armed and equipped to protect itself when even it's own Frigates aren't... No, New Zealand through it's own Government's decisions is well on it's way to becoming strategically and even tactically irrelevent in not only the rest of the world but even in it's own back yard where military capabilities are extremely modest to say the least...
Hmm...A two-frigate navy, a two-battalion army and an combat-inept air force? Well, I'm sure they...let's say, chose their course, which they have a right to. Certainly they operate in a...hmm...fortunate strategic environment. I suppose it is not for us to criticise until it is seems they are handing their burden to others perhaps? This is rather more complex than I thought.Aussie Digger said:
Well, as a correction the navy also operates an ancient Leander harking from their cold war procurement-spree, armed to the teeth with a twin 4.5," a Seasprite and some handy .50 cals. Now I realise my sarcasm is starting to get out hand...And as for a side note, let's hope the new sea-lift ship doesn't turn out like the last one. It was purchased a second-hand cargo vessel that turned out to be not as fulfilling as expected...They didn't want to spend the money to upgrade it so they got rid of it five years later along with the Skyhawks in 2001. They're still looking for a new one, though I believe it is in a bunched program to acquire several small vessels of all sorts... :roll
As a side note, the Kiwi air force's motto is apparently 'bring it on.' Certainly the spirit isn't lacking...
BTW, did you hear about the Aussie fleet replenishment ship that came under a vandalism attack in the capital's port a few days ago? A pity...
gf, i was alludingto what you said, however, i failed to mention it. It will indeed be an interesting time for the relationship between NZ and Oz vis a ve defence. The Oz gvt seems to be more focused or switched on. This is however arguable as the current selection of M1A1 Abrahams were devoid of any real competitive selection procedure.gf0012 said:
Personally, i really do hope thet NZ turn it around. As winter said, the spirit of the NZAF isn't lacking. I would assume this to be constant through thier armed forces. I am no history buff, but, from what i can recall (once again - subject to severe lack of knowledge) NZ has been there to help Oz out far more than any other ally.
It would be a real shame if the disparity between Oz and NZ capabilites in other areas of the armed forces i.e Special forces and general infantry becomes so large that having them with us becomes a liability than an asset.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #30
Hopefully NZDRUB said:
Joking aside, any foreign sales will need to be approved by the US. In the past we have sold our aircraft to Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan. I would imagine that all of the Euro Hornet users will have centre barrel probs as well, so will be looking at shifting their own.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Winter, the Leander Class frigate will be retired when the new "Sealift ship" is introduced and is now only used as a training platform for the ANZAC units. Hence the reason I didn't mention it. The fact that the sealift ship is replacing the Leander class frigate is the reason why some think the sealift ship will be armed in the manner of a normal naval ship. Having seen the decisions made by the NZ government, I'll be amazed if the ship is armed with anything heavier than a couple of 0.50 Calibre Machine guns... Anyhoo back to the Hornets. GF do you think there is any real chance the Australia Government will acquire additional FA-18 A/B or C/D Hornets, to go someway to filling the strike capability gap when the F-111 is retired? I personally don't, but it would be a reasonably cheap option. 100 or so Hornets put through the HUG program would provide us with a more credible capability.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #32
I don't see the Govt buying interims, they will be avoiding it as much as possible.
Personally, I would be planning for interims and lining up the purchase of swiss, finish or canadian Hornets. The Swiss aircraft are the best out of that bunch.
Super Hornets are an overkill, if we go with swiss hornets we end up with a dedicated ground strike package - plus those nice titanium tubs which keep out stray 7.62's and .50 cal (at certain distances)
I'd actually like to see some of the 2 seaters turned into weasels.
Personally, I would be planning for interims and lining up the purchase of swiss, finish or canadian Hornets. The Swiss aircraft are the best out of that bunch.
Super Hornets are an overkill, if we go with swiss hornets we end up with a dedicated ground strike package - plus those nice titanium tubs which keep out stray 7.62's and .50 cal (at certain distances)
I'd actually like to see some of the 2 seaters turned into weasels.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
The RAAF was planning on acquiring an anti-radiation missile for the F-111 before the F-111 was killed, so a SEAD capability is obviously a RAAF requirement. I also read about an upgrade package for F-111G's to turn their limited capability into a dedicated Wild Weasel capability. Obviously this now would never happen, but such a package could be very useful for non HUG'd Hornets bought as part of an interim purchase. It would also improve the Strike Capability of our exisiting Hornets, by allowing the "strike" Hornets to be less concerned by enemy air defences, (which hopefully would have been destroyed). We should also be looking at increasing our tanking fleet if we are going to operate short ranger "lightweight" fighters and nothing else. An additional 5 on top of the planned 5 should be reasonably affordable given the billions we're going to save by retiring the F-111. The US would also highly value a deployment of Wild Weasel Hornets and tankersmuch more so than simply deploying air defence/strike Hornets. The US has plenty of air defence and strike fighters but they require more Wild Weasel aircraft and tankers, than they can currently deploy. THAT's what we should be looking at deploying on Ops to maximise the political value of any future deployments. Deploying assests the US already has an abundance of is of limited real value. 12 or so Wild Weasels plus 4 or 5 tankers would be welcomed indeed by the US and it's allies.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Here's the latest announcement on the Australian Hornet upgrade program:
Australia’s F/A-18 Hornet fighter aircraft will be equipped with state-of-the-art electronic warfare self protection systems to ensure the aircraft are able to defend themselves against the most modern air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles, Defence Minister Robert Hill announced today.
Senator Hill said the Hornet’s radar warning receivers would be replaced and chaff and flare dispensers and associated equipment augmented, with the upgrade to be completed in the first squadron by 2007 and the whole fleet by 2009.
"The majority of the work will be undertaken at Royal Australian Air Force base Williamtown, near Newcastle in New South Wales," Senator Hill said.
"The Hornet Industry Coalition, consisting of Boeing Australia, BAE Systems (including Hunter Aerospace) and L3-Com, will have a significant role in the program, which will potentially provide opportunities for Australian industry in the areas of equipment supply, aircraft installation and system support."
Senator Hill said Defence would also assess a number of radio frequency jammers for the Hornets and the Government will make a decision on a new jammer later next year.
"This $300 million project is one of a number of planned upgrades to the Hornet aircraft that will ensure the potent strike capability of our fighter fleet while we await the arrival of the Joint Strike Fighter," Senator Hill said.
"The upgrade will greatly improve the ability of the Hornets to detect and defeat threats, increasing their operational effectiveness and reducing risk to aircraft and crew."
After this upgrade is added to the new Joint Helmet mounted cueing system, new JDAM's, JASSM's, Harpoon 2 and the new planned "littoral support weapon" (possibly the US's Joint Common Missile or similar) our Hornets really will be amongst the most capable in the world and will be closer to the Super Hornet in capability than the A/B/C/D class of Hornets. Now if we could only add SEAD and a manned tactical reconnaisance capability to the Hornet, we'd have just about everything we could want from a fighter...
Australia’s F/A-18 Hornet fighter aircraft will be equipped with state-of-the-art electronic warfare self protection systems to ensure the aircraft are able to defend themselves against the most modern air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles, Defence Minister Robert Hill announced today.
Senator Hill said the Hornet’s radar warning receivers would be replaced and chaff and flare dispensers and associated equipment augmented, with the upgrade to be completed in the first squadron by 2007 and the whole fleet by 2009.
"The majority of the work will be undertaken at Royal Australian Air Force base Williamtown, near Newcastle in New South Wales," Senator Hill said.
"The Hornet Industry Coalition, consisting of Boeing Australia, BAE Systems (including Hunter Aerospace) and L3-Com, will have a significant role in the program, which will potentially provide opportunities for Australian industry in the areas of equipment supply, aircraft installation and system support."
Senator Hill said Defence would also assess a number of radio frequency jammers for the Hornets and the Government will make a decision on a new jammer later next year.
"This $300 million project is one of a number of planned upgrades to the Hornet aircraft that will ensure the potent strike capability of our fighter fleet while we await the arrival of the Joint Strike Fighter," Senator Hill said.
"The upgrade will greatly improve the ability of the Hornets to detect and defeat threats, increasing their operational effectiveness and reducing risk to aircraft and crew."
After this upgrade is added to the new Joint Helmet mounted cueing system, new JDAM's, JASSM's, Harpoon 2 and the new planned "littoral support weapon" (possibly the US's Joint Common Missile or similar) our Hornets really will be amongst the most capable in the world and will be closer to the Super Hornet in capability than the A/B/C/D class of Hornets. Now if we could only add SEAD and a manned tactical reconnaisance capability to the Hornet, we'd have just about everything we could want from a fighter...
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #36
Because the Super Hornet is a very different aircraft mechanically from a Hornet, I think that it brings logistical and support problems into the ORBAT. To all intents and purposes it would be like supporting a different platform.umair said:
In a nation such as Australia where we focus on having high quality multi mission solutions, we also have to minimise our platform diversity as well, Otherwise we end up with a logistical nightmare of having multiple platforms that cross over too closely on capability.
The Australian modififed hornets give us a capability that is close to a Super Hornet, superficially with everything but absolute weapons load. Rather than spend money on a "new" platform type, we should look at either sourcing low hours Hornets from other countries with a good and recognised maint record (like the swiss and canadians) or seriously look at reconstituting our ORBAT altogether if our intention is to run a hi-lo mix with different aircraft.
Until we get the JSF, we will have issues of how we define that hi-lo capability.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
The 2 seaters would have a less loiter time than a single seat Weasal, but a I understand it, the workload required basically means you have no real choice for a real Wild Weasel capability. Plus the Hornets would operate as they did in Iraq with 3 massive drop tanks, which will limit their combat load, but will allow an Aussie Wild Weasel type Hornet to carry 2x Anti-Radiation Missiles (HARM or perhaps ALARM), 2x AIM-120C AMRAAM and 2x AIM-132 ASRAAM, plus the M61A1 cannon. Additional air to ground weapons would be nice, but Wild Weasel aircraft always form part of a package. The wild weasels carry the ARM's, other aircraft carry the strike weapons and (with the "swing-role" capable Hornet) all aircraft provide a full BVR air combat capability. It would be a vast improvement to the RAAF's already potent abilities.
Btw gf, do you know of any planned weapon types the RAAF may have been looking at for the "littoral support weapon"? I mentioned the US Joint Common Missile in a previous post, but that was sheer speculation. I think the RAAF could use such a weapon or perhaps a late model Maverick variant in a littoral support type role. The Maverick was originally designed with an anti-ship capability in mind (as used by the Kiwi's.) the the JCM is designed to replace the Maverick amongst other things. Plus the 4 round launcher the US is devising would give the Hornets a pretty fearsome capability in the air-ground role... Cheers.
Btw gf, do you know of any planned weapon types the RAAF may have been looking at for the "littoral support weapon"? I mentioned the US Joint Common Missile in a previous post, but that was sheer speculation. I think the RAAF could use such a weapon or perhaps a late model Maverick variant in a littoral support type role. The Maverick was originally designed with an anti-ship capability in mind (as used by the Kiwi's.) the the JCM is designed to replace the Maverick amongst other things. Plus the 4 round launcher the US is devising would give the Hornets a pretty fearsome capability in the air-ground role... Cheers.
Gf you said
" Now if we could only add SEAD and a manned tactical reconnaisance capability to the Hornet, we'd have just about everything we could want from a fighter..."
Manned tacticle i thought that was already inplace in the hornets in the USAF inventory i think the two seater ver or the hornets(i am sure Boeing wouldn't mind shareing that or selling that to the RAAF). oh and i wan't to ask. i can understand such an airforce requirement for a country but does RAAF realy need this Upgrade or extra purchase plaan till the JSF come i mean Oz's are not realy at war with any one and no one has beat(lol) with them too, would it not be logical to just upgrade the current assets to the max and not aquire any more Hornets as they would have to go when JSF phase inn.
Back to top
" Now if we could only add SEAD and a manned tactical reconnaisance capability to the Hornet, we'd have just about everything we could want from a fighter..."
Manned tacticle i thought that was already inplace in the hornets in the USAF inventory i think the two seater ver or the hornets(i am sure Boeing wouldn't mind shareing that or selling that to the RAAF). oh and i wan't to ask. i can understand such an airforce requirement for a country but does RAAF realy need this Upgrade or extra purchase plaan till the JSF come i mean Oz's are not realy at war with any one and no one has beat(lol) with them too, would it not be logical to just upgrade the current assets to the max and not aquire any more Hornets as they would have to go when JSF phase inn.
Back to top
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
ADSH, the JSF won't even arrive until 2012 at the absolute earliest. That's when we're supposed to get our first actual aircraft. The initial operating capability date (ie: the date we can start retiring our Hornets) is likely to be 2015 - 2017. As such the Hornets have anywhere between 11-13 years of operational service left at least before we start withdrawing them from service, hence the upgrades. Australia currently has a manned tactical reconnaissance capability with our RF-111C aircraft. We will however lose this capability in the 2008 - 2010 timeframe, when our F-111 fleet is withdrawn frm service. To maintain a manned tactical recon capability within our airforce the only reasonable option would be to acquire a podded recon capability such as Rafael's Recce-Lite pod (used by the Spanish Airforce on their FA-18 A/B's) or perhps a version of the UK's Raptor recce pod. Even though we are not currently at war with anyone, that doesn't mean you bury your head in the sand and forget about things you will need should a war come along. Remember our FA-18's fired their first shot in anger just last year in Iraq. I see no evidence that they will not be required to do so again somewhere in the future...
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #40
matey, you've crossed your wires here. It was an Aussie Digger response - but I see he's answered it.adsH said: