EA/18G Growler

[Aussie Digger]

The current F-111 fleet has alot of airframe life left, though they are no longer technically advanced. If the F-111 was kept in service until the first JSF squadron arrived then it would have taken the load off the Classic hornets which are the problem.

No they wouldn't. THIS is the point of the SH purchase. F-111's are not operated by RAAF without a fighter escort NOW, let alone in the 2010 - 2020 timeframe.

The F-111 could have any number of modifications and upgrades performed upon it and RAAF would STILL operate it along with a fighter escort and this means F/A-18's. IF we could buy F-22's and make the F-111's into "evolved" F-111's ala Air Power Australia's ideas, F-22's would STILL have to escort the Pigs into and out of their targets. This is why RAAF doesn't want to continue with them anymore and I can understand this reasoning very well.

At least Super Hornets have SOME ability to "self-escort". F-111's have little to none. Particularly when carrying strike payloads.

 

[old faithful]

No they wouldn't. THIS is the point of the SH purchase. F-111's are not operated by RAAF without a fighter escort NOW, let alone in the 2010 - 2020 timeframe.

The F-111 could have any number of modifications and upgrades performed upon it and RAAF would STILL operate it along with a fighter escort and this means F/A-18's. IF we could buy F-22's and make the F-111's into "evolved" F-111's ala Air Power Australia's ideas, F-22's would STILL have to escort the Pigs into and out of their targets. This is why RAAF doesn't want to continue with them anymore and I can understand this reasoning very well.

At least Super Hornets have SOME ability to "self-escort". F-111's have little to none. Particularly when carrying strike payloads.

Tottally agree,though i would argue the SOME ability to self escort,is really very capable self escort!

 

[phreeky]

I was under the impression that there were certain aspects of the F-111s, particularly the ejection modules, that have a lifetime based on date, not flight hours. ?????

Anyway I've always been curious how well a fighter/attack aircraft (i.e. super hornet, JSF) could defend itself with a air-to-ground payload anyway. Are there a large number of air-to-ground attack scenarios where the payload is not so great that it can still carry sufficient air-to-air weapons? Would the manoeuvrability not be too greatly compromised given the weight of the air-to-ground weapons, at least until it has engaged its intended target?

 

[old faithful]

F18F would most likely get"first look,first kill"at BVR. Yes the F18F could carry an awsome strike package as well as at least 2 x AIM120C5 and 2 x AIM9X.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I was under the impression that there were certain aspects of the F-111s, particularly the ejection modules, that have a lifetime based on date, not flight hours. ?????

Anyway I've always been curious how well a fighter/attack aircraft (i.e. super hornet, JSF) could defend itself with a air-to-ground payload anyway. Are there a large number of air-to-ground attack scenarios where the payload is not so great that it can still carry sufficient air-to-air weapons? Would the manoeuvrability not be too greatly compromised given the weight of the air-to-ground weapons, at least until it has engaged its intended target?

I'd imagine Super Hornets in RAAF service would carry a basic load of at least 2x drop tanks, an ATFLIR targetting pod, 2x WVR missiles and 1x BVR missile. This would leave 4x underwing hardpoints for additional air to air or air to surface weapons, plus the centreline pylon for an additional air to surface weapon or drop tank.

In Offensive/Defensive counter air roles in GW2 RAAF Hornets carried a mix of A2A and A2G weapons. They usually carried 2x GBU-10 or 2x GBU-12, plus AIM-9M Sidewinder (they'd now carry ASRAAM) a Nitehawk pod and an AMRAAM or 2x AMRAAM and no targetting pod, plus 3x drop tanks.

A Super Hornet, with it's greater range may not need to carry as many drop tanks, or it could carry them and possess much greater range.

Eitther way a significantly enhanced warload is to be carried much further. It will depend on the mission, but up to 5x additional hardpoints over the "basic loadout" ensures that sufficient weapons of whatever variety can be carried to suit the mission at hand. With systems like the BRU-55 and small diameter bomb (in future years) additional weapons can be carried per pylon too, greatly increasing the flexibility options.

In an OCA/DCA role, I'm sure the SH could carry 3-5 BVR missiles, 2x WVR missiles, a targetting pod, 2-3 drop tanks and 2-4 JDAM/LGB weapons in the 500lbs or 1000lbs classes without any significant problem whatsoever and retain more than enough maneuverability to deal with most threats. In an emergency I've no doubt the strike weapons would be ejected to allow the platform the full maneuvering capability.

In strike missions the same applies though 2-4 JSOW's or Harpoons would likely be carried instead...

 

[Magoo]

I'd imagine Super Hornets in RAAF service would carry a basic load of at least 2x drop tanks, an ATFLIR targetting pod, 2x WVR missiles and 1x BVR missile. This would leave 4x underwing hardpoints for additional air to air or air to surface weapons, plus the centreline pylon for an additional air to surface weapon or drop tank.

In Offensive/Defensive counter air roles in GW2 RAAF Hornets carried a mix of A2A and A2G weapons. They usually carried 2x GBU-10 or 2x GBU-12, plus AIM-9M Sidewinder (they'd now carry ASRAAM) a Nitehawk pod and an AMRAAM or 2x AMRAAM and no targetting pod, plus 3x drop tanks.

A Super Hornet, with it's greater range may not need to carry as many drop tanks, or it could carry them and possess much greater range.

Eitther way a significantly enhanced warload is to be carried much further. It will depend on the mission, but up to 5x additional hardpoints over the "basic loadout" ensures that sufficient weapons of whatever variety can be carried to suit the mission at hand. With systems like the BRU-55 and small diameter bomb (in future years) additional weapons can be carried per pylon too, greatly increasing the flexibility options.

In an OCA/DCA role, I'm sure the SH could carry 3-5 BVR missiles, 2x WVR missiles, a targetting pod, 2-3 drop tanks and 2-4 JDAM/LGB weapons in the 500lbs or 1000lbs classes without any significant problem whatsoever and retain more than enough maneuverability to deal with most threats. In an emergency I've no doubt the strike weapons would be ejected to allow the platform the full maneuvering capability.

In strike missions the same applies though 2-4 JSOW's or Harpoons would likely be carried instead...

Representative load outs would be from left wingtip (station 1) to right wingtip (station 11)...

Mid range strike.........Long range strike...........OCA/DCA

1. AIM-9X....................AIM-9X............................AIM-9X
2. AIM-120C-7.............AIM-120C-7....................AIM-120C-7 or 2xAIM-9X
3. GBU-38...................AGM-154C or 2xGBU-38...2xAIM-120C7
4. AGM-154C...............Drop tank........................Drop tank
5. AIM-120C-7.............AIM-120C-7....................AIM-120C-7
6. Centreline tank........Centreline tank...............Centreline tank
7. ATFLIR.....................ATFLIR.............................ATFLIR or AIM-120C-7
8. AGM-154C...............Drop tank........................Drop tank
9. GBU-38...................AGM-154C or 2xGBU-38...2xAIM-120C-7
10. AIM-120C-7...........AIM-120C-7....................AIM-120C-7 or 2xAIM-9X
11. AIM-9X..................AIM-9X............................AIM-9X

Cheers

Magoo

 

[Tasman]

Representative load outs would be from left wingtip (station 1) to right wingtip (station 11)...

Mid range strike.........Long range strike...........OCA/DCA

1. AIM-9X....................AIM-9X............................AIM-9X
2. AIM-120C-7.............AIM-120C-7....................AIM-120C-7 or 2xAIM-9X
3. GBU-38...................AGM-154C or 2xGBU-38...2xAIM-120C7
4. AGM-154C...............Drop tank........................Drop tank
5. AIM-120C-7.............AIM-120C-7....................AIM-120C-7
6. Centreline tank........Centreline tank...............Centreline tank
7. ATFLIR.....................ATFLIR.............................ATFLIR or AIM-120C-7
8. AGM-154C...............Drop tank........................Drop tank
9. GBU-38...................AGM-154C or 2xGBU-38...2xAIM-120C-7
10. AIM-120C-7...........AIM-120C-7....................AIM-120C-7 or 2xAIM-9X
11. AIM-9X..................AIM-9X............................AIM-9X

Cheers

Magoo

Thanks for the info Magoo.

That looks very impressive and confirms the ability of this aircraft to operate effectively in the offensive/defensive counter air role mentioned by AD. In strike missions they should be able to form self contained packages. Whether all aircraft in a strike force are equipped for strike, with some self defence capability, or whether a portion are armed primarily as escorts could, of course, be varied depending on the opposition predicted by intelligence.

Cheers

 

[Rich]

...Just like a lot of us did to you....

"A Lot of us" but not you eh?

Does anyone have any facts and figures about the SH's maintenance cycles? I'm assuming they are far more digestible then, say, F-14 and/or F-111. But I lost my material that lists projected sortie rates from improved maintenance cycles. And that little fact is one of the huge driving points behind the F-35 design as well. The fact that we'll be able to keep the birds flying more often, and with less maintenance.

 

[old faithful]

: nfloorl: nfloorl: nfloorl:

 

[akinkhoo]

there is some stuff i cannot disclose,
i can only say airplanes isn't the major focus in RMAF right now.
:unknown

 

[rossfrb_1]

http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/idr/idr070313_2_n.shtml
"Warts and all: Super Hornet seeks clear skies in future fighter debate

By Bill Sweetman

Insiders and observers report a lively debate within the US Navy (USN) on the right balance of F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and F-35C Joint Strike Fighters.

So far it is only a minority within USN aviation who would be happy to see the F-35C disappear and be replaced first by an improved Super Hornet, and then by a long-range unmanned combat air vehicle. But the Fiscal Year 2008 (FY08) budget shows clearly that the navy is hedging its bets, deferring a full commitment to the F-35C by three years while augmenting the Super Hornet programme.

Beyond the current Super Hornet Block 2, the USN is looking at a further set of improvements known as the Block 2 Plus. Block 2 Plus improvements could start with Lot 31, to be delivered in 2009, and would include some components developed for the EA-18G.

The watchword for Block 2 Plus is 'network-centric', and many of the planned improvements are focusing on communications.

New air-to-surface modes are under evaluation. Image correlation targeting blends active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar or Raytheon ASQ-228 Advanced Targeting Forward Looking InfraRed (ATFLIR) target tracks with a terrain database and precise geolocation to generate a vertical 'God's eye view' image in the cockpit, allowing the pilot or weapon system operator to designate targets more accurately.

Precision strike against multiple moving targets is another goal. Both the radar and ATFLIR are expected to be capable of tracking multiple moving surface targets by 2010, and the Super Hornet has performed an experimental release of a modified 450 kg Joint Direct Attack Munition fitted with a datalink against a moving target at China Lake, resulting in a "very near direct hit" according to a Boeing official.

The key issue is whether a one-way data¬link allowing a GPS-guided weapon to receive updated target location information in flight will provide enough accuracy to hit a moving target without adding an endgame seeker to the weapon.

The potential for a Block 3 Super Hornet has been discussed by Boeing officials, who have acknowledged that the Phantom Works has studied ways of reducing the fighter's radar cross-section (RCS).

The existing aircraft has RCS-reduction measures blocker vanes in front of the engine compressors, edge-alignment measures to reduce the RCS contribution of movable doors, and a canted antenna for the AESA to reduce the fighter's det¬ectability, particularly head-on and in the X-band used by fighter aircraft.

An improved Super Hornet would not match the all-aspect, wideband low-observable (LO) characteristics of the JSF, but programme officials might argue that it does not need to. The Super Hornet team defines a "balanced app¬roach to survivability" which includes LO, standoff weapons, defensive electronic warfare, situational awareness and reduced vulnerability.

447 of 5,564 words
© 2007 Jane's Information Group
[End of non-subscriber extract] "

If the block 2 plus model eventuates any chance the RAAF would get those? From what I can tell RAAF personell will start training in 2009. What is the current ETA of the first SHornet in RAAF colours? Later than Lot 31?

Lastly can anyone comment on the APG 79 that the RAAF will be getting? Will it be the same as the USN gets, or will its performance be less than USN version? I ask as someone in another forum reckons that RAAF will get a lesser performing version.

rb

 

[Magoo]

If the block 2 plus model eventuates any chance the RAAF would get those? From what I can tell RAAF personell will start training in 2009. What is the current ETA of the first SHornet in RAAF colours? Later than Lot 31?

The RAAF's jets will start coming down the line in early 2009, with first deliveries in early 2010.

Lastly can anyone comment on the APG 79 that the RAAF will be getting? Will it be the same as the USN gets, or will its performance be less than USN version? I ask as someone in another forum reckons that RAAF will get a lesser performing version.

The RAAF jets will differ only to the USN jets in having a different ILS and a metric altimeter. Everything else will be identical.

Cheers

Magoo

 

[rossfrb_1]

The RAAF's jets will start coming down the line in early 2009, with first deliveries in early 2010.



The RAAF jets will differ only to the USN jets in having a different ILS and a metric altimeter. Everything else will be identical.

Cheers

Magoo

interesting re the metric altimeter - obviously RAAF operate differently than RAN. I noticed that on a documentary shown on SBS(?) about the Collins class sub Rankin(?), depth and range were verbally communicated in yards!

rb

 

[Magoo]

interesting re the metric altimeter - obviously RAAF operate differently than RAN. I noticed that on a documentary shown on SBS(?) about the Collins class sub Rankin(?), depth and range were verbally communicated in yards!

From page 25 of the April issue of Australian Aviation which came out today...

The RAAF has specified a VOR ILS precision approach system rather than the US Navy’s aircraft carrier compatible system, and the aircraft’s altimeter uses millimetres instead of inches of mercury for entering atmospheric pressure.

​

The RAAF's aircraft will be post Lot 31 aircraft.

Cheers

Magoo

 

[heyjoe]

Ross

The Jane's/Sweetman article is copyrighted. Recommend you post link only. Publishers don't take kindly to posting of their Intellectual Property on websites with ads and you set yourself and DefenceTalk up for legal action. Cheers, HJ

 

[alexsa]

interesting re the metric altimeter - obviously RAAF operate differently than RAN. I noticed that on a documentary shown on SBS(?) about the Collins class sub Rankin(?), depth and range were verbally communicated in yards!

rb

Chart scales read in nautical miles. If You could divide the earth into 360 degrees each degree is divided into 60 minutes. One minute of arc on the planet Earth is 1 nautical mile. This is the standard unit of measurement used for sea travel. The problem is that a nautical mile can be slightily variable depending on the locations on the earths surface as the earth is not a perfect sphere but it is the only measurement that gives a true indicatation of geaographical range. A knot is 1 nautical mile per hour. In the English measurement system, a nautical mile is 1.1508 miles, or 6,076 feet so basically 2000 yards per nautical mile which is a pretty simply division for range.

A kilometer is also a measurment based on the circumference of the earth but being metric is based on multiples of 10. A quater of the circumference is basically 10000 kilometers (again deviations in the earths surface casue some irregularities) also defined using the planet Earth as a standard of distance. This is the 'traditional unit' for the kilometer as defined in 1791 by the French Academy of Sciences.

A nautical mile is 1,852 meters making the meter less functional as an indicator of geographical range on a chart as it relates to latitude and longtitude which are both measuments based on the circumference in either the polar or equatorial plane. Don't forget GPS guided munitiosn also rely on latitude and longtitude based on a particular world geodetic survey (WGS). Using yards and nautical miles makes it realtively simply to resolve range and bearing to a target based on geagraphica position.

 

[ELP]

Can't say this wasn't expected. Can't keep everyone happy.
From the SMH...

There is nothing super about this Hornet
Peter Criss
March 15, 2007


http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/there-is-nothing-super-about-this-hornet/2007/03/14/1173722557984.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

 

[knightrider4]

Smh

Mate I wouldnt waste money buying the SMH.

 

[ELP]

An internet friend just told me ABC is going to have a story on the F-18F purchase tonight at 7:30 I think... I'm not in-country, so someone tell me about it if you see it.

 

[Aussie Digger]

An internet friend just told me ABC is going to have a story on the F-18F purchase tonight at 7:30 I think... I'm not in-country, so someone tell me about it if you see it.

It's the 7.30 Report if anyone could be bothered wasting their time. It's CRISS again I think.

Funny how selective quoting can make your argument seem cogent can't it?

For instance, my argument is that the Super Hornet is in fact superior to any aircraft in the world and cannot be beaten under ANY tactical circumstance.

Here is a lovely quote from Mr Coyle (in the VERY same writing that CRISS quotes) that proves this:

"The OT&E and [live fire Itest and evaluation] programs under way and planned for the remainder of the [engineering and manufacturing development] phase are judged adequate to resolve all critical operational issues by [milestone] III in 2000,".

This is the standard of the current defence "debate" in Australia. People are so intent on their own personal "pet" platforms that they'll go to any length, including completely misleading ones, to attempt to justify their own position. What Mr Criss quoted was a section of a report where COYLE referred to a testing and development F/A-18E/F pre-production model that was failing to meet required performance levels.

Mr COYLE went on to state however that identified remedies were likely to improve the performance of the aircraft to the point where it DID meet it's required performance parameters. Which of course it subsequently HAS.

That aircraft is not representational of a Block II Super Hornet and I suspect Mr Criss knows this very well. Half truths and selective quoting are NOT going to get him anywhere in this "debate"...

If these people are going to use publicly available reports to try and push their agenda, could they at least find a report that doesn't disagree with their own position? I found that report after a 2 minute Google search. The only difference being I read the WHOLE thing...