Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates

[Firehorse]

Production of First F-18F Super Hornet for Royal Australian Air Force Begins

I wonder how those will differ from USN Super Hornets? Will they have regular landing gear and de-navalized airframes? Also, why didn't they consider buying Block 50/60 F-16s? The newest F-16s being offered to India have super cruise capability.

The UAE’s F-16 Block 60 Desert Falcon Fleet

 

[Tasman]

Production of First F-18F Super Hornet for Royal Australian Air Force Begins

I wonder how those will differ from USN Super Hornets? Will they have regular landing gear and de-navalized airframes? Also, why didn't they consider buying Block 50/60 F-16s? The newest F-16s being offered to India have super cruise capability.

The UAE’s F-16 Block 60 Desert Falcon Fleet

The RAAF Super Hornets will be identical to the USN Block 2 SHs.

The reasons why the SH was chosen ahead of other fighters (F-15, F-16, Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, etc) has been covered in numerous earlier posts in this thread as have arguments as to why something else should have been considered. It is generally considered that the SH will be the easiest suitable aircraft to introduce quickly into service to cover the withdrawal of the F-111C, the reduction in available Hornets and expected delays with the F-35.

Tas

 

[Firehorse]

Will they be able to land on USN carriers, if their crews are qualified? I doubt their agility in a rela dogfight though, until proven otherwise.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[the road runner]

Australian superhornets are identical to us specified block 2
Same AESA radar,same landing gear,same marinised engines. (also read that they will have plumbing/ wiring for F-18G spec growler hornets but am not 100%sure ,maybe other members can clarify this)

ALSO i would like to see some F-18Growlers in the ADF.These planes can be used to jam enemy air defence or naval convoys.I am under the impression that if you lack one capability,that capability is a weekness in your force structure.Thus the need to have a balanced force that is very flexible.I would assume that the costs of such a purchase would be expenive but it would give us a capability that only the US (and russia) have.

Would like to see a number of AGM 88 harm missels purchases to complement the Growlers.These missiles could be used with a saturation attack on naval convoys,mixed in with harpoon and slam-er missiles ,i think this is a deadley combonation for any naval force to overcome.:nutkick
The AGM 88s are also used to home in on the radiation of Air Defence systems,thus giving the ADF the capability to destroy Air defence batteries.
(I love the theory of killing the archer,and not the arrow)

MEEP MEEP

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[thorpete1]

My understanding of the EA-18G is that it is just a F/A-18 F with additional antenas jamming pods etc to allow it to fullfill the electronic attack role. I think the EA-18 is suposed to have a high commonality with the F/A-18F and if the aus F/A-18F's are already plumbed, then changing between the electronic attack and Strike fighter versions should be easy

EA-18G's would be a excellent addition to the RAAF. Stealth aircraft like the F-35, F-22 or B-2 arn't invisible to radar, they simply hide in the battlefield clutter. An EA-18G at a safe distance would increase the battlefield clutter signicantly, further increasing a stealth aircraft like the F-35 chances of surving and completing its mission

 

[AGRA]

I don't know what's your problem. This is what the notification says.

What I’m trying to point out is that one can’t establish cost by such a simple measure as taking a FMS total potential procurement and dividing it by the number of units. What counts in cost follows a very formal system within western defence agencies. You have flyaway cost – which is just the aircraft in a flightworthy condition (ie with engines) – you also have unit procurement cost – which is the aircraft and all the equipment needed to operate it. Unit procurement is the most common measure. You also have unit program cost which would include the average across the units of all the R&D costs associated in developing the weapon if you had done that.

In the context of the RAAF’s ‘Super Hornet’ buy because it is a bridging acquisition there are a range of extra services not normally acquired. The RAAF normally doesn’t need the US Navy or any other service to provide operational training. They can do that themselves as a competent air force. However in order to get a squadron into service as quickly as possible the RAAF will train No. 1 Squadron in the US on the Super Hornet. They will do this before the operational training unit for Super Hornets is even converted onto the new aircraft.

The ‘cost’ of a Super Hornet is not as you mention. Flyway cost is as low as USD ~50 million, unit procurement is more. However when you want to buy some extra services, like the RAAF at this time, then it costs more.

 

[AGRA]

The RAAF Super Hornets will be only slightly different to the US Navy ones. They will have an instrumented landing system (ILS) (a small black box and antenna) and might not have the nose gear catapult bar fitted. The later can be bolted back on if for whatever reason they might want to be catapulted.

The F/A-18F Block II (B2F) is the baseline for the EA-18G. The difference is the gun and wingtip Sidewinders are removed and replaced by the ALQ-218 tactical jamming system. The ALQ-99 jamming pods are actually a minor part of the EA-18G mission system modification. Certainly a B2F with ALQ-99s would not be able to do much of what an EA-18G can do.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Will they be able to land on USN carriers, if their crews are qualified?

Some crews are being identified for cross training.

I doubt their agility in a rela dogfight though, until proven otherwise.

and that's based on what? the issue of dogfighting in modern air combat has been comprehensively discussed in numerous threads.

 

[gf0012-aust]

My understanding of the EA-18G is that it is just a F/A-18 F with additional antenas jamming pods etc to allow it to fullfill the electronic attack role.

Not really. They've undergone some serious design issues as far as the suites are concerned as for quite a while the available space and systems requirements made the Prowlers be regarded as a superior solution.

In actual fact the USMC has elected to maintain their Prowlers and not get Growlers for a number of years. For their requirements, they regard the Prowler as the currently superior asset. They will be leasing the capability back to USN for 3 years (IIRC??) at that stage they will consider going to Growlers.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

All cost projections are through life. And a full costing does include infrastrucutre requirements, be they pre-existing or not.

Really???? So even if you have to build the entire baseing, personell and logistical infestructure for an addition to the force structure the platform aquisition cost would still be 50% at the lowest (possibly 70%) of the trough life cost?

Again if we were to say aquire a 5th squadron of SH's, and build new basing infestructure to house and maintain them, train the new crew to fly and maintain them, all the admin and extra personell needed to staff the extra base, platform aquisition would still be 50% of the through life costs, aka ~$6bn AUD? Somehow i doubt that, can you explain it in some more detail? Take the SH purchase as the baseline becasue it is the most recent and relevent. ~$6bn AUD on 24 platforms and no new baseing infestructure (allreay existing) cost (just aquisition cost) of ~$3bn AUD. Divided by 24 and that makes platform aquisition cost of $125m a peice. Whoo thats close to what the USAF is paying for F-22A per unit at FAC IIRC. We must have got ripped off!?!

 

[gf0012-aust]

Really???? So even if you have to build the entire baseing, personell and logistical infestructure for an addition to the force structure the platform aquisition cost would still be 50% at the lowest (possibly 70%) of the trough life cost?

Again if we were to say aquire a 5th squadron of SH's, and build new basing infestructure to house and maintain them, train the new crew to fly and maintain them, all the admin and extra personell needed to staff the extra base, platform aquisition would still be 50% of the through life costs, aka ~$6bn AUD? Somehow i doubt that, can you explain it in some more detail? Take the SH purchase as the baseline becasue it is the most recent and relevent. ~$6bn AUD on 24 platforms and no new baseing infestructure (allreay existing) cost (just aquisition cost) of ~$3bn AUD. Divided by 24 and that makes platform aquisition cost of $125m a peice. Whoo thats close to what the USAF is paying for F-22A per unit at FAC IIRC. We must have got ripped off!?!

No, a full costing includes all operating and through life issues, including salaries, consumables, ongoing training issues etc ...........

you are confusing project costs with full project assessment.

 

[barra]

The RAAF Super Hornets will be only slightly different to the US Navy ones. They will have an instrumented landing system (ILS) (a small black box and antenna) and might not have the nose gear catapult bar fitted. The later can be bolted back on if for whatever reason they might want to be catapulted.

Removal of the cat bar on the RAAF's classic Hornets caused a long running problem with nose wheel shimmy when travelling at high speed on the ground ie. on rollout after landing. Was only fixed when a dummy cat bar was replaced on the nose strut. In the end it was an unneccessary and costly decision to remove the cat bars. Lets hope they learn from past experience and leave it were it is!

 

[Aussie Digger]

Will they be able to land on USN carriers, if their crews are qualified? I doubt their agility in a rela dogfight though, until proven otherwise.

Even F-16 drivers allow that the Super Hornet is a REAL handful in a "dog fight" and I've never heard ANYONE say the same of F-16's...

You can read up on the subject around the place if you want, but considering the SH will come with the Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System and the "high off-boresite" AIM-9X Sidewinder this issue is really irrelevent anyway.

I'd like to see the aircraft that can out-maneuvre a HOBS heater at close range and relatively slow speeds, common to "dog fights"...

It certainly isn't made by Russia, China, Europe or the USA...

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[AGRA]

Removal of the cat bar on the RAAF's classic Hornets caused a long running problem with nose wheel shimmy when travelling at high speed on the ground ie. on rollout after landing. Was only fixed when a dummy cat bar was replaced on the nose strut. In the end it was an unneccessary and costly decision to remove the cat bars. Lets hope they learn from past experience and leave it were it is!

I think you should be sending an email to ASHPO!

But one would imagine there would be enough Hornet drivers around to make sure some wally from DMO doesn't say take the cat bar off...

 

[AGRA]

The ALQ-99 pod is the primary tool of the EA-series aircraft. The capabilities of the pod would be the same on any aircraft except when intentionally down-rated.

I do note there has been a lot of debate on the necessity for support jamming aircraft for the RAAF. I'm not even sure the ALQ-99 (even a down-rated one) is available for export. Perhaps the ALQ-167 instead?

Ahh the ALQ-218 IDs radars and what does the ALQ-99 do? It jamms them. So are you suggesting that an EA aircraft should operate without the means to ID enemy radars, just to jamm them? What happens when the enemy goes to back up frequencies? Your non-ALQ-218 aircraft is flying around jamming superfluous frequencies.

The ALQ-218/99 is very much a EA complex (as the Russians would call it) and one without the other is not a very good idea. Especially considering an EA-18G can do everything a F/A-189F B2 can except strafe a target. Its backwards compatible to a strike fighter, even while flying a mission.

Boeing and Northrop Grumman (ALQ-218) have provided serious briefs to the ADF on EA-18G. They wouldn’t do so if the USG wasn’t willing to export ALQ-218/99 technology to Australia.

 

[AGRA]

Actually one can. If anyone else takes up the same package as the Australian Govt, they'd pay $3.1b cos that's the cost and it will come up to $129m per plane.

There is no point in continuing this discussion. Please be welcome to your opinion, ignorance is a luxury that all humans can afford.