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

[Todjaeger]

World class LO capabilities could be refering to the APG 79's EA capability, but i reckon its mere puff.

And as far as the block 2 having a similar range to the F111 i have to disagree with that one. Clean its combat radius is something like 150~170NM. Thats pretty pathetic. I think he's refering to the ammount of external fuel it can carry. With several external tanks it may be able to reach out to somewere near the range of a clean F111, but then it compromises its payload. I doubt it can compare to the F111 in terms of payload to target capability. The pig is a dedicated bomb truck after all. But then again the pig cant use all that range if there is fighter resistance. It could however take a JASSM a long way before launching it. But given the Block 2's avionics package, electronic attack capability, payload, networking and weapons loadout it should give the RAAF a significantly increased strike and air superiority capability.

From http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/fa18/specs.html the F/A-18 E/F has a combat radius of ~400 n miles. A F/A-18 C/D has a combat radius of ~290 n miles http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-18-specs.htm

The listed ferry range is about right for comparison to an F-111 but that would preclude carrying ordnance. Having said that though, it is possible that with development and deployment of things like the JASSM and JSOW (and -ER versions) that approximately the same range could be reached. Granted, the total weight of ordance is still not likely to be reached in terms of delivery I don't think that is as important. IIRC one of the things that has been learned as a result of GWI, Kosovo, Afghanistan and GWII is that precise delivery of small PGMs have greater desired impact than larger munitions. As such no longer using 2,000 lb bombs (LGB or not) is not such a great loss in capability, nevermind factoring in the reduced requirement for escorts and AAR.

Some of the rest of the article I do question though, namely the LO/stealth. The aircraft is physically larger than a classic Bug, but through some LO adaptations is supposed to have a smaller RCS relative to it's size than other aircraft like the F-14, F-15, F-16, etc. I wouldn't call that stealthy, but RCS reduction measures sounds about right. Then again, it's a mass media outlet catering to ordinary readers and such a distinction would likely be lost on most of them.

-Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

I doubt that anyone who seriously considers these matters thinks of the F/A18E/F as an "LO" aircraft. I think at best the RCS reduction measures employed on the Rhino offer "tactically significant" benefits.

Anyhow, as to RAAF's on-going capability development, a series of shots from here:

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2007/Aug/20070817/index.htm


offers some interesting insight. Seem's RAAF is employing the Litening AT pod on it's Hornet's now, so it must be close if not already achieving IOC. I recall that January 2008 was mentioned recently but perhaps the integration is going smoother than expected?

 

[barra]

offers some interesting insight. Seem's RAAF is employing the Litening AT pod on it's Hornet's now, so it must be close if not already achieving IOC. I recall that January 2008 was mentioned recently but perhaps the integration is going smoother than expected?

G'day AD,

I think you are right that Litening AT pod is close to IOC. The increase in capability over the Nitehawk pod is impressive. I had heard previously that Nitehawk was only ever intended for use as a training aid, not intended for combat use. A more robust and reliable system is certainly welcome, I am not sure what the Super Hornets will be delivered with though.

I am not sure if it made national news but it was widely reported here in the Hunter that about 8 motor vehicles were accidently lased during some early training with the new pods. I don't know the full story, but the newspapers reported that safety switches were over-rode and the laser fired automatically without aircrew knowledge while they were tracking the cars with the pod. Luckily no-one on the ground was injured and I don't think the incident was realised until after the flight.

Hooroo

 

[rossfrb_1]

G'day AD,

snip

I am not sure if it made national news but it was widely reported here in the Hunter that about 8 motor vehicles were accidently lased during some early training with the new pods. I don't know the full story, but the newspapers reported that safety switches were over-rode and the laser fired automatically without aircrew knowledge while they were tracking the cars with the pod. Luckily no-one on the ground was injured and I don't think the incident was realised until after the flight.

Hooroo

an enlightening post nfloorl: nfloorl:
upon reflection that was a bad pun nfloorl:

sorry couldn't help myself.....

Yeah I remember hearing something on the local news. Apparently the 'lasees' weren't even aware of the event and the 'lasers' only after the fact.

cheers
rb

 

[AGRA]

Why would the USAF be interested in Super Hornets? I can understand the Canucks and Swiss and even the Marine Corp but not the USAF. Anyone got any ideas?

Because the F/A-18E/F Block IIs will be in production until 2014 or so and available for about USD 50m each. USAF does not have any other options other than vastly more expensive F-22s (which lake the kind of air to ground capability they would need) before the F-35 production gears up.

One thing a lot of people in the public don't realise is that fleet management is the name of the game. I.e. keeping air worthy low hours aircraft available. The US has much higher flight demands than normal now (two wars ongoing) and most of the fleet is getting rather old. Their new aircraft, the F-35, is still a while off and won't be available in numbers until 2015ish.

Plus USAF probably wants the F/A-18E/F Block II for the same reason the RAAF does. Their two place advanced decoupled cockpit with HMS, AESA and all the computer grunt and integrated goodies is a real step up from F-15E, F-16CJs, etc. And an excellent bridge between these "4th gen" aircraft and the F-35.

 

[Jezza]

Plus USAF probably wants the F/A-18E/F Block II for the same reason the RAAF does. Their two place advanced decoupled cockpit with HMS, AESA and all the computer grunt and integrated goodies is a real step up from F-15E, F-16CJs, etc. And an excellent bridge between these "4th gen" aircraft and the F-35.

The USAF might also want thier own GROWLER assets as well.
The prowler fleet cant be everywhere

 

[barra]

Plus USAF probably wants the F/A-18E/F Block II for the same reason the RAAF does. Their two place advanced decoupled cockpit with HMS, AESA and all the computer grunt and integrated goodies is a real step up from F-15E, F-16CJs, etc. And an excellent bridge between these "4th gen" aircraft and the F-35.

I had not considered that the F-18F would be that more capable than Strike Eagles. I guess it would be cheaper to buy the plane that is ready to go than try to upgrade the existing F-15's and F-16's to a similar standard. The point you make about airframe hours is also very valid. The Super Hornet is not much of a bomb truck in comparison to the Strike Eagle. I hear a new VER has been developed to allow 2 JDAM's/GBU's to be carried on each station. Will be useful for our classic Hornets as well, lack of payload was most apparent during Op Falconer.

I also hadn't considered the USAFs interest in Growler either, they would be keen to get a capability like that back. They have had to rely on USN Prowlers since the Ravens were retired in the 90's haven't they?

I have always thought we should have just ordered Super Hornets to replace our classics instead of going through the pain of HUG. Would certainly have made life a lot easier for the guys on the ground.

Hooroo

 

[AGRA]

I have always thought we should have just ordered Super Hornets to replace our classics instead of going through the pain of HUG. Would certainly have made life a lot easier for the guys on the ground.

Well yes... And it was a serious proposal. However it would have costed $$$ for a full E/F fleet replacement. Plus the apparant timeings in the late 1990s (when the decision was made) indicated that F-35 could be available around 2010 and the C/Ds could be quickly upgraded (HUG) to keep them current until this date. The HUGs are actually pretty effective aircraft, the best C/D Hornets flying in the world. The big problem with them, and any mission systems upgrade to the F-111, is it doesn't solve the airworthiness issue. Which is why the HUGs need the 48-64 CBRs [Cetnre Barrel Replacement] through 2010-15.

What has happened but is probably the best case scenario for the RAAF. The Block IIs are much better than the Block I Super Hornets and gaining an additional Squadron (which is hardly touched on by anyone discussing this issue). So the RAAF will maintain (on average) in 2010-15 a squadron of F/A-18F B2s and two squadrons of HUGs (with another two squadrons of current aircrews), building up to four squadrons of F-35 B3+s and a squadron of F/A-18F B2s by 2020. We will also maintain the highend HUG C/D Hornet up until each one is replaced by a F-35. These 48-64 HUG/CBR will be quite a formidable asset and could be disposed of in the late 2010s for some considerable income.

 

[Tasman]

What has happened but is probably the best case scenario for the RAAF. The Block IIs are much better than the Block I Super Hornets and gaining an additional Squadron (which is hardly touched on by anyone discussing this issue). So the RAAF will maintain (on average) in 2010-15 a squadron of F/A-18F B2s and two squadrons of HUGs (with another two squadrons of current aircrews), building up to four squadrons of F-35 B3+s and a squadron of F/A-18F B2s by 2020. We will also maintain the highend HUG C/D Hornet up until each one is replaced by a F-35. These 48-64 HUG/CBR will be quite a formidable asset and could be disposed of in the late 2010s for some considerable income.

Interesting comments. The funding of the additional squadron will certainly add considerably to the RAAF's capability. I think that the fact that the SH purchase will enable the RAAF to delay its F-35A acquisition and buy later rather than low rate early production aircraft is also significant. This should provide not only a more capable F-35A but a cheaper one as well.

Tas

 

[AGRA]

Interesting comments. The funding of the additional squadron will certainly add considerably to the RAAF's capability. I think that the fact that the SH purchase will enable the RAAF to delay its F-35A acquisition and buy later rather than low rate early production aircraft is also significant. This should provide not only a more capable F-35A but a cheaper one as well.

Sorry it’s not a fact because it’s not happening. The RAAF is still on target for an initial F-35 training capability followed by a fully operational F-35 Block III (all singing all dancing) squadron in 2015. The Phase 2A/2B Air 6000 order (~72) will be in the early expensive stage. Australia looks like negotiating a MYP for this order to push down cost on averages. This has to go to Govt. approval next financial year but even if there is a change in Govt. is unlikely to be messed with.

So many times in the past we've looked to squeeze a few dollars from fleet rejuvenation and it’s ended in disaster. The acquisition path now followed by the CDE/DMO is all about maintaining top level capability through a transition. The weapon system being replaced will be at its most capable the moment it is turned off and the new one wheeled in. If we delay F-35 then the C/Ds, despite the HUG, will start to get dated and 24 E/F B2s won’t be enough to carry ALL the weight of the air combat capability.

 

[Tasman]

Sorry it’s not a fact because it’s not happening. The RAAF is still on target for an initial F-35 training capability followed by a fully operational F-35 Block III (all singing all dancing) squadron in 2015. The Phase 2A/2B Air 6000 order (~72) will be in the early expensive stage. Australia looks like negotiating a MYP for this order to push down cost on averages. This has to go to Govt. approval next financial year but even if there is a change in Govt. is unlikely to be messed with.

So many times in the past we've looked to squeeze a few dollars from fleet rejuvenation and it’s ended in disaster. The acquisition path now followed by the CDE/DMO is all about maintaining top level capability through a transition. The weapon system being replaced will be at its most capable the moment it is turned off and the new one wheeled in. If we delay F-35 then the C/Ds, despite the HUG, will start to get dated and 24 E/F B2s won’t be enough to carry ALL the weight of the air combat capability.

Thanks for the clarification. It certainly sounds from what you say that the path being followed by the RAAF is the best one possible in the circumstances. It's also reassuring that it is unlikely to suffer a hiccup if there is a change of government.

Tas

 

[Magoo]

Why would the USAF be interested in Super Hornets? I can understand the Canucks and Swiss and even the Marine Corp but not the USAF. Anyone got any ideas?
Hooroo

You guys really need to read Mark's article more closely. It does not infer the USAF will get Supers, rather that the USAF would have preferred Australia get F-15s or hold out longer until the JSFs were ready, rather than buy a Navy airplane.

Having seen the transcript from where Mark got his "same range as an F-111" comment from, it appears the sub-editors got their grubby hands all over it before it went to print. The brief basically said an F/A-18F accompanied by an F/A-18E buddy tanker could be extended out beyond the range of an unrefuelled F-111.

Cheers

Magoo

 

[barra]

The decision to buy the Super Hornet has led to renewed interest in the F/A-18F Block 2 aircraft by Canada, Switzerland and even the US Air Force, which would have preferred Australia to choose the F-15E Strike Eagle, Mr Gower said.

You guys really need to read Mark's article more closely. It does not infer the USAF will get Supers, rather that the USAF would have preferred Australia get F-15s or hold out longer until the JSFs were ready, rather than buy a Navy airplane.

To me the top paragraph clearly states that the USAF is showing renewed interest along with Canada and Switzerland. I don't see how you can read it any other way, if the true meaning has been lost then either the editor is to blame or the paragraph is poorly written or both. I read the article closely enough and have a good enough grasp of the Queens English to understand what was written.

Hooroo

 

[barra]

Carrier training for our pilots Font Size: Decrease Increase Print Page: Print Mark Dodd | August 21, 2007
AUSTRALIAN fighter pilots will be taught to land on aircraft carriers for the first time in 25 years.

A select handful of Royal Australian Air Force instructors will be chosen for lessons on how to land on US aircraft carriers flying the new F/A-18F Super Hornet fighter.

The plan, which could eventually lead to participation in US carrier-based operations, marks the first time Australian pilots have flown off aircraft carriers since the retirement of the navy's flagship carrier HMAS Melbourne in 1982.

The carrier training underscores the rapidly evolving military partnership between the US and Australian military.

Senior US navy sources said the relationship was likely to involve an increasing convergence in training and tactics between the RAAF's fast jets and their US equivalent.

RAAF Flight Lieutenant John Haly will become the first Australian air force pilot to become carrier-qualified when he attempts his toughest flying skills test later this year.

Asked to clarify RAAF Super Hornet training, Defence Minister Brendan Nelson said yesterday: "There is no plan for RAAF pilots to undertake training in aircraft carrier landings."

The official government line contradicts briefings provided to The Australian by senior US military officials at Lemoore Naval Air Station in California that other RAAF "Top Gun" instructor pilots are expected to follow Flight Lieutenant Haly and be provided with carrier training.

Full-scale Super Hornet training for RAAF air crew starts in the US in 2009.

"We've got him (Flight Lieutenant Haly) driving on the right side of the road so we figure he's trainable," said Lemoore-based Commander Art "Kato" Delacruz, executive officer of Strike Fighter Squadron VFA-122.

The RAAF is buying 24 F/A-18F Block-2 Super Hornets for $6 billion to maintain its air combat capability between the phasing out of the ageing F-111 fleet in 2010 and the introduction of the delayed fifth-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in 2013.

Despite criticism of the deal in Australia, US Navy aviators say the the Block-2 Super Hornet is the world's most capable multi-role combat aircraft.

Australia is acquiring a virtually identical aircraft to the one currently operated by the US Navy, with the first four aircraft scheduled for delivery in early 2010 and final delivery in late 2011.

Boeing, the manufacturer of the Super Hornet, says the Australian version will be equipped with enough technology for the aircraft to remain a formidable asset for the next 20 years.

During a briefing at the weekend, Flight Lieutenant Haly said it took only five hours' flying time for an F/A-18C pilot trained on a "Classic Hornet" to become familiar with the new Super Hornet. Acquiring the tactical skills to take advantage of the jet's massive capabilities would take considerably longer, he said.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22279837-31477,00.html

Now this is an interesting development, from todays Australian newspaper. Seems like a natural extension of the pilot exchange program to me.

Does anyone know exactly how many fast jet pilots the RAAF has on exchange currently? I am not sure of the claim that Haly will be the first Australian carrier trained pilot since 1982 though. I have heard of others.

Hooroo

 

[neil]

does anyone know what the latest thinking is on the RAAF ordering a couple of F 35 B's to operate from the navy's new amphibious vessels?

please excuse me if someone already asked this.. i'm a new member..

 

[Tasman]

does anyone know what the latest thinking is on the RAAF ordering a couple of F 35 B's to operate from the navy's new amphibious vessels?

please excuse me if someone already asked this.. i'm a new member..

Have a look at Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates . There has been a lot of discussion re the F-35B and the LHDs.

It should be noted that whilst there are many enthusiastic advocates (e.g. Navy League and yours truly) for the RAAF to acquire a squadron of F-35Bs and develop the capability to provide detachments to operate from the LHDs, there is no official ADF requirement for this capability and I am unaware of any public campaign by anyone from within the RAN or RAAF to acquire the F-35B. At the same time I expect that the option will certainly be studied closely by the ADF. If the F-35B does end up in the RAAF I expect that it will be the fourth squadron so no decision is needed for some time.

The reported plan to train RAAF pilots to fly Super Hornets from USN carriers is interesting in this regard as it could be a way of developing RAAF interest in operating aircraft at sea. My belief is that there is a place for an RAAF squadron to train like a USMC squadron. If our SH squadron is able to actually deploy from an American carrier on an occasional basis it could pave the way for future F-35B operations from the LHDs, particularly if a third LHD is acquired. At this stage, however, the Defence Minister’s statement that, "There is no plan for RAAF pilots to undertake training in aircraft carrier landings," suggests that the deployment of an FA-18F squadron from a US carrier is a long way away at this stage. Still the plan mentioned in Mark Dodd’s report could be a starting point.

Tas

 

[neil]

Have a look at Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates . There has been a lot of discussion re the F-35B and the LHDs.

It should be noted that whilst there are many enthusiastic advocates (e.g. Navy League and yours truly) for the RAAF to acquire a squadron of F-35Bs and develop the capability to provide detachments to operate from the LHDs, there is no official ADF requirement for this capability and I am unaware of any public campaign by anyone from within the RAN or RAAF to acquire the F-35B. At the same time I expect that the option will certainly be studied closely by the ADF. If the F-35B does end up in the RAAF I expect that it will be the fourth squadron so no decision is needed for some time.

The reported plan to train RAAF pilots to fly Super Hornets from USN carriers is interesting in this regard as it could be a way of developing RAAF interest in operating aircraft at sea. My belief is that there is a place for an RAAF squadron to train like a USMC squadron. If our SH squadron is able to actually deploy from an American carrier on an occasional basis it could pave the way for future F-35B operations from the LHDs, particularly if a third LHD is acquired. At this stage, however, the Defence Minister’s statement that, "There is no plan for RAAF pilots to undertake training in aircraft carrier landings," suggests that the deployment of an FA-18F squadron from a US carrier is a long way away at this stage. Still the plan mentioned in Mark Dodd’s report could be a starting point.

Tas

thanx for the reply.. i'll check it out..

 

[Galrahn]

Simple question.

Does the F/A-18 Super Hornets Australia is buying have a tailhook?

 

[Tasman]

Simple question.

Does the F/A-18 Super Hornets Australia is buying have a tailhook?

They are identical to USN Super Hornets.

Tas

 

[barra]

Tasman Quote:
Originally Posted by Galrahn
Simple question.

Does the F/A-18 Super Hornets Australia is buying have a tailhook?

They are identical to USN Super Hornets.

Tas

They won't be "identical", as RAAF Hornets don't operate from carriers they have navaids, such as ILS, fitted for instrument approaches to airfields. I believe the RAAF Super Hornets will have a similar fitout. These systems aren't fitted to USN and USMC Hornets, can cause problems when your Tacan beacon is offset from the airfield and you need to do an instrument approach.
And yes they will have tailhooks.

Hooroo