EA/18G Growler

[old faithful]

round and round and round we go! Can a flanker out turn an amraam, or an aim 9x,ahh forget it...

 

[Aussie Digger]

Interesting theory. And poor attempt to deflect facts of the jets slow performance and poor battlespace mobility which leaves it slower than most jets. Replace the players mentioned in the piece... ( swap F-14 for Flanker ). People claiming the F-18E/F as a fighter always like to fall back on the slow speed turning performance. Nice. But doesn't help much if the jets opponent is in a situation where they can contempt of engage the jet, burn some fuel, add some speed and move around it and hit a target.... ( like a Flanker ). Super Hornet becomes dangerous when you are trying to stop it. However Super Hornet is less dangerous if the mission of the opponent doesn't have to engage it. That of course is just one example. However it is a pretty scary one. Seems that some can't understand that and at the end of the day when you stack up the Super Hornet against all the other 4.5 gen (marketing hype term) and 4th gen aircraft, you have a situation which leaves the Super Hornet at the bottom of the pack on total airframe performance. It's excellent avionics alone don't make a fighter that Defence purchased for the reason of maintaining regional air superiority. Super Hornet, given the peer group it is hyped into in comparison, is a very nice strike aircraft.

This gets to be more of a problem if the JSF fails due to the U.S. screwing up the funding track and costing it out to a high price that is unbearable, leaving the RAAF to buy more SH's to fill out the rest of the ranks over the years. This will be all very interesting. And I hope on this point I am very very wrong. Politicians will look at all the air power issues, see the pretty Super Hornet PowerPoint briefings that paint it as the most cost effective solution, and reach the conclusion that RAAF has enough shooter airframe stuff for the next several years and press on with existing business with the Navy and Army. All very possible. Since everyone and their brother has gone out of their way to hype the capability of the Super Hornet to monstrous extremes, including throwing around the word that it has stealth capability. You don't have to convince me of anything. You have to convince the politicians who on any given day, can barely tell the difference between an F-18 and an M-1 Abrams.

Poor attempt at justifying your opinion.

The users are confident in the weapons system.

A politican might not be able to tell the difference between an F-18 and an M-1, but RAAF certainly can and they have stated any number of times that they are confident of it's capability. As they are the ones who'll have to take it into harm's way, I guess they'll live or die by their judgement.

So far they haven't been found wanting.

Anyhow once again this debate is taking the "one legged duck" approach. Good luck with your opinion. I'm sure RAAF and USN will suddenly realise what a lemon they're stuck with once they read your posts... nfloorl:

As to the JSF program "failing". Hmm. Maybe the sky might fall on our heads too.

 

[ELP]

round and round and round we go! Can a flanker out turn an amraam, or an aim 9x,ahh forget it...

Not really the issue. Engagement, or contempt of engagement is. The Flanker has the gas and the speed to stay out of engagement range if it chooses. The Super Hornet does not have the speed to avoid engagement if for some reason, it wanted to. This is no different in concept of when in WWII, the Japanese were quoted that once the Corsair and P-38 came along, the Japanese could no longer choose how to engage. Also with any A2A missile, lets use BVR weapons as an example .... The max engagement range people love to quote so much on these weapons assumes a head to head closure. The engagement range of that missile, is much shorter when trying to attack a target that is showing it's beam or rear aspect. The Super Hornet will be dangerous if something is trying to stop it from striking, where the aircraft has to engage it. The Super Hornet will be at a disadvantage on intercepts, where, a speedier apponent with gas, can choose not to engage.

 

[ELP]

The users are confident in the weapons system.

The users, in the case of the Navy are happy to have anything with a new car smell considering the rate we are eating up our airframe life on legacy Hornets. USN has even delayed their production slots of JSF because of a budget, that looks more an more being able to afford the only thing that is available: Super Hornet.

As to the JSF program "failing". Hmm. Maybe the sky might fall on our heads too.

I wouldn't throw that away so easily. JSF production slots were delayed both as mentioned above with the USN and the federal budget in general, to pay for the war we are involved in. The U.S. military is being bled white on common day to day operating budget things like never before. The war is being run not on existing tax dollars, but credit. This isn't a fault of the JSF program itself, however the JSF program costs were based on not screwing up the production plan. That, has happened. Unless someone can wave a magic wand and make our budget problems go away in 2009, 2010, 2011 etc, this can only happen more. More JSF delays is more cost climb. I don't pretend to know what the export customers tolerance will be for this, but I am sure we will find out. The story of JSF cost, is yet to be written.



...........

 

[AGRA]

Not really the issue. Engagement, or contempt of engagement is. The Flanker has the gas and the speed to stay out of engagement range if it chooses. The Super Hornet does not have the speed to avoid engagement if for some reason, it wanted to.

This is a view point so typical of the airshow loving Armchair Air Marshals and ‘knucklehead’ fighter pilots – both viewpoints are crap when it comes to predicting the outcome of air combat.

How is the Su-27/30 pilot going to decide to break off combat if it doesn’t know where the F/A-18E/F is? You can’t orientate, decide and act unless you can observe.

Not that the F/A-18E/F is invisible but it won’t be approaching from within the Su-27/30s own sensor footprint. And if like ALL regional Su-27/30s it is not backed by a robust NCW capability with AEW&C and other broad area surveillance and C2 systems they will be flying along increasingly getting worried until their EWSP starts screaming that an AMRAAM has just gone terminally active…

They will be stuck flying figure of eight patterns like the Syrian MiGs over Lebanon in ’82 with no idea what is going on, unable to talk to their GCI who temselves can’t work out what is going on until the Israelis come in and pick them off from the their flanks.

Now this is why the RAAF F/A-18F Block IIs with all their great avionics and HMI robustly linked into the RAAF NCW capability will be so valuable. Not to punch holes in the sky but to spend most of their time destroying what NCW capability our potential opponents could have and leave the lost and blind Su-27/30s flying figure of eights over the South China Sea to the F/A-18A+s to actually shoot down.

 

[BKNO]

@ELP

Very FUNNY. when i think i'm the one accused of posting outdated links.

I refer YOU to what S-H test pilots says of it. nfloorl:

For the time being a Quote from this article...

Much of the focus is on air-to-ground operations, but the Super Hornet is to get an infrared search and track (IRST) sensor to increase air-to-air capability.

Development of the IRST is funded beginning in FY2008, leading to fielding in 2012-13, says Mathews. A targeting, not imaging sensor, the IRST will be integrated with the radar to provide spectral diversity and the ability to engage passively air-to-air. Although it could be mounted internally, a podded sensor is more likely, he says.

DATE:13/03/07
SOURCE:Flight International
Ultra Hornet
By Graham Warwick

SO HERE WE ARE: As i was saying, the US are "following suite" and "Boeing are Part of it".

SHIFT in EM/IR sensor capabilties to be followed soon by US DRMs.

Only the IRSTs developed in the US are probabily a bit less performant when it comes to weather independence as they still haven't passed the VWC limitation, but it is a STEP toward the anti-L.O fashion and taken by whom?

The USN no less, a service with some experience in long range IRSTs...

What IS the interest of such a couple again?

Total passive detection, and (later when an IR DRM replaces AIM-120) undetecteable BVR capabilties: Available from the EUs and Russia today.

So what one would be left with by procuring anything else than F-22 to couple the Ultra Hornet is not the best solution by a long way.

F-22 would be best, F-35 lacks the overal performances in A2A to compete vs these new generation "4.5 generation" aircraft and new generation DRM AAMs.

Those who are still sceptical about the effisciency of Optronic systems in A2A should spend more time informing themself about it rather than denying it because the USN and Boeing have long made up their mind, they know some we dont read in forums, so do i.....

 

[Aussie Digger]

The users, in the case of the Navy are happy to have anything with a new car smell considering the rate we are eating up our airframe life on legacy Hornets. USN has even delayed their production slots of JSF because of a budget, that looks more an more being able to afford the only thing that is available: Super Hornet.

Hmm. And what is the BIGGEST purchaser of the F-35 going to do, namely the USAF if F-35 falls over, given the rapidly reducing airframe hours on it's F-16 fleet? Buy more? HA!

The US needs F-35 JUST as much as the international buyers. THIS is why it ain't going to fall over.

I wouldn't throw that away so easily. JSF production slots were delayed both as mentioned above with the USN and the federal budget in general, to pay for the war we are involved in. The U.S. military is being bled white on common day to day operating budget things like never before. The war is being run not on existing tax dollars, but credit. This isn't a fault of the JSF program itself, however the JSF program costs were based on not screwing up the production plan. That, has happened. Unless someone can wave a magic wand and make our budget problems go away in 2009, 2010, 2011 etc, this can only happen more. More JSF delays is more cost climb. I don't pretend to know what the export customers tolerance will be for this, but I am sure we will find out. The story of JSF cost, is yet to be written.

LOW RATE production slots. NOT ful rate production slots. They haven't been touched...

Selective misquoting shows you are unaware of the facts of the matter or simply don't want to state the truth because it disagrees with your argument...

As to your Iraq war costs, I kind of get the feeling they're going to drop DRAMATICALLY come November 08...

 

[ELP]

This is a view point so typical of the airshow loving Armchair Air Marshals and ‘knucklehead’ fighter pilots – both viewpoints are crap when it comes to predicting the outcome of air combat.


Lets look at that closer shall we? Would this include "Armchair Air Marshals" etc etc that reside right in Defence itself? The "crap" you mention seems to be a typical attitude in Defence to any criticism and this forum in general when Defence is criticised. A forum is a place to discuss differing viewpoints, however what happens here all too often is that anyone that is critical of Defence view x y or z is laughed at. Pretty sad.

Lets talk a lack of experience with military aviation. Starting from the top, where the DM's own webpage when mentioning the F-15 in passing - http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/NelsonMintpl.cfm?CurrentId=6437 - Almost all of that is.... wrong. Downcheck the F-15 for any number of valid reasons( like cost per flying hour, I don't know if Australia would enjoy paying for that kind of legacy dollar thing.) but everything else mentioned there is a convenient fabrication. Myself having been around the F-15 community for years, .... pilots, test pilots, maintainers, program managers. I can tell you most of the points re: F-15 on that page are a laugh. Who is the "armchair air marshal" now? If the F-15 was evaluated on capability there would be no problems, as it brings more ( especially in the jazzed up K variant ) to the fight than any Super Hornet can. So on that mark, Defence has no clue and is speaking from zero experience of what kind of damage a well motivated Strike Eagle community is capable of dishing out.

Another one I love is where one in Defence mentions that they don't want to risk an F-111 falling apart on them going mach 1.5 at a hundred feet off the ground. I know former F-111 aircrew and maintainers. Show me in any combat ops procedure where the F-111 does a low level penetration at mach 1.5 . That statement by Defence is a rubbish one based on little or no knowledge of how the F-111 operates.
Other mentions about F-111 are silly and uninformed on their best day. The idea that F-111 can't be sustained until 2020 would be one of them. The idea that the F-111s can't be sustained for combat in general also doesn't wash. USAF got rid of their F-111s because of lack of funds across the board, the fact that it had legions of tankers, and that it also had F-15E and B-1s going into the conventional world as backup. It was not retired due to a lack of combat capability. One of the last F-111 squadrons to be retired in USAF service got MC rates around 85%, the last year in existence after glass cockpit mods, that pushed up to over 90%. So go ahead and downcheck the F-111 and retire it for any number of reasons. But don't do it because it can't be a useful combat asset. Claiming this is untrue. If you want to get into an "expensive to maintain" scenario, start looking at the legacy Hornets RAAF has on hand now with all of the multi-flavoured HUG add ons. Where, the wing issue on the F-111 was a red herring by the fact that there were resources on had for refirb, the wing tip issues ( flex, water corrosion ) on legacy Hornets ( similar but also different than wing crack/fuel tank/water issues on Block 30/40 F-16 ). I would be more worried about paying for all of the legacy Hornet mods in the pipeline and how many are going to be out of service with the barrel issue coming up. F-111 going away in 2010, JSF potential delays, means risk at being low on strike ability for a while.

How is the Su-27/30 pilot going to decide to break off combat if it doesn’t know where the F/A-18E/F is? You can’t orientate, decide and act unless you can observe.

I hope you seriously don't believe that the Super Hornet has "Stealth" or even any meaningful L.O. qualities when it has combat stores hanging.

Not that the F/A-18E/F is invisible but it won’t be approaching from within the Su-27/30s own sensor footprint.

You mean nose on as in many engagements. This is a magic trick of not being in a SU's "sensor footprint" as you call it will be interesting. Even more interesting as SU sensor growth gets installed.

And if like ALL regional Su-27/30s it is not backed by a robust NCW capability with AEW&C and other broad area surveillance and C2 systems they will be flying along increasingly getting worried until their EWSP starts screaming that an AMRAAM has just gone terminally active…

I seriously hope Australia gets out of holding up NCW as if it is going to answer all of the problems. Wedgetail is almost 2 years behind and has to prove itself. Of course if for some reason it doesn't, it wouldn't be the first AWACS/ISR project to have integration problems and in the case of the Nimrod run into severe problems of lashing up all of the gear. Then there is bandwidth. We (U.S.) get away with a lot of NCW problems by throwing lots of money and quantity of platforms at the problem. Defence's own words in defending their fighter aircraft purchases by bringing up NCW doesn't face the reality of the problem that often in our ops there are numerous NCW dead spots where NCW isn't there to answer all of your all knowing situational awareness needs Where air battles can be decided in under a few minutes and many times under a minute, I wouldn't hold this up as a big defensive shield as in the way it is being over-sold. Our AWACs have had and still do, problems giving F-15 users a good picture 100% of the time. One of the F-15 v MiG-29 shootdowns in ex Yugo, is an excellent example, where F-15s had a poor/bad AWACs picture and solved the fight with poor AWACs support. They state that in their after action report. Our alleged situational awareness didn't help us from killing off our own guys in 2003 with our own SAMs. One of the reasons F-22 is so especially useful is because of its own teamwork/local network and less reliance on AWACs. It is processing S.I. much better than what AWACs can help with. Super Hornet will enjoy this ability. The more reliable end of NCW is the local area network and not the wide one. This being Super Hornets sharing info and passing it locally to their own element/flight/squadron. That is the dependable end of NCW.This includes advanced Flankers like how India is maturing them. Advanced Flankers have local network ability of their own as shown by a variety of combat exercises the last few years.

They will be stuck flying figure of eight patterns like the Syrian MiGs over Lebanon in ’82 with no idea what is going on, unable to talk to their GCI who temselves can’t work out what is going on until the Israelis come in and pick them off from the their flanks.

Well that may be the popular story but lets look closer. Analogies are always suspect and we can't always count on fighting a clueless enemy. So depending on your enemy being Syria might not be a good intel standup brief to the aircrew in an air plan or before the flight. Aircraft purchases such as the ones RAAF is involved in now will mean service life will go for 20 or more years. One thing man is really bad about is predicting the future 20 years ahead. Instead of pointing to a current threat and using that as a baseline, the better approach is "be prepared". Where the existing threat is already fielding an airframe with superior airframe performance and the growth room of the Flanker is, ...considering Israel, France, India etc are also involved in Flanker avionics and weapons growth, .....is something that will be in increasing threat and not a decreasing one.

Now this is why the RAAF F/A-18F Block IIs with all their great avionics and HMI robustly linked into the RAAF NCW capability will be so valuable. Not to punch holes in the sky but to spend most of their time destroying what NCW capability our potential opponents could have and leave the lost and blind Su-27/30s flying figure of eights over the South China Sea to the F/A-18A+s to actually shoot down

The idea of growing NCW ability is a good one. The idea that it is going to solve numerous combat problems on the wide area side of the house is yet to be proven and stood up.Ignoring that advanced Flankers..... and this includes their growth path..... have a local area network ability of their own is shortsighted in your assessment. Again, please tell me what the regional threat matrix will look like in 20 years... 30 years.... And please guarantee to me that all of the politicians, after being oversold and over hyped on Super Hornets simply amazing air to air prowess, will be willing to hand over yet more funds after an expenditure of $22 billion (JSF + Super Hornet) ......if the JSF program doesn't produce and RAAF ends up with a total shooter jet population of Super Hornets.

.

..............

 

[ELP]

@ELP

Very FUNNY. when i think i'm the one accused of posting outdated links.


Hi Bkno, I enjoy reading a lot of your stuff.
Outdated is certainly a good word, as putting an outdated airframe design like Super Hornet on the carrier deck is a bad one considering that it was done in an era of known Flanker performance. Again though, money being a large problem, Navy didn't have a lot of options.SH keeps strikers and accountants happy.
As for outdated links: The information on there is not "outdated" as it points to weak, luke warm airframe performance of the Super Hornet. No new set of machismo has been grafted on to the SH since then. So your point isn't of any concern.
I refer YOU to what S-H test pilots says of it.

For the time being a Quote from this article...

Much of the focus is on air-to-ground operations, but the Super Hornet is to get an infrared search and track (IRST) sensor to increase air-to-air capability.
First, lets be very clear. For a true air superiority fighter ( and that is the reason Defence stated to purchase Super Hornet, .... to help maintain regional air superiority... Avionics by itself won't be enough. Being acceptable in WVR including the helmet/HOBS will of course only take care of... WVR combat. SH BVR is all well and good if the scenario demands that the enemy has to come to it ( as in the case of a strike ). What is lacking is battlefield mobility on par with F-14, Big SU, F-15, Typhoon, etc. Over-hyping avionics won't get you a prize. SH, if the Flanker is trying to get through to hit a target, won't have the option of deciding how to start the engagement due as mentioned already, it's lack of speed. SH is a good strike aircraft, with the ability to defend itself on the strike.

Development of the IRST is funded beginning in FY2008, leading to fielding in 2012-13, says Mathews. A targeting, not imaging sensor, the IRST will be integrated with the radar to provide spectral diversity and the ability to engage passively air-to-air. Although it could be mounted internally, a podded sensor is more likely, he says.

DATE:13/03/07
SOURCE:Flight International
Ultra Hornet
By Graham Warwick

SO HERE WE ARE: As i was saying, the US are "following suite" and "Boeing are Part of it".

SHIFT in EM/IR sensor capabilties to be followed soon by US DRMs.

Only the IRSTs developed in the US are probabily a bit less performant when it comes to weather independence as they still haven't passed the VWC limitation, but it is a STEP toward the anti-L.O fashion and taken by whom?

The USN no less, a service with some experience in long range IRSTs...

What IS the interest of such a couple again?

Total passive detection, and (later when an IR DRM replaces AIM-120) undetecteable BVR capabilties: Available from the EUs and Russia today.

So what one would be left with by procuring anything else than F-22 to couple the Ultra Hornet is not the best solution by a long way.

F-22 would be best, F-35 lacks the overal performances in A2A to compete vs these new generation "4.5 generation" aircraft and new generation DRM AAMs.

Those who are still sceptical about the effisciency of Optronic systems in A2A should spend more time informing themself about it rather than denying it because the USN and Boeing have long made up their mind, they know some we dont read in forums, so do i.....

I have in the past and do now concede that Block II Super Hornet Avionics is damn good. No problem there. Ultra Hornet will still be ultra slow.

..............

 

[ELP]

Hmm. And what is the BIGGEST purchaser of the F-35 going to do, namely the USAF if F-35 falls over, given the rapidly reducing airframe hours on it's F-16 fleet? Buy more? HA!

USAF already has a plan in place to extend F-15 and F-16 use until 2025. This plan was put into place because of JSF production slowdown. You may want to consider doing your homework. Here is one example of what the USAF is doing:
http://www.afa.org/magazine/march2007/0307force.asp

USAF fighter force will get smaller AND IS already on that path.

The US needs F-35 JUST as much as the international buyers. THIS is why it ain't going to fall over.

Hoping and what will may happen can be two different things. Industry certainly needs JSF as they are trying to make a buck and the Navy needs a 5th gen of some kind on the deck. USAF to do it's mission can break any integrated IADS.... without JSF. Once large SAMs and enemy aircraft are killed off, the rest of the plinking can be done from 35,000 plus by legacy designs and small battlefield missiles, AAA, trashfire etc. can't do anything. I can touch you, but you can't touch me, in near any weather. So as for the USAF, the killing work can go on without JSF. If anything JSF has not proven a case for getting into USAF service except that it will have a new car smell. JSF doesn't have the stealth performance to weave into future stiff IADS. That isn't very useful. New Block F-16s could fill the number of small airframe needs (post killing off of big IADs threats) "good enough". Investing in more small airframes when for the past 40 years or more we (U.S.) have lost scores of overseas bases to fly from isn't a sound strategy. We need more long range strike aircraft not more short range strike aircraft. The dollars wasted on JSF could be farmed into FB-22, B-1 flight control and avionics upgrades ( much better MC rates ) the next long range bomber ( what ever that is ), and if J-UCAS or follow-ons prove themselves, that too. For USAF to invest in the Buick of Stealth given our very limited funds and the war, is dumb.




LOW RATE production slots. NOT ful rate production slots. They haven't been touched...

Getting good prices on JSFs depended on the production plan being unaltered. Your statement doesn't change the fact that with the current funding slow down of JSF production,..... now.... USAF has to extend the life of older airframes it really didn't want too. Older Block F-16s will reach a come to jesus event in shortage of airframes in the next 15 years. Now.... with the funding slowdown of production, The USAF wouldn't get it's last JSF until 2040. Completely silly and unrealistic considering how this service uses airframes. As for the Navy, Boeing is proposing the USN buy more Super Hornets ( USN asked for JSF production slot delays over a year ago before the latest JSF funding slow down: Reason-available funds). The plan for more Navy Supers will most likely have to go through as our legacy Hornet airframe life is getting serious with the current ops tempo. The Navy carrier air wing roadmap with Boeing SH sales pukes pushing good deals is going to potentially change from it's original JSF/Super Hornet carrier air wing vision.

Selective misquoting shows you are unaware of the facts of the matter or simply don't want to state the truth because it disagrees with your argument...

That is your opinion. However my views are from being very close to the DOD environment for over 25 years. I am sorry that my statements cause you to post that as your best argument on the points given.

As to your Iraq war costs, I kind of get the feeling they're going to drop DRAMATICALLY come November 08...

If that happens we should all be thankful and some kind of roadmap back from the abyss in large gold plated weapons systems funding shortfalls might bring things back in order. In the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, even if a post November 08 event helps, there is still the massive amounts of clean up and spending. The rate of how U.S. defence spending gets cured is at this point: unknown.

...............

 

[Rich]

Not that the F/A-18E/F is invisible but it won’t be approaching from within the Su-27/30s own sensor footprint. And if like ALL regional Su-27/30s it is not backed by a robust NCW capability with AEW&C and other broad area surveillance and C2 systems they will be flying along increasingly getting worried until their EWSP starts screaming that an AMRAAM has just gone terminally active…

They will be stuck flying figure of eight patterns like the Syrian MiGs over Lebanon in ’82 with no idea what is going on, unable to talk to their GCI who temselves can’t work out what is going on until the Israelis come in and pick them off from the their flanks.

Now this is why the RAAF F/A-18F Block IIs with all their great avionics and HMI robustly linked into the RAAF NCW capability will be so valuable. Not to punch holes in the sky but to spend most of their time destroying what NCW capability our potential opponents could have and leave the lost and blind Su-27/30s flying figure of eights over the South China Sea to the F/A-18A+s to actually shoot down.

Yeah, but thats what would happen in an actual conflict.

In BKNOs world the fighters square off in Roman type air arenas, or in computer flight games, and go mano-E-mano with no support or operational factors involved.

Please dont confuse us with what would really happen.

 

[stray_kiwi]

This is a view point so typical of the airshow loving Armchair Air Marshals and ‘knucklehead’ fighter pilots – both viewpoints are crap when it comes to predicting the outcome of air combat.

How is the Su-27/30 pilot going to decide to break off combat if it doesn’t know where the F/A-18E/F is? You can’t orientate, decide and act unless you can observe.

Not that the F/A-18E/F is invisible but it won’t be approaching from within the Su-27/30s own sensor footprint. And if like ALL regional Su-27/30s it is not backed by a robust NCW capability with AEW&C and other broad area surveillance and C2 systems they will be flying along increasingly getting worried until their EWSP starts screaming that an AMRAAM has just gone terminally active…

They will be stuck flying figure of eight patterns like the Syrian MiGs over Lebanon in ’82 with no idea what is going on, unable to talk to their GCI who temselves can’t work out what is going on until the Israelis come in and pick them off from the their flanks.

Now this is why the RAAF F/A-18F Block IIs with all their great avionics and HMI robustly linked into the RAAF NCW capability will be so valuable. Not to punch holes in the sky but to spend most of their time destroying what NCW capability our potential opponents could have and leave the lost and blind Su-27/30s flying figure of eights over the South China Sea to the F/A-18A+s to actually shoot down.

After 37 pages of "my plane is better than yours and here's why", someone has finally put the aircraft into a potential and realistic real world scenario. Thank you sir, at last I can see where the F/A-18EF fits into the air defense picture as far as a imagined attack on Australia is concerned. I still have concerns about the SH's ability to perform force projection missions though. Most of the literature I've read on the interweb suggests that Australia would have to commit a sizeable amount of assets to fulfil a similar role a couple of F111's can perform currently. I stand ready to be enlightened.

 

[rjmaz1]

F-22 would be best, F-35 lacks the overal performances in A2A to compete vs these new generation "4.5 generation" aircraft and new generation DRM AAMs.

You are again assuming the F-35 will lack performance when no results have been posted. The test aircraft has only flown a couple times.

You cant estimate its speed from its wing sweep angle and thrust to weight ratio. No one here knows how fast the F-35 will be able to cruise at. The only spec thats been released is a very vague top speed.. The useable speed may infact be on par with other 4.5 gen aircraft.

stray_kiwi the range of the F-111 is indeed very impressive if it flies subsonic at high altitude with no weapons Put four LGB's onto the wings and include a supersonic dash and low altitude penetration in the mission profile and its range is no longer that fantastic. The F-111 unfortantely has to use speed and low altitude to survive. The F-35 which has quite a decent range will be able to hit pretty much any target the F-111 can. The F-35 will be able to fly subsonic at high altitude using stealth to survive. As our neighbours will not have first class tracking systems the F-35's will be safe. It will conserve fuel with a pair of 2,000lb bombs internally and cruise to quite a distance.

The Super Hornet though, is indeed short on range like you said. The standoff weapons and inflight refueling will get them traveling a long way. As the Super Hornets can self escort themselves, they may not need alot of extra aircraft. My estimation is that Four Super Hornets and one tanker would be able to perform the same job of one F-111, two Classic Hornets and one tanker.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

This is a view point so typical of the airshow loving Armchair Air Marshals and ‘knucklehead’ fighter pilots – both viewpoints are crap when it comes to predicting the outcome of air combat.

yes but not the capabilities of platform which is what the discussion is about. If you want to take into account all of the mirriad of factors that that effect A2A combat accuratly, well that would be impossible wouldn't it???? Perhaps all discussion that can not achieve this level of accuracy should be deemed herretical huh???

How is the Su-27/30 pilot going to decide to break off combat if it doesn’t know where the F/A-18E/F is? You can’t orientate, decide and act unless you can observe.

You think a fully (or even partially) armed SH would not be detected by Ibis (or even BARS) equiped variants WELL beyond usefull launch ranges for AIM 120D's?????? And A50E supported Flankers would be well aware of the SH's location before the APG 79 would even detect the flanker. Your over simplified theory just doesent take the capabilities of the systems into account.

Not that the F/A-18E/F is invisible but it won’t be approaching from within the Su-27/30s own sensor footprint. And if like ALL regional Su-27/30s it is not backed by a robust NCW capability with AEW&C and other broad area surveillance and C2 systems they will be flying along increasingly getting worried until their EWSP starts screaming that an AMRAAM has just gone terminally active…

You make this statement without actually taking the Flankers sensor footprint into account, not too mention much more capable radars that are well into development now. And the major regional powers either have or are aquireing desent AEW&C systems such as A50E's.

They will be stuck flying figure of eight patterns like the Syrian MiGs over Lebanon in ’82 with no idea what is going on, unable to talk to their GCI who temselves can’t work out what is going on until the Israelis come in and pick them off from the their flanks.

Ahhh, i never realised it would all be so easy!!!! Maybe we could destroy the whole opposing force on the ground while there having breakfast like the Egyptians huh? If so then why replace the HUG BUG's???? There will never be any A2A combat anyway.

Now this is why the RAAF F/A-18F Block IIs with all their great avionics and HMI robustly linked into the RAAF NCW capability will be so valuable. Not to punch holes in the sky but to spend most of their time destroying what NCW capability our potential opponents could have and leave the lost and blind Su-27/30s flying figure of eights over the South China Sea to the F/A-18A+s to actually shoot down.

LOL. Your implying that F18F's can penitrate an IADS or get within desent firing ranges for even AIM120D's to an AEW&C's as to get a shot off without being intercepted???? You have to punch "holes in the sky" in order to get to the jucy bits such as C3I, unless you can teleport, have great long range standoff weapons or have real LO. We may be buying JASSM, but were not going to intergrate it onto the SH. Again simplistic theory that does not take actual capabilities into account.

 

[gf0012-aust]

yes but not the capabilities of platform which is what the discussion is about. If you want to take into account all of the mirriad of factors that that effect A2A combat accuratly, well that would be impossible wouldn't it???? Perhaps all discussion that can not achieve this level of accuracy should be deemed herretical huh???.

You still persist in indulging in this fanciful notion that the combat is to be measured platform to platform - when it is about systems. Arguing that you want to debate it P1 to P2 only reinforces that you have no comprehension about what is going to happen in the battlespace. This isn't the red baron.

instead of disimissing someonme who is actually competent (more than competent) to discuss this, then perhaps you should explain why you have this unswerving committment to undermine the reality of debate and indulge in your own fantasies about a 21st century of jousting aerial combat?

You think a fully (or even partially) armed SH would not be detected by Ibis (or even BARS) equiped variants WELL beyond usefull launch ranges for AIM 120D's?????? And A50E supported Flankers would be well aware of the SH's location before the APG 79 would even detect the flanker. Your over simplified theory just doesent take the capabilities of the systems into account.

And your almost religious belief in the superiority of the opposing systems is based on what evidence?

Don't talk about simplified theory when its patently obvious that you are on your own mission which compels you to load the bases to support your own beliefs.

You make this statement without actually taking the Flankers sensor footprint into account, not too mention much more capable radars that are well into development now. And the major regional powers either have or are aquireing desent AEW&C systems such as A50E's.

Actually, battlespace planning does take it into account. One of the members in here has responsibility for planning the opening stages of an air campaign. That includes killing red/orange teams sensors, decapitating the detection merge and then conducting the air war against GBAD.

I'm more than curious as to why you think that the A50E is superior when we know its nowhere near the competency of the Israeli offerings - or even some of the other Euro offerings. The development cycle of Chinas AWACs programme has been retarded by a series of unfortunate losses - and they were hoping to shortfall that by getting Phalcon. As its is, they're decided to fast track a system that is suspiciously an Eyrie look alike - and beam ESA's have limitations - esp the Eyrie design. The design means that you have to change the way you use your aircraft. - eg it means that you start to have a series of likely tactics if you are to complement the systems strengths.

Ahhh, i never realised it would all be so easy!!!! Maybe we could destroy the whole opposing force on the ground while there having breakfast like the Egyptians huh? If so then why replace the HUG BUG's???? There will never be any A2A combat anyway.

Actually it has been easy once you demonstrate superior competency at the training , integration and persistency level. Apart from india - who else in the region is even close? How long do you think that it will take for other AWACs users (who are potentially hostile forces against the F18's) to develop the requisite competencies to field, integrate and develop battlespace management. what force out side of singapore in our region has the ORBAT competency to do it?

Development is not static, do you seriously think that an airforce that experiences superiority in battlespace management is going to just sit still if other potential threats matrices evolve? You seem to think that the blue force will be stupefied and immersed in some form of temporal flux.

LOL. Your implying that F18F's can penitrate an IADS or get within desent firing ranges for even AIM120D's to an AEW&C's as to get a shot off without being intercepted???? You have to punch "holes in the sky" in order to get to the jucy bits such as C3I, unless you can teleport, have great long range standoff weapons or have real LO. We may be buying JASSM, but were not going to intergrate it onto the SH.

and the last time you planned a decapitation mission was when? do you think that decapitation of C3I is restricted to an air campaign? The last 16 years shows that C3/C4 decapitation is handled by numerous assets. (and nobody else outside of aust and in reach except singapore is C4I) - and the US is the only C5I player in town.

Its why you have subs that can fire TLAM equivs, its why you have chicken stranglers etc.... Its a co-ordinated effort. On the other hand. knocking off australias sensory footprint means breaching the 3500+km firewall, orbiting 400+km look down systems, SWR systems and the fact that it will also be integrated into an ADSB-mil sensor ability (which funnily enough, china is copying). and then we have the capacity to commission SWR systems that can also see out to 600+km.

Who in the region has a better sensory ability? Its the Americans only - no one else comes close. JORN has actually reached out way beyond 3500km - JORN integrated into a US SBR system adds even more discretion. In fact, no one else has the overlap sensor potential that australia has. Do you think that we'll, turn off JORN, SWR, ADSB, Wedgetail, our other arrays etc and not fight to our advantage?

Again simplistic theory that does not take actual capabilities into account.

Yes, and you persist in simplifying it to validate your own perceptions. Include the real bits in the battlespace contest - thats what the people who are paid to do the job do.

 

[Aussie Digger]

After 37 pages of "my plane is better than yours and here's why", someone has finally put the aircraft into a potential and realistic real world scenario. Thank you sir, at last I can see where the F/A-18EF fits into the air defense picture as far as a imagined attack on Australia is concerned. I still have concerns about the SH's ability to perform force projection missions though. Most of the literature I've read on the interweb suggests that Australia would have to commit a sizeable amount of assets to fulfil a similar role a couple of F111's can perform currently. I stand ready to be enlightened.

The great problem with the F-111 is it requires escorts in any contested battlespace (hence APA urging the buy of F-22's. Without them it is unsurvivable). You therefore not only have to factor the range of the F-111 into account but that of it's tactical fighter escort and whatever tanking capability we can scrounge up.

F/A-18EF Super Hornets will possess a self-escort capability that will dwarf ANY F-111 variant and can carry a large number (not weight) of external stores.

An F-111 even escorted will require a hard point taken up with it's Elta jamming system. If RAAF wishes to use AGM-142 Popeye's, there goes another hard point with the large external data-link the F-111 has to carry to employ the weapon, leaving it with the ability to carry only 2x weapons.

The situation is somewhat better with LGB's, but RAAF also employ Sidewinders from F-111's in high threat environments, meaning that usually the F-111 will have no more than 2x hard points from which to employ weapons.

SH can carry a vastly more flexible warload from it's 11x hard points, including "heavy" (2000lbs class) stores on 5x external pylons, instead of the F-111's 4...

From an overall POV, apart from integral range, there's not much in strike capacity that the F-111 brings to the "game", compared to an SH, IMHO...

 

[ELP]

Hi AD,

Here is the deal officially signed off on:

Defence signs off on Super Hornet deal

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1913509.htm

 

[Aussie Digger]

Hi AD,

Here is the deal officially signed off on:

Defence signs off on Super Hornet deal

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1913509.htm

Yep, the actual aircraft buy and support package. Noteworthy is the fact that the ACTUAL aircraft purchase seems little more than AUD$100m per aircraft, rather less than some hereabouts have tried to argue...

Interestingly the "weapons and sustainment" package contracts are to be released later this year. They should prove illuminating... AUD$3.1b's worth...

 

[phreeky]

*stuff about F-111s requiring escorts*

I may be totally missing the mark here, but the way I've always thought is that the primary mission of the ADF, as expected, is the defence of our Australia.

With that in mind, the F-111s range, payload and speed if so needed seems to extra-ordinarily useful if, bearing in mind this is a terrible scenario to consider, some country is crazy enough to actually attack us and land on our shores.

The specific scenarios vary greatly, but I would have thought that in such situations (i.e. over Australian soil) F-111s wouldn't really need an escort - not unless they've managed to get control of our airspace, right?

TBH, as an Australian and tax payer, I couldn't give a toss about force projection beyond our shores unless there is no question over our ability to defend ourselves first and foremost.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I may be totally missing the mark here, but the way I've always thought is that the primary mission of the ADF, as expected, is the defence of our Australia.

With that in mind, the F-111s range, payload and speed if so needed seems to extra-ordinarily useful if, bearing in mind this is a terrible scenario to consider, some country is crazy enough to actually attack us and land on our shores.

The specific scenarios vary greatly, but I would have thought that in such situations (i.e. over Australian soil) F-111s wouldn't really need an escort - not unless they've managed to get control of our airspace, right?

TBH, as an Australian and tax payer, I couldn't give a toss about force projection beyond our shores unless there is no question over our ability to defend ourselves first and foremost.

Defence of Australia is predicated upon defending the "air sea gap" to our north.

The reason of this is that to have a HOPE of achieving the goal of invading Australia, the invader would need multiple carrier battlegroups escorting a massive amphibious invasion force and who could possible gather together such a force? (Besides the USA that is...)

Therefore if ANY attack on Australia could be realistically contemplated it would seem to revolve around strikes launched against Australia (and it's territories) by air and perhaps naval means, with limited (at best) land force involvement.

Once again the distances involved means said threatening nation will require Carrier Battlegroups OR bases within flight range (with some aerial refuelling capacity involved) of Australia and it's territories.

Obviously Naval forces possess the range to threaten Australia, but then they have to possess capabilities likely to overcome our air and naval capability at undeniably extended ranges, unless they intend to conduct a suicide mission. Not many Countries in the WORLD possess that sort of capability, let alone our particular region (or have intent for that matter)...

So, the reason we bought F-111's is that it seems prudent if the only realistic "serious" threat to Australia is air attack launched from airbases within strike range of Australia, to possess capabilities sufficient to strike saifd bases ourselves if necessary.

If a force sufficient to fight it's way through our (AND our Allies) air and naval capabilities managed to lodge themselves on the Australian mainland, I suspect the range of the F-111 would be irrelevent as most of them would probably already be destroyed...

In any environment when operating against a capable air defence system, it is RAAF doctrine to escort the aircraft with a dedicated fighter. The reason for this is simple. The F-111 has a massive radar cross section, virtually no self-defence capability, very little agility (compared to any fighter aircraft) and the days of "relying on speed alone" to defend an aircraft are long over...

RAAF has decided now that the F-111's capability can be replaced by the Super Hornet and legacy Hornet's, with appropriate standoff weapons. With it's increased air to air capability and more appropriate SEAD, CAS and recon capabilities, it should help to continue RAAF's qualitative lead over "regional" capabilities...