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

[Aussie Digger]

This has been raised as a possibility, however my most recent info is that the boom will be more or less ready by the time the first aircraft enteres service in early 2009.

Well that would be rather good news all round. Let's hope it works out as planned.

With all these reviews, criticisms of RAAF plans etc, the thing heavily overlooked is that IF RAAF needs a long range strike capability, then such COULD be obtained by greater investment in AAR capability. A good selection of long range weapons will also be operated by RAAF (JSOW, Harpoon II and the improving JASSM, I read a nice article about that recently ), easing the issue to a large degree, but an extra 3-5 KC-30B's could be easily obtained, would solve virtually all of these range "issues" and would be far more easily "manned" than X amount of additional fighters, perhaps even by "reserve" crews if RAAF were to join the 21st Century with regards to it's pilots...

Unfortunately, what Kaman says and what the DMO says are currently still world's apart. The ADf says, at best case, IOC won't be until 2011, and FOC 2013...more than three and five years away respectively.

The issue as I understand it, boils down to Kaman having to design and build a redundant flight control system for the aircraft, because ADF changed it's certification policy AFTER the design of the Seasprite was fixed. This may have been done for good reason, but funding wasn't provided to fix this and if this is the case, the manufacturer can hardly be blamed for not meeting this criteria...

I don't believe, in this day of deep and 'shallow' contractor support that commonality is such an issue, as the ADF is no longer required to maintain warehouses full of spares nor as large a trained air force.

Perhaps it's not the issue it was, but considering that MRH-90 support is going to be provided "jointly" by Army and Navy, having a helo that can slot into this existing infrastructure should be considerably cheaper and easier to maintain, all else being equal.

Of course, the MH-60R is available right now, to a spec that the ADF apparently approves of, which helps it's cause no end, I should imagine...

I'm not so sure about a 45th AWD... , but a 4th one would certainly be welcomed and from all reports, is likely. Watch also for a 3rd LHD.

Well people certainly wouldn't have to worry about "missile loadouts" then, but RAN might struggle to man quite that many boats...

A small typo, 4 AWD's would suit me just fine, but a 3rd LHD is interesting. Particularly if Labor party politics have anything to say about a 3rd "carrier"...

 

[sunderer]

Alexsa is right and sorry but the labor government of the war years bears no resemblance to todays and as a serving member how labor runs defence is understanderbly important to me.

 

[phreeky]

Trying to stay away from a political discussion, but I think it's only fair to remember that the current government isn't exactly packed full of members from the last Labor government (especially not so at the top positions).

Criticising for something that MIGHT happen doesn't make an aweful lot of sense, and we'd be much better off seeing how things pan out.

And just as important as how much $$$ you throw at defence is HOW you spend it.

 

[irtusk]

They are being retired because the aircraft are amongst the highest MM/FH hogs in the USAF.

not what i hear

www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-117.htm

The aircraft maintenance statistics are comparable to other tactical fighters of similar complexity.

djcross on the keypublishing forums backed this up

Before the SCF modification, F-117s had a zero leak policy that strained the maintainers. But you are otherwise correct, F-117 maintenance data wasn't terribly different from F-16C data.

There is no industry or infrastructure established in Australia for the maintenance and support of low 1st generation low-observable materials.

i'm not sure what industry would be needed . . .

the Australians could buy from the same sources the USAF does

The F-117 has less range than a Super Hornet

www.faqs.org/docs/air/avf1171.html

F-117 operational radius - 860 km / 534 mi / 465 NM

www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-18.htm

F-18E/F combat radius - 390 NM

[Interdiction with four 1,000 lb bombs, two Sidewinders,
and two 1,818 liter (480 U.S. gallon: 400 Imp gallon) external tanks,
navigation FLIR and targeting FLIR: Forward Looking Infra-Red
hi-lo-lo-hi]

does not carry AAMs for self-defence, has little onboard ESM, and can not be expected to maneouvre out of trouble if caught in the daylight.

and how is that different from the B-2?

This is why it is ONLY used at night by the USAF.

as opposed to the F-111 which can't be used at day or night because of its nonstealthy airframe

 

[Tasman]

or an interim strike capability, how about the Nighthawk?

- stealthier than the F-111
- the US is soon retiring their entire fleet
- if the US were inclined to sell, it would probably be at super discount prices
- afaik the retirements are simply because they have better options (B-2 + F-22), not that the airframes themselves are worn out
- better range than the SH
- while the stealth coatings would be more maintenance intensive, i believe as a whole (engines, fuel tanks, fuel economy, etc) they will be FAR cheaper to run and maintain than the F-111

the pilot training program was shut down in 2006(?), otherwise it is still very much active so wouldn't be much restoration work

as far as technology transfer issues, well it is OLD plus it has already been compromised with that downed frame in kosovo

Firstly, I agree with the comments made earlier by Magoo.

Given the problems the ADF is currently experiencing with the upgrade of old aircraft, ships, helos and APCs they are hardly likely to want to get involved in yet another attempt to upgrade and operate an old aircraft like the F-117, especially as it would be an orphan aircraft (just as the F-111 has become).

The RAAF wants a modern aircraft that is compatable with the equipment operated by our major ally, the USA. The FA-18F meets that requirement. The F-117, IMHO, definitely does not.

The strengthening of our tanker assets, as suggested by Magoo and AD would go a long way towards overcoming criticism of its range.

Tas

 

[barra]

Personally I think the Indos would have a pink fit if we bought F-117's off the yanks, they would quite rightly see that it was bought for only one possible role ie. to bomb them. It is a to specialised aircraft for Australia to even contemplate buying, no maritime strike, no battlefield CAS and no A2A capability. We don't need another orphan like the F-111.

Super Hornets & JSF are the right aircraft for us, once people get past how the SH was selected (admittedly not an ideal situation and one that should have been handled better) and understand that the days of raw power are over then they will understand that the avionics and sensors on the SH are the best available now and will help us transition to the JSF in the long run. These days whoever gets the first missile off will win the engagement, SH's backed up by AEW&C and given extra legs by KC-30B, throw in some Growlers(hopefully) and highly trained and capable people and you have a formidable force which can't be bettered in SE Asia.

 

[Aussie Digger]

not what i hear

www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-117.htm

FAS.org isn't exactly known for it's overwhelming accuracy. Better than wiki, but not by much.

djcross on the keypublishing forums backed this up

And he is?

i'm not sure what industry would be needed . . .

the Australians could buy from the same sources the USAF does

For some reason, the Australian Government wants to support it's aircraft from within Australian Industry as much as possible. It's an official policy known as self-reliance...

www.faqs.org/docs/air/avf1171.html

F-117 operational radius - 860 km / 534 mi / 465 NM

www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-18.htm

F-18E/F combat radius - 390 NM

[Interdiction with four 1,000 lb bombs, two Sidewinders,
and two 1,818 liter (480 U.S. gallon: 400 Imp gallon) external tanks,
navigation FLIR and targeting FLIR: Forward Looking Infra-Red
hi-lo-lo-hi]

Well the F-1117 cannot carry that operational load, so I'm not sure why you've added it.

It is restricted to 2x internal hardpoints and cannot carry external ordnance for obvious reasons. The internal bays are sized that they can carry only 2 weapons in total. Smaller weapons such as GBU-38 JDAM's with "multiple carry racks" and GBU-39/40 SDB have not been integrated on the aircraft and would cost us to try and do so, with no ability to amortise the cost of doing so...

On the 2x internal hardpoints it can carry either GBU-10/12/16 series LGB's and I believe they have recently been modified to carry JDAM.

That is the SUM of their weapons carrying capability. No anti-radiation missile, no anti-ship missile, no standoff weapons etc.

As a replacement strike aircraft for Australia, it's rather limited wouldn't you say?

and how is that different from the B-2?

And how many B-2's does RAAF have in-service?

as opposed to the F-111 which can't be used at day or night because of its nonstealthy airframe

You may have heard F-111's are actually being retired in 2010, but even if they were not what difference does day OR night make to an aircraft's radar cross section?

Are you saying radars work differently during day and night?

 

[irtusk]

FAS.org isn't exactly known for it's overwhelming accuracy. Better than wiki, but not by much.

well by all means show your evidence to back up your claim that it's a maintenance hog

For some reason, the Australian Government wants to support it's aircraft from within Australian Industry as much as possible. It's an official policy known as self-reliance...

which is why it bought the support package from Boeing for its C-17s

Australia already buys a ton of stuff externally so i don't see that as being an issue for this

Well the F-1117 cannot carry that operational load, so I'm not sure why you've added it.

1. it was the closest comparison i could find
2. the F-117 can carry 5000 pounds of bombs, the F-18 loadout was 4000 pounds of bombs (even if there is a difference in the number of bombs it is split between)

of course the real comparison is between the 2 the F-117 can drop on target and the 0 the F-18 or F-111 can drop on target after it gets shot out of the sky

That is the SUM of their weapons carrying capability. No anti-radiation missile, no anti-ship missile, no standoff weapons etc.

As a replacement strike aircraft for Australia, it's rather limited wouldn't you say?

not really

the point of a gap filler is to maintain credibility against opposing governments

if they know you have the capability to hit them anywhere without them even knowing you were coming, that's quite a deterrent

And how many B-2's does RAAF have in-service?

the point is that no one says the B-2 is useless because it has the exact same limitations as the F-117 (night time stealth only, low manoueverability, etc)

You may have heard F-111's are actually being retired in 2010, but even if they were not what difference does day OR night make to an aircraft's radar cross section?

Are you saying radars work differently during day and night?

you misunderstood what i'm saying

the F-117 stealth only works at night

the F-111 stealth does not work at day or night (ie IT NEVER WORKS) BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE STEALTH

edit: maybe you were confused about Magoo's comments about the F-117 only being able to be used at night?

true its radar cross section doesn't change during the day, but it is easier to spot visually during the day, and if it is spotted it doesn't have much recourse

 

[Todjaeger]

well by all means show your evidence to back up your claim that it's a maintenance hog

I would have to say much of the available evidence that the F-117 is a maintenance hog/nightmare is anecdotal, the factual records being for obvious reasons classified. That does not by any means mean that it is incorrect though, especially when one keeps in mind the development of the F-117 and its planned end of service. The F-117 had the first full-size aircraft delivered around 31 months after a decision was made to produce a full-size version instead of smaller test frames. This shows (and if one researches one can find other supporting information) that the avionics and other systems used aboard the F-117 would have been the same as used on other aircraft already in service at the time production commenced. IIRC the Nighthawk uses a hodgepodge of systems from (now legacy) aircraft like the F-104 Starfighter and others that were available in the late 70's that could fit where space was available within the oddly shaped airframe. When that fact is taken into account alongside that the US is planning on retiring the aircraft in 2008 because there are other aircraft better suited for the role the F-117 filled one has to stop and think. Given that there has not been obvious success in developing counters to the LO in even the F-117 and that the F-22 which would be replacing the F-117 (for now) as a stealthy tactical attack aircraft will be in limited numbers and also have other roles like air superiority to fill, then questions arise. To me, if there was no other reason (like support and maintenance cost/effort), it would make more sense to add a day/night VLO aircraft to the OrBat and keep the LO night attack aircraft. What is being done instead is that the VLO day/night aircraft is going to completely replace the LO night attack aircraft in the role. That tells me at least that what is required to keep it in service exceeds the value of that service, particularly with regards to what else is available in the inventory.

1. it was the closest comparison i could find
2. the F-117 can carry 5000 pounds of bombs, the F-18 loadout was 4000 pounds of bombs (even if there is a difference in the number of bombs it is split between)

of course the real comparison is between the 2 the F-117 can drop on target and the 0 the F-18 or F-111 can drop on target after it gets shot out of the sky

Comparing the weapons loadout weight of the F-117 to an F-18 available for a mission is really like comparing apples to head of cattle given the vast differences in roles the aircraft can play. The F-117 is a tactical attack aircraft, with little or no detection or self-designating capability and 2 hardpoints, and when employed at night, is able to make low observable attacks. On the other hand, the F-18 is a tactical multi-role aircraft with detection and self-designating avionics that can carry and employ various different armaments from the 11 hardpoints/~8,000 kg of provisions (E/F).

For every mission and role assigned to tactical fighter or attack aircraft, a properly supported F-18 will outperform a similarly supported F-117 except for when conducting nighttime strikes against fixed or designated targets protected by an IADS. In short, the F-117 is a highly specialized aircraft, and unless a country has the budget and numbers to be able to afford such a degree of specialization in roles, the F-117 does not make sense in a nations OrBat.

the point is that no one says the B-2 is useless because it has the exact same limitations as the F-117 (night time stealth only, low manoueverability, etc)

I admit, I have not heard that the B-2 Spirit is only employed at night, if someone could confirm it would be appreciated. As for the differences in roles/use between the B-2 and the F-117... The B-2 is a strategic bomber, not a tactical attack aircraft. As such, it is very long-ranged and can carry a number of bombs at once and is used to attack strategic targets and infrastructure. In modern air campaigns, most sorties are of a tactical, instead of strategic nature, which then influences what type of aircraft (and aircraft capabilities) are needed.

This also is ignoring what sort of effect dissemination of LO tech and aircraft would have, both regionally (start of an arms race?) and internationally and whether the US and/or Australia would be willing to deal with those effects.

Lastly, by focusing so much on the individual platform capabilities, one tends to miss where they would fit into the overall force/package framework and if such a fitting is appropriate. I tend to think, given Australian needs and environment (geographic, strategic, etc) that an aircraft of such narrow or focused role, does not have a place in the RAAF now or in the forseeable future.

-Cheers

 

[irtusk]

I would have to say much of the available evidence that the F-117 is a maintenance hog/nightmare is anecdotal, the factual records being for obvious reasons classified. That does not by any means mean that it is incorrect though

doesn't mean it's correct either

IIRC the Nighthawk uses a hodgepodge of systems from (now legacy) aircraft like the F-104 Starfighter and others that were available in the late 70's that could fit where space was available within the oddly shaped airframe.

and also F-15s and F-14s

there were 2,578 F-104s built, i don't think finding spares for 57 planes will be a problem

When that fact is taken into account alongside that the US is planning on retiring the aircraft in 2008 because there are other aircraft better suited for the role the F-117 filled one

precisely, it's role is being filled by the B-2 and F-22, the F-117 is superfluous to the USAF

the RAAF has neither the B-2 nor the F-22 so it isn't superfluous to them

the F-22 which would be replacing the F-117 (for now) as a stealthy tactical attack aircraft will be in limited numbers and also have other roles like air superiority to fill, then questions arise.

there are only 57 or so F-117s active

over 100 F-22s have already been delivered, not an issue

To me, if there was no other reason (like support and maintenance cost/effort), it would make more sense to add a day/night VLO aircraft to the OrBat and keep the LO night attack aircraft. What is being done instead is that the VLO day/night aircraft is going to completely replace the LO night attack aircraft in the role. That tells me at least that what is required to keep it in service exceeds the value of that service, particularly with regards to what else is available in the inventory.

it tells you that the USAF was so desperate for more Raptors that they were willing to do some wholesale chopping to get another 3-4

Comparing the weapons loadout weight of the F-117 to an F-18 available for a mission is really like comparing apples to head of cattle given the vast differences in roles the aircraft can play.

the only reason for the comparison was to counter the claim that the SH had greater range

The F-117 is a tactical attack aircraft, with little or no detection or self-designating capability

it has FLIR and DLIR and a laser designator

For every mission and role assigned to tactical fighter or attack aircraft, a properly supported F-18 will outperform a similarly supported F-117 except for when conducting nighttime strikes against fixed or designated targets protected by an IADS.

which is precisely the sort of deterrence capability you want

In short, the F-117 is a highly specialized aircraft, and unless a country has the budget and numbers to be able to afford such a degree of specialization in roles, the F-117 does not make sense in a nations OrBat.

it's specialized in the sense that nukes are specialized

nukes are useless in most battlefield encounters, yet provide that critical ace in the hole

The B-2 is a strategic bomber, not a tactical attack aircraft.

i would envision Australia using the F-117 in the same way

obviously you aren't going to use it for CAS or anything like that, that's what the hornets are for

This also is ignoring what sort of effect dissemination of LO tech and aircraft would have, both regionally (start of an arms race?) and internationally and whether the US and/or Australia would be willing to deal with those effects.

the F-117 is old and has already been compromised (the frame shot down in Kosovo)

I tend to think, given Australian needs and environment (geographic, strategic, etc) that an aircraft of such narrow or focused role, does not have a place in the RAAF now or in the forseeable future.

yes it has a narrow role, but it is a very important role nonetheless

 

[Todjaeger]

doesn't mean it's correct either

If you choose to doubt someone in the in the industry who likely has contacts to provide information not readily available to others, as well as choosing to not extrapolate likely scenarios based upon the information that is available, that is your business.

and also F-15s and F-14s

there were 2,578 F-104s built, i don't think finding spares for 57 planes will be a problem

The F-14s and F-15s were at the time, new designs having reached IOC in 1973 and 1975 respectively. At that time, the F-104 was a design with proven systems, having had reached IOC in January 1958. Incidentally, most F-104 Starfighters did not see service in the US, the aircraft having not been especially popular with the USAF and IIRC only around 300 were purchased by the US. AFAIK the F-117 systems were taken from the spares available to the US to accelerate the design process instead of the sometimes yearslong development of mission systems. In some respects, the F-117 construction program was more of a technology demonstrator as opposed to series production.

As for there likely being spares available... Some of the technology used is going to be 50 years old, as well as some of the components. With components that age, measures need to be taken to insure that everything functions properly. Given more recent developments in weapon systems, targeting and LO technology, it becomes apparent that the cost and effort required to keep the F-117 operational is no longer deemed worthwhile. If it was thought to still be worthwhile, then it would either be kept in service, or a new production run would be started. If the US decides that something is not worth keeping in service, that should give other nations pause to consider why.

precisely, it's role is being filled by the B-2 and F-22, the F-117 is superfluous to the USAF

the RAAF has neither the B-2 nor the F-22 so it isn't superfluous to them
[/QUOTE]

Umm... No. The B-2 was designed to (and does) fill a completely different role from that of the F-117, it was not intended to (and with only ~21 in inventory does not) operate in a tactical environment, as a result the target list as well as exposure to risk and other operations are conducted in a completely different manner. The F-22 was also intended for a completely different role, but as a result of changes in doctrine due to experience, as well as tech development, it was found that the F-22 could also perform the same missions that the F-117 was tasked with. The capabilities provided by these two aircraft, plus other systems in the US inventory (TLCM, JSOW, Harpoon II/SLAM-ER, JASSM, JDAM, etc) when compared to the time and cost spent on the F-117 for service, or that would be spent to enable it to use the new and upcoming munitions, are what is rendering it superfluous.

As for the F-117 entering RAAF service, many of those same systems are in or will be entering the pipeline for service which will enable precision strikes to be carried out against targets without exposing the aircraft/crew. With that in mind, it would seem logical given the more limited resources available to the ADF as a whole, to acquire capabilities that can replicate a role while being more generally useful than to get a much more limited role aircraft that would have such potentially high maintenance/operational costs.

there are only 57 or so F-117s active

over 100 F-22s have already been delivered, not an issue

This is ignoring the fact that the F-22s being acquired are also going to be taking over the air superiority role currently being filled by the F-15, functioning as cruise missile defence, etc.

As I mentioned before, and has been mentioned in other threads by those with far greater experience than myself, do not focus so much of the individual vehicle/aircraft/weapon/etc instead look at the whole package and how it fits together to carry out the mission(s). Given the plethora of different systems that now exist, there are often multiple ways to approach the same sort of mission. Therefore, systems to be acquired should be selected based upon what sort of packages that can be made to fufill the various required roles.

By way of example, which aircraft can form a package (without AAR) which would better strike with a 250 lb warhead a target 500 n miles from base, an F-18 E/F or an F-117?

-Cheers

 

[irtusk]

If you choose to doubt someone in the in the industry who likely has contacts to provide information not readily available to others

no one has explicitly said 'i saw the maintenance records and they were super bad'

in fact, the only publically available information suggests that they weren't bad at all

as well as choosing to not extrapolate likely scenarios based upon the information that is available

the 'extrapolations' i've seen seen so far look more like 'wishful thinking'

the USAF wanted to kill all the F-117s (and most of the B-52s and a few other things) to buy another 3-4 F-22s

it had nothing to do with spares availability, nothing to do with excessive maintance, simply that they were in love with the F-22 and considered the F-117 redundant

As for there likely being spares available... Some of the technology used is going to be 50 years old, as well as some of the components. With components that age, measures need to be taken to insure that everything functions properly.

confusing two different issues, age of design and actual age of components

age of design of SOME components (but not the engines, the targetting system,the flight control system, the structure or the RAM coatings, which doesn't leave very much) might be old

but the actual age of the components is reasonably young (younger than the f-111 in any case)

final delivery F-111: 1976
first flight F-117: 1981

Given more recent developments in weapon systems, targeting and LO technology, it becomes apparent that the cost and effort required to keep the F-117 operational is no longer deemed worthwhile.

true, if you have alternatives like the B-2 and F-22

which, as i believe i've mentioned, Australia does not have

here's an interesting point: the US retired the F-111 15 years ago (not including the spark vark, which coincidentally Australia also doesn't have)

if your argument is that the F-117 isn't worthwhile because the US is retiring it now, what does that say about the F-111?

i guess that means that it wasn't worth maintaining even back then

If it was thought to still be worthwhile, then it would either be kept in service, or a new production run would be started. If the US decides that something is not worth keeping in service, that should give other nations pause to consider why.

you mean like how it didn't consider the F-111 was worth keeping in services 15 years ago?

the bottomline is this:
if the US had no other stealth capable assets, you can bet your life that they would NOT be retiring the F-117

whether a particular plane is worthwhile to keep in services depends on what alternatives you have. Between the B-2 and F-22, there is (practically) no mission that the F-117 can do that the other 2 can't do better.

Australia doesn't have such luxury.

The F-117 would be a clear step-up in capability compared to anything in their arsenal and as a 'premier' asset would be well worth keeping in service

Umm... No. The B-2 was designed to (and does) fill a completely different role from that of the F-117, it was not intended to (and with only ~21 in inventory does not) operate in a tactical environment

give me a hypothetical mission that the F-117 can carry out better than both a B-2 and an F-22

i'm sure you could come up with some bizarre scenario, but in the vast majority of likely cases, there is no need for it from the perspective of the USAF

it was found that the F-22 could also perform the same missions that the F-117 was tasked with. The capabilities provided by these two aircraft, plus other systems in the US inventory (TLCM, JSOW, Harpoon II/SLAM-ER, JASSM, JDAM, etc) when compared to the time and cost spent on the F-117 for service, or that would be spent to enable it to use the new and upcoming munitions, are what is rendering it superfluous.

um, isn't that what i'm saying? what are you arguing about?

yes it is superfluous to the USAF
no it is NOT superfluous to the RAAF

As for the F-117 entering RAAF service, many of those same systems are in or will be entering the pipeline for service which will enable precision strikes to be carried out against targets without exposing the aircraft/crew. With that in mind, it would seem logical given the more limited resources available to the ADF as a whole, to acquire capabilities that can replicate a role while being more generally useful than to get a much more limited role aircraft that would have such potentially high maintenance/operational costs.

the JSOW has a range of 70 miles

sorry, that's not good enough

a nice addition, yes
a replacement for stealth penetration, no

the JASSM has a range of 230 mi+

better, but the program is in trouble and may yet be cancelled

and who knows when it will actually be operational

This is ignoring the fact that the F-22s being acquired are also going to be taking over the air superiority role currently being filled by the F-15, functioning as cruise missile defence, etc.

if an F-22 is needed for a stealthy strike, one will be made available for such, it's not an issue

the F-15 will be in service for many years to come (the current grounding notwithstanding)

By way of example, which aircraft can form a package (without AAR) which would better strike with a 250 lb warhead a target 500 n miles from base, an F-18 E/F or an F-117?

an F-117

(unless you're trying to be sneaky and say exactly 250lb but not 500lb or something stupid like that)

 

[Aussie Digger]

well by all means show your evidence to back up your claim that it's a maintenance hog

I didn't claim anything about the amount of support or otherwise required to maintain this aircraft.

I will now though.

which is why it bought the support package from Boeing for its C-17s

Australia already buys a ton of stuff externally so i don't see that as being an issue for this

A ton of stuff yes. By all means then, lets buy even more. Especially expensive, man-hour intensive yet obsolete LO treatments for an aircraft with a very specialised and narrow operational role and for which we will be an orphan operator...

1. it was the closest comparison i could find
2. the F-117 can carry 5000 pounds of bombs, the F-18 loadout was 4000 pounds of bombs (even if there is a difference in the number of bombs it is split between).

Yes, but unlike the F-1117, the F/A-18 can carry a flexible warload that includes air to air missiles.

The F-117 is restricted to either LGB's or JDAMs. That's it. Even the Pig can carry a wider operational warload...

of course the real comparison is between the 2 the F-117 can drop on target and the 0 the F-18 or F-111 can drop on target after it gets shot out of the sky

Okay...

The USAF is the only service in the world that operates "true" LO aircraft. Does that mean that every OTHER airforce in the world is obsolete and will simply be "shot out of the sky"?

In any case, in 10 years we will have an LO aircraft that provides a superior stealth capability to the F-117 AND can do a bit more than drop 2x PGM's. I get the strange feeling the Hornet and more especially the Super Hornet will remain relevant in that timeframe...

not really

the point of a gap filler is to maintain credibility against opposing governments

if they know you have the capability to hit them anywhere without them even knowing you were coming, that's quite a deterrent

Even the F-117 has required extensive support to perform it's operational missions. It is not a "sole operator" in terms of flying into IADS without assistance and assuming it is, shows a high level of naivety.

the point is that no one says the B-2 is useless because it has the exact same limitations as the F-117 (night time stealth only, low manoueverability, etc)

you misunderstood what i'm saying

the F-117 stealth only works at night

the F-111 stealth does not work at day or night (ie IT NEVER WORKS) BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE STEALTH

edit: maybe you were confused about Magoo's comments about the F-117 only being able to be used at night?

true its radar cross section doesn't change during the day, but it is easier to spot visually during the day, and if it is spotted it doesn't have much recourse

Why were those Nitehawks painted grey then?

Every fighter aircraft "works better" at nighttime. This doesn't preclude a capability from use during daylight hours and the same is true of the F-117.

And how many optically guided surface launched weapons can reach medium or high altitudes exactly?

The point of LO reduction measures is obviously lost on you. Detection is not their main intent, though obvious avoiding detection is preferrable. It's denying an enemy an ability to TARGET you before you can employ your weapons against HIM that matters. ..

 

[AGRA]

The original F-117s were painted grey because it is actually a better night time camo than black. But USAF TAC insisted on black for the F-117s because it looked better. Skunk Works followed the Golden Rule, 'he who has the Gold, makes the Rule' and they were painted Black.

The Lockheed Have Blue solution was chosen over the Northrop one because its LO was much better against high frequency radars (targeting) than against Northrop's better low frequency LO (search). Of course this was in the 1970s and things have moved on somewhat since then.

 

[irtusk]

I didn't claim anything about the amount of support or otherwise required to maintain this aircraft.

I will now though.

A ton of stuff yes. By all means then, lets buy even more. Especially expensive, man-hour intensive yet obsolete LO treatments

ok, so you claim the LO treatments are very expensive and man-hour intensive

do you have any evidence you can link to or even claim to have seen?

obsolete LO treatments

they are only obsolete to the US because they have something better

however they still work and are still effective

for an aircraft with a very specialised and narrow operational role

specialized and narrow? yes
critical? also yes

and for which we will be an orphan operator...

you've succeeded with the far more complex and older F-111 for 15 years as an orphan operator, i'm sure you'll manage

Yes, but unlike the F-1117, the F/A-18 can carry a flexible warload that includes air to air missiles.

um yes, but that's not that the freaking point

i'm not saying get rid of the hornets, they will still perform the majority of tasks

the F-117 has one very specific yet vital task: strategic deterrence

no nation will want to start any funny business with you because they know that you can strike them back at will

Hornets (and SuperHornets) don't give you that ability, never have and never will

F-111s USED to give you that capability, but it is rapidly fading as more solid radar networks without huge gaping holes are being deployed

The F-117 is restricted to either LGB's or JDAMs. That's it.

so what?

it puts the boom on the ground through some of the most heavily defended airspace

that capability and the fear of that capability is what matters

Even the Pig can carry a wider operational warload...

again, not once it gets shot down before it even reaches the coast

Okay...

The USAF is the only service in the world that operates "true" LO aircraft. Does that mean that every OTHER airforce in the world is obsolete and will simply be "shot out of the sky"?

it depends on the mission

if it is flying in reasonably secure airspace, obviously not

but if you want to penetrate heavily defended airspace, there is no other option. If you aren't LO you're already dead.

By not having a LO aircraft you are ceding your ability to attack such a target

you are saying 'put air defenses around this target and it will be immune from me'

that is not a good message to send

In any case, in 10 years we will have an LO aircraft that provides a superior stealth capability to the F-117 AND can do a bit more than drop 2x PGM's.

yes, i'm all for the F-35

i think it will be a great plane

but the point of the F-117 is to have something in the INTERIM to supplant the increasingly costly and increasingly ineffective F-111 in the strategic deterrence role

I get the strange feeling the Hornet and more especially the Super Hornet will remain relevant in that timeframe...

oh sure, it will be great for CAS in situations similar to iraq/afghanistan where there is no serious opposition

plus it will be a great buddy refueler for the F-35 nfloorl:

Even the F-117 has required extensive support to perform it's operational missions. It is not a "sole operator" in terms of flying into IADS without assistance and assuming it is, shows a high level of naivety.

ideally you want jamming support

and if Australia can't currently provide that, then i would urgently recommend that they acquire it asap

nonetheless, the F-117 without jamming support has a FAR greater chance of success than the F-111 without jamming support

and just the possibility of it should be enough to give other nations pause

which is the point after all

just like nukes, you hope the deterrent is enough that they never have to actually be used

but for a deterrent to be effective, it has to be CREDIBLE

and even 'obsolete' stealth like the F-117 is still credible

Every fighter aircraft "works better" at nighttime. This doesn't preclude a capability from use during daylight hours and the same is true of the F-117.

that's true, but we're talking odds here

the odds of an F-117 survivng a mission are significantly higher at night, so why go during the day unless there is no other choice?

And how many optically guided surface launched weapons can reach medium or high altitudes exactly?

even without an optically guided SAM, an exact location and course bearing can guide a fighter to within visual range

and pilots can see a lot farther during the day than at night

The point of LO reduction measures is obviously lost on you. Detection is not their main intent, though obvious avoiding detection is preferrable. It's denying an enemy an ability to TARGET you before you can employ your weapons against HIM that matters. ..

avoiding detection is the first and primary and bestest goal

avoiding targetting is the backup secondary plan b that is never as reliable and definitely inferior to plan a

something like the F-22 might be able to get away with simply avoiding targetting, but an F-117 would be a sitting duck if a pilot got his eyes on it


the way i see it there are 2 separate issues here:
1. the increasing expense / decreasing effectiveness of the F-111 in the strike/strategic deterrent role
2. questions about the efficacy of the Hornets against the new Flankers in the A2A role

i believe the F-117 is the best option to fill in the for the F-111

if you believe the Hornet will not remain credible within its roles until the F-35 gets here, then perhaps the SH would be a good fit FOR THAT ROLE

however, the SH is incapable of replacing the F-111 and its deterrent effect

so i'm not totally opposed to the SH, as long as it's for the right reason

if you feel the need to get BOTH the F-117 and SH as interim measures, then great, just so long as you don't expect the SH to fill the role the F-111 had

 

[thorpete1]

The F-117 is a aircraft with a narrow application (Two PGM's at night) and which would become obselwete in australian service witht he introduction of the F-35. The F-35 is stealthy, can carry more munitions then a F-117 and has a good air to air capability (Not to mention its state of the art technology rather then 1970's tech).

The F/A-18F is a better option then the F-117, It can carry more; has Antishipping, Air to Air and Air to ground abilities (mullti-role Aircraft); and has hte ability to grow and still be important in the RAAF post introduction of the F-35. The capability i am talking about is an conversion to the EA-18G Growler, giving australia a much need Electroninc attack/support ability whis will complement the F-35's apparent EA abilities and allow the F-35 to become even more effective in conducting its mission as it can hide in the electronic noise created by an growler. F-18F have growth options and possible capabilities that can compliment F-35's. F-117 have no growth options, are aged and will become obselete in the next 5-10 years.

In this world, procurement agencies must procure systems that have relevance ifor 20-30 years into the future, whats the point of spending money on a system which will get you only 10 years of effective use at the most. The F/A-18 is a better choice then the F-117, based on effectivness, growth options,abillities and the needs of australia and its projected aircraft procurement

Hope my spellings right
cheers

 

[icelord]

um yes, but that's not that the freaking point

i'm not saying get rid of the hornets, they will still perform the majority of tasks

the F-117 has one very specific yet vital task: strategic deterrence

no nation will want to start any funny business with you because they know that you can strike them back at will

Hornets (and SuperHornets) don't give you that ability, never have and never will

I'm sorry but, whats the Strategic detterence for and against who?
We are in Australia, we are a massive Island with a small, highly trained highly skilled Defence force. The geography ranges from tropical rainforests, Snow capped mountains to a massive Red Bare patch of dirt from one end of the country to the other, try invading that!

To attack Australia is foolish at best, Nuts at worst. Our closest "threat" in the State Vs State Symetrical warfare is Indonesia, who has nothing in comparision to match our forces with the Range to re-inforce.
For deterence, we have the the best Diesal-electric subs running around with the Range and Ability to hit a target without even a hint of threat to it or its crew. For the Air, the SH may not provide stealth, but our nearest Adversory as mentioned would be hard to match when encountering our combined force, which would strike a target before they can get off the toilet.
The range may not extend well, but thats what Air-to-Air Refuelings for.

If your wanting Terrorist Deterence, SAS.

When your talking about the ADF please try to remember, this is not the US. We don't have the mentality that everyone is out to get us, because any NATION that wishes to attack may think they have the numbers, but will be outmatched by Land, Sea, and Air by a combination of factors. Its a big place, our structures are spread out and you can't reach us without over extending yourself. If someone wishes to try, we could make Nazi invasion of USSR look like a walk in the park.
We really should follow Japans lead atm and look to the Skies for an enemy compared with our current Presence.

I can see your argument in having the F117 but it keeps coming back to the same problem, Why?
The purchase would be better spent for long term capability then something we won't need in the current climate. More C17s, F35s would benefit more then a couple of 2nd Hand F117. This is the same problem with the argument for keeping the F111, its not needed. They did wonders in deterrence during the Cold war, and also for info gathering, but today that same job can be done with a number of platforms. The F22 was bought to keep the US ahead of the Game, we're not in the game to need to stay ahead.
Keep in mind Australia,not US

 

[irtusk]

The F-117 is a aircraft with a narrow application

if you read my last post, you'll see that it addresses practically every point you bring up from the limitations of the F-117 to its expected service life to the purpose of the SH

as far as converting the SH to growlers, heck forget converting them, they should just get them straight up NOW

 

[irtusk]

I'm sorry but, whats the Strategic detterence for and against who?
We are in Australia, we are a massive Island with a small, highly trained highly skilled Defence force. The geography ranges from tropical rainforests, Snow capped mountains to a massive Red Bare patch of dirt from one end of the country to the other, try invading that!

you assume that a country would have to invade you to harm you

for any nation and especially an island nation that depends on international trade that is blatantly false

libya didn't invade anyone to take down panam 103
you don't have to invade to seize/sink australian shipping
there are a ton of ways a country can cause grief

I can see your argument in having the F117 but it keeps coming back to the same problem, Why?

to remind countries that if they eff with you, you can eff them back

More C17s, F35s would benefit more then a couple of 2nd Hand F117.

again i agree on the F-35s
again this is an INTERIM measure until the F-35s arrive

This is the same problem with the argument for keeping the F111, its not needed. They did wonders in deterrence during the Cold war, and also for info gathering, but today that same job can be done with a number of platforms.

such as?

you mentioned subs, but harpoons aren't a credible ground attack threat

the ships you have would be very vulnerable if it came to attacking a defended coastline

 

[icelord]

you assume that a country would have to invade you to harm you

for any nation and especially an island nation that depends on international trade that is blatantly false

The Airforce is not the best Asset to stop Maritime crimes, such as piracy or the sinking of a ship by opposing forces Navy. For this we have Anzacs which provide a Cover of trade routes, providing clear and visible presence in the Maritime Environment. The AWD is designed and will be in place to eliminate an air threat before it even sees its target.

Our Armidales may be unable to stop any forceful attack by Navy standards, but protects intrests and conducts inspections with a substantial fleet of patrol boats. The largest Armaments may be 25mm typhoons but this is substantial enough to counter any 'terrorist' based threat. The RAAF provide strong support coverage with AWACs across the north, and the future unmanned platforms will add to our coverage of the norther Arc.
I fail to see how a F117 can defend trade routes when thats why we have a Navy.

libya didn't invade anyone to take down panam 103
you don't have to invade to seize/sink australian shipping
there are a ton of ways a country can cause grief

And how does the F117 work into this? Strategic deterrence implies you have a capable strike aircraft that can match or dominate your best enemy, but a F117 would'nt dp that.

to remind countries that if they eff with you, you can eff them back

Thats what History books are for, to show that those who have tried across the globe to get at the ADF or Australia havn't been given a chance to go out swinging, they've just been taken out.

again i agree on the F-35s
again this is an INTERIM measure until the F-35s arrive

Thats what the SH is for, interim measures if someone geek stays out of it then it will remain that way.

such as?

you mentioned subs, but harpoons aren't a credible ground attack threat

the ships you have would be very vulnerable if it came to attacking a defended coastline

Land targets could be from strike team of SAS,3RAR to Mech infantry Division.
Collins,FFG,FFH, can provide a strike capability if in Range.
For the Air, the SH is being sought to cover a "GAP" that may be provide by the withdrawl of the F111. Air-Air refueling extends its range just like an F117 or a FA/18F SH.

Of course a ship becomes vulnerable when attacking a defended coastline, thats why the A Never do it alone
and B Always with a mix of capapble ships.

The RAN works with USN if attacking a defended coastline, or in a task Group of RAN ships, which will become more common when the Canberra and Hobart classes are fully operational, at this point without a destroyer we rely on Task Groups or coalitions, and this is a strategic mistake left without the Perth Class Replacement.
A sub provides a silent strike capability, without the same risks provided to a Aircraft. Even stealth has its flaws, with the amount of secrecy involved in the F1117 since day one its biggest advantage could have already been cracked and they USAF is happy to move it on, as already mention Kosovo kinda ruined its mystic Aurora around it.