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

[t68]

Air Force grounds F-111 fleet - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

It doesn't sound like there was a lot of damage, but an engine fire can't be good news. At least the F111 has two of them.

I wonder if the winding down of the F111 maintenance will make identifying and addressing the issue more difficult? An extended grounding at this time would be very unfortunate.

This is what worries me the most about the F35 it only has the one engine.

With all F111 fleet being grounded because of this issue, in my mind it is a compelling case for a mixed fleet between super’s and F35 in the long run. By all mean get the 70 F35 but put another order in for 24 more F/A18F Super Hornet.

As the old saying goes,
“Don’t put all your eggs in the one basket”

 

[Kilo 2-3]

This is what worries me the most about the F35 it only has the one engine.

With all F111 fleet being grounded because of this issue, in my mind it is a compelling case for a mixed fleet between super’s and F35 in the long run. By all mean get the 70 F35 but put another order in for 24 more F/A18F Super Hornet.

As the old saying goes,
“Don’t put all your eggs in the one basket”

Concerns over the F-35's single-engine design have been brought up many, many times. However, I honestly don't think it's an end-all, fatal flaw.

Admittedly, the single-engine is not perfect from the standpoint of emergencies, damage survivability, etc. However it improves fuel efficiency, reduces maintainence costs and needs, and cuts down on weight.

Aside from these material issues, there is also the matter of operators and operations.

The US Navy was not initally enthusiastic about the single-engine design. (F-35C meets US Navy's single-engine derision - The DEW Line) However, the Navy did eventually accept the design, indicating that the single-engine design was not a make-or-break concern. Coming from an operator who will be conducting the vast majority of its F-35C operations overwater, this can be taken as an assurance that the single engine is acceptable.

By 2013, the F135 will have logged roughly 16,000 flying hours. When partnered with its ground test time, this gives Pratt & Whitney plently of time to solve problems and improve the reliability of theF135 engine. (F135)

The F119 engine used in the F-22 (from which the F135 engine is derived) has logged 110,000 hours of flight time without any airframe losses attributed to its failure. (Pratt & Whitney Discloses the F-35 JSF Alternate Engine Facts).

The US Navy has successfuly operated single-engine designs like the A-7 and the A-4 without prohibitively high engine-realted losses. And the F-16 has been operated by numerous nations in speace and war without a disastrous loss rate due to engine failure.

These statistics give some assurance that the F-35's single engine layout will be very safe and highly reliable.

Rigorous FOD checks, careful engine maintainence, and efforts to remove birds from air base airspace would all help make the single-engine design even safer.

 

[Aussie Digger]

This is what worries me the most about the F35 it only has the one engine.

With all F111 fleet being grounded because of this issue, in my mind it is a compelling case for a mixed fleet between super’s and F35 in the long run. By all mean get the 70 F35 but put another order in for 24 more F/A18F Super Hornet.

As the old saying goes,
“Don’t put all your eggs in the one basket”

And we get a less capable force that costs more to acquire and operate, is harder to sustain and requires separate pilot and maintenance training streams in the process...

The USN and US GAO only rated the Block II Super Hornet as 65% as capable as the F-35 in recent studies...

The issue about "all the eggs in one basket" has confronted RAAF ever since we operated only one air to air type. If the Mirage was grounded RAAF had no fighter capability.

If the F/A-18A/B is grounded now we have no tactical fighter capability. If the P-3C was grounded, we have no Air force provided maritime patrol capability and so on.

Fact is, modern single engine fighters are extremely reliable and twin engined fighters are less cost effective than singles, IMHO.

If engine problems TRULY worry Air Force, there is an alternate engine available to the F-35 program. Maintaining 2 engine types would be easier than 2 complete fighter types...

 

[t68]

And we get a less capable force that costs more to acquire and operate, is harder to sustain and requires separate pilot and maintenance training streams in the process...

The USN and US GAO only rated the Block II Super Hornet as 65% as capable as the F-35 in recent studies...

The issue about "all the eggs in one basket" has confronted RAAF ever since we operated only one air to air type. If the Mirage was grounded RAAF had no fighter capability.

If the F/A-18A/B is grounded now we have no tactical fighter capability. If the P-3C was grounded, we have no Air force provided maritime patrol capability and so on.

Fact is, modern single engine fighters are extremely reliable and twin engined fighters are less cost effective than singles, IMHO.

If engine problems TRULY worry Air Force, there is an alternate engine available to the F-35 program. Maintaining 2 engine types would be easier than 2 complete fighter types...

I understand the cost verses capability implications in regard to a single fleet of aircraft, but we have traditionally have had different types in service at the one time so it is not unheard of to have separate pilot and maintenance streams.

In the past we have operated together,

F/A18A 1985=present/F111 1973=2010
English Electric Canberra 1951=1982/Mirage lll 1964=1988, A4 Skyhawk 1967=1984(RAN), F/A18A
Avro Lincoln 1946=1961/English Electric Canberra 1951/1982,
and the list goes on this is in the past 40 years or so

You are correct when you say if the legacy Hornets are grounded we have no tactical fighter coverage, but i believe it we should have a fall back position with two different airframes so we are not left in a vulnerable position.

I am not a pilot, so if any current fighter/bomber pilots on the forum please give us an insight is it better to have two engines or a single engine what is the preferred choice if it was up to them?

 

[Aussie Digger]

I understand the cost verses capability implications in regard to a single fleet of aircraft, but we have traditionally have had different types in service at the one time so it is not unheard of to have separate pilot and maintenance streams.

In the past we have operated together,

F/A18A 1985=present/F111 1973=2010
English Electric Canberra 1951=1982/Mirage lll 1964=1988, A4 Skyhawk 1967=1984(RAN), F/A18A
Avro Lincoln 1946=1961/English Electric Canberra 1951/1982,
and the list goes on this is in the past 40 years or so

You are correct when you say if the legacy Hornets are grounded we have no tactical fighter coverage, but i believe it we should have a fall back position with two different airframes so we are not left in a vulnerable position.

I am not a pilot, so if any current fighter/bomber pilots on the forum please give us an insight is it better to have two engines or a single engine what is the preferred choice if it was up to them?

But all these capabilities you refer to ARE different. The F/A-18A/B is our tactical fighter. The F-111 is a pure striker with limited to no air to air capability.

If the F/A-18A/B fleet is grounded we have no effective air defence capability. Sure, we could do some point defence with F-111 and Hawk, but against a serious air threat, we will be vulnerable. But if a major grounding occurs on whatever combination of aircraft we operate, we will be in serious trouble.

As to the dual types, we have NEVER had a dual A2A/strike capability with 2 separate fleets of multi-role fighters before and we only will with the Super Hornet because of the delays to the JSF.

If it had been on time we would be operating F/A-18A/B by itself providing ALL air to air and strike capability until JSF came on line.

As can plainly be seen by Air Force's plans, they are not concerned about a potential loss of capability with operating a sole air combat aircraft type, nor with operating a sole aircraft type with a single engine. Are they the experts in these matters, or not?

I do not see it an effective use of scarce defence funds to continue to operate a second-class air combat capabIility, when we COULD operate a first class capability across the entire force. The only argument against it, is a scare tactic that a single engine might fail, resulting in the loss of an aircraft. There is absolutely no evidence to back up the "dangerous" aircraft argument, other than the extremely simplistic "what if". Well what if both fleets are grounded? What do we do THEN? Buy a third type? Where does it end?

A casual glance at the flight and engine testing conducted to date, has shown no such evidence that the F135 is likely to be an unreliable engine. Yes birdstrikes, FOD etc can occur and are completely independent of the aircraft type, but such issues effect twin engined fighters too.

I don't mean to belittle your argument, but the Super is PURELY a bridging aircraft. It should NOT remain in RAAF service beyond 2025, purely on a capability basis and according to the current Chief of Air Force, it will not be... Unless something superior to the F-35 is available, then we should stick with a sole F-35 based air combat force.

Perhaps UCAV's might be a viable prospect for the 3rd batch of AIR-6000 fighters and we'll see a dual tactical fighter force. That will be the only way it will happen though, unless Defence loses all sway over the Government with respect to air power issues...

 

[t68]

But all these capabilities you refer to ARE different. The F/A-18A/B is our tactical fighter. The F-111 is a pure striker with limited to no air to air capability.

If the F/A-18A/B fleet is grounded we have no effective air defence capability. Sure, we could do some point defence with F-111 and Hawk, but against a serious air threat, we will be vulnerable. But if a major grounding occurs on whatever combination of aircraft we operate, we will be in serious trouble.

As to the dual types, we have NEVER had a dual A2A/strike capability with 2 separate fleets of multi-role fighters before and we only will with the Super Hornet because of the delays to the JSF.

If it had been on time we would be operating F/A-18A/B by itself providing ALL air to air and strike capability until JSF came on line.

As can plainly be seen by Air Force's plans, they are not concerned about a potential loss of capability with operating a sole air combat aircraft type, nor with operating a sole aircraft type with a single engine. Are they the experts in these matters, or not?

I do not see it an effective use of scarce defence funds to continue to operate a second-class air combat capabIility, when we COULD operate a first class capability across the entire force. The only argument against it, is a scare tactic that a single engine might fail, resulting in the loss of an aircraft. There is absolutely no evidence to back up the "dangerous" aircraft argument, other than the extremely simplistic "what if". Well what if both fleets are grounded? What do we do THEN? Buy a third type? Where does it end?

A casual glance at the flight and engine testing conducted to date, has shown no such evidence that the F135 is likely to be an unreliable engine. Yes birdstrikes, FOD etc can occur and are completely independent of the aircraft type, but such issues effect twin engined fighters too.

I don't mean to belittle your argument, but the Super is PURELY a bridging aircraft. It should NOT remain in RAAF service beyond 2025, purely on a capability basis and according to the current Chief of Air Force, it will not be... Unless something superior to the F-35 is available, then we should stick with a sole F-35 based air combat force.

Perhaps UCAV's might be a viable prospect for the 3rd batch of AIR-6000 fighters and we'll see a dual tactical fighter force. That will be the only way it will happen though, unless Defence loses all sway over the Government with respect to air power issues...

Your argument ticks all the right boxes in a small air force such as ours, regarding effective use of limited resources available to the RAAF.

If there was a viable replacement in the strategic strike bomber role RAAF would be pushing the wheelbarrow for the F111 replacement aircraft.

On paper Super Hornet is replacing F111 but in realty it is a replacement aircraft for F111 and F/A 18A due to the fatigue in the legacy hornet fleet. If there is a grounding what do we have left, Hawk LIf with very limited capability but could it do the job in the short term maybe but i think not.

F35A is the only 5 generation multi-role fighters available to the RAAF and i do trust the hierarchy to make the best judgement call that is available to them there is nothing to compare it with, in USN circles F35C is a complement for super hornet and F35C is not a replacement for super hornet but a replacement for F14 and legacy hornets.

F-35C Joint Strike Fighter

In saying that they are a complement to an F35C is in no way saying the super hornet is a superior aircraft to a F35 which they are not.

I believe if Australia had access to F22 Raptor i could understand it better having the two different types in service as a fall back position having two squadron’s worth if it were affordable having a high end air superiority aircraft with limited A2G capability and F35A as the all round air and mud fighter if one is grounded the other is still available, by hedging all our bet solely on F35 leave us vulnerable position. The primary words here are AVAILABE and AFFORDABLE having a two aircraft fleet is affordable with Super Hornet and leaves us with wiggle room if one goes down the other takes up the slack. Australia does not need an all singing and dancing fleet of aircraft when the primary aircraft will be F35A.

Just out of curiosity what is the total cost approximately in today’s dollars between Super hornet and F35A taking into account that the weapons and maintenance cost not just fly away price?

 

[Marc 1]

Your argument ticks all the right boxes in a small air force such as ours, regarding effective use of limited resources available to the RAAF.

If there was a viable replacement in the strategic strike bomber role RAAF would be pushing the wheelbarrow for the F111 replacement aircraft.

On paper Super Hornet is replacing F111 but in realty it is a replacement aircraft for F111 and F/A 18A due to the fatigue in the legacy hornet fleet. If there is a grounding what do we have left, Hawk LIf with very limited capability but could it do the job in the short term maybe but i think not.

F35A is the only 5 generation multi-role fighters available to the RAAF and i do trust the hierarchy to make the best judgement call that is available to them there is nothing to compare it with, in USN circles F35C is a complement for super hornet and F35C is not a replacement for super hornet but a replacement for F14 and legacy hornets.

F-35C Joint Strike Fighter

In saying that they are a complement to an F35C is in no way saying the super hornet is a superior aircraft to a F35 which they are not.

I believe if Australia had access to F22 Raptor i could understand it better having the two different types in service as a fall back position having two squadron’s worth if it were affordable having a high end air superiority aircraft with limited A2G capability and F35A as the all round air and mud fighter if one is grounded the other is still available, by hedging all our bet solely on F35 leave us vulnerable position. The primary words here are AVAILABE and AFFORDABLE having a two aircraft fleet is affordable with Super Hornet and leaves us with wiggle room if one goes down the other takes up the slack. Australia does not need an all singing and dancing fleet of aircraft when the primary aircraft will be F35A.

Just out of curiosity what is the total cost approximately in today’s dollars between Super hornet and F35A taking into account that the weapons and maintenance cost not just fly away price?

Just think about this for a sec - why single out the F-35 for this type of scrutiny? If the army has problems with the M1's we have no MBT's. If the Steyr's all suddenly start to fatigue and break, we no longer have stocks of SLR's as backups. If whatever the radio system that replaced the 77sets has a sudden meltdown we do not maintain a redundant network.. The reason we don't is that these weapon systems are extensively tested before they enter service. That is no gold plated guarantee that the system will be invulnerable, but its pretty good insurance.

When it comes to the one versus multi engine debate, we have come a long way from when the Lockheed Constellation was considered "the finest 3 engined airliner in the world". Earlier engines were unreliable, have a few spread the risk. Also, there is no guarantee having two engines will make you invulnerable to a single engine failure either. In a catastrophic failure one engine can despite an armoured spine supposedly separating engines, still take out the other.

So, what's the trade off? Simplified maintenance, acquisition and supportability versus a dubious 'fallback'. Question for you, would you like to be the pilot assigned to an inferior second tier squadron with your mates assigned to a different aircraft with a much better hope of survival? Nope, didn't think so...

 

[Aussie Digger]

Your argument ticks all the right boxes in a small air force such as ours, regarding effective use of limited resources available to the RAAF.

If there was a viable replacement in the strategic strike bomber role RAAF would be pushing the wheelbarrow for the F111 replacement aircraft.

I very much doubt this. The REAL reason that RAAF wanted to get out of F-111 so early, is the single-role nature of it's mission. The F-111 could fly to 2020+ and could be upgraded with modern systems if need be, to make it somewhat useful (though the cost - benefit is dubious).

Even if an FB-22 with similar range characteristics to the F-111 were available and did NOT have the maintenance, logistical and future supportability problems of the F-22, RAAF would still not want the thing.

It wants multi-role fighters as it's sole tactical air capability in the current timeframe. Future acquisition of UCAV etc will undoubtedly happen, but until such platforms are in-service with a foreign power, we won't see them in RAAF.

On paper Super Hornet is replacing F111 but in realty it is a replacement aircraft for F111 and F/A 18A due to the fatigue in the legacy hornet fleet. If there is a grounding what do we have left, Hawk LIf with very limited capability but could it do the job in the short term maybe but i think not.

Not really. All 3x Hornet squadrons will be maintained until the F-35 is available for service, on current plans. They are ageing but they aren't done just yet...

I believe if Australia had access to F22 Raptor i could understand it better having the two different types in service as a fall back position having two squadron’s worth if it were affordable having a high end air superiority aircraft with limited A2G capability and F35A as the all round air and mud fighter if one is grounded the other is still available, by hedging all our bet solely on F35 leave us vulnerable position. The primary words here are AVAILABE and AFFORDABLE having a two aircraft fleet is affordable with Super Hornet and leaves us with wiggle room if one goes down the other takes up the slack. Australia does not need an all singing and dancing fleet of aircraft when the primary aircraft will be F35A.

I don't agree at all. The majority of planned current users are intending to rely soley upon the F-35A as their future fighter. At we at more risk than anyone else of the fleet being grounded?

Unless you can research the availability of the F-35A aircraft (which lets face it, is likely to be classified or even unknown at the present time) there is no realistic way to tell if it presents a severe risk to Australia's air combat capability.

RAAF quite obviously thinks it doesn't and has managed to convince 2 separate Governments of this, despite the huge cost of the acquisition...

:wink:

 

[StingrayOZ]

I don't know if we could have kept the F-111 going till 2025. Maintence seemed to be a massive head ache and OHS issues abound to keep the airframe operational (something about crawling into the wing fuel tanks?). The US dropped F-111 in mid 90's. Parts are now no longer avalible from the bone yards like they used to and stores have dried up or been dumped. Australia would have to start remanufacture to keep the things operational, generally its a better move to go to something newer than do this (unless your blocked by sanctions etc). It will be far cheaper and have many benefits. The fact its a one trick pony doesn't help the cause either.

F-35 is and will be a the one fighter bomber to rule them all. The F-35 in the long run is going to save money over all other aircraft types.

 

[Awang se]

Why don't just buy Strike Eagle. that should put it between Super hornet and F-111 in terms of payload and range.

 

[StevoJH]

I don't know if we could have kept the F-111 going till 2025. Maintence seemed to be a massive head ache and OHS issues abound to keep the airframe operational (something about crawling into the wing fuel tanks?). The US dropped F-111 in mid 90's. Parts are now no longer avalible from the bone yards like they used to and stores have dried up or been dumped. Australia would have to start remanufacture to keep the things operational, generally its a better move to go to something newer than do this (unless your blocked by sanctions etc). It will be far cheaper and have many benefits. The fact its a one trick pony doesn't help the cause either.

F-35 is and will be a the one fighter bomber to rule them all. The F-35 in the long run is going to save money over all other aircraft types.

Was one particular problem asbestos gaskets or something? Due to defense policy once they broke they had to re-engineer new ones made from another material rather then use ones stripped off AMARC air frames or something. All this adds up to an insane amount when you consider the cost of engineering one part and then multiply by the number of parts the things have.

 

[StingrayOZ]

There were a few issues, that was one. But demonstrates the issues. Its a 1960's plane. in 1960 abestos was the perfect material and sprayed all over defence equipment. While sometimes simular materials exist, re-engineering parts to take replacements, certifying them etc costs insane amounts of money. It is cheaper to buy a new plane than keep doing the remanufacturing for a handful of aircraft. I don't know if we could have kept them flying for much longer.

Strike eagle would have been a good choice back in the early 1990's. But, we are a hornet nation now. The Superhornets are a fine replacement and well be in service soon enough.

 

[t68]

Just think about this for a sec - why single out the F-35 for this type of scrutiny? If the army has problems with the M1's we have no MBT's. If the Steyr's all suddenly start to fatigue and break, we no longer have stocks of SLR's as backups. If whatever the radio system that replaced the 77sets has a sudden meltdown we do not maintain a redundant network.. The reason we don't is that these weapon systems are extensively tested before they enter service. That is no gold plated guarantee that the system will be invulnerable, but its pretty good insurance.

When it comes to the one versus multi engine debate, we have come a long way from when the Lockheed Constellation was considered "the finest 3 engined airliner in the world". Earlier engines were unreliable, have a few spread the risk. Also, there is no guarantee having two engines will make you invulnerable to a single engine failure either. In a catastrophic failure one engine can despite an armoured spine supposedly separating engines, still take out the other.

So, what's the trade off? Simplified maintenance, acquisition and supportability versus a dubious 'fallback'. Question for you, would you like to be the pilot assigned to an inferior second tier squadron with your mates assigned to a different aircraft with a much better hope of survival? Nope, didn't think so...

A grounding of the M1Abrams fleet is not going to cause a lose of a asset if it is kept operational unlike an aircraft it could possibly fall out of the sky if kept going until the problem has been rectified, hence my argument for an additional buy of Super Hornet the one type of asset might be grounded but there is alway's redundancy built into the system.

Maintenance line is already in place and staff can be crossed trained in both aircraft without an additional burden on the system, training and maintenance expenditure will already have been allotted for F35 when it comes on line.

So what’s the trade off?
A fleet of aircraft able to perform the mission set allotted to the aircrafts capability without compromising the ability to defend the nation if a problem occurs’s in your one type fleet of aircraft.

You could also ask that question to the current crop of RAAF pilots assigned to a 1960/70 era F111 to an 1980era F18A/B pilot who has the more survival rate?......the one who use the aircraft to its advantages and not put it were it’s limitation could be exploited.

 

[Marc 1]

A grounding of the M1Abrams fleet is not going to cause a lose of a asset if it is kept operational unlike an aircraft it could possibly fall out of the sky if kept going until the problem has been rectified, hence my argument for an additional buy of Super Hornet the one type of asset might be grounded but there is alway's redundancy built into the system.

It's not about losing the airframe, its about losing the capability. If the M1's are not working it doesn't matter that they can be repaired - if we need them but they are unusable, they are as useless as a single engined fighter dropping out of the sky.

Maintenance line is already in place and staff can be crossed trained in both aircraft without an additional burden on the system, training and maintenance expenditure will already have been allotted for F35 when it comes on line.

And you don't think that cross training doesn't come with any financial or time penalty?

So what’s the trade off?
A fleet of aircraft able to perform the mission set allotted to the aircrafts capability without compromising the ability to defend the nation if a problem occurs’s in your one type fleet of aircraft.

Allotted to the aircrafts capability? What if the missions don't line up with this capability mix? If you have one fleet you don't face these issues, you have flexibility about tasking (any aircraft, any mission), and your aircrew only have to train on one type.

You could also ask that question to the current crop of RAAF pilots assigned to a 1960/70 era F111 to an 1980era F18A/B pilot who has the more survival rate?......the one who use the aircraft to its advantages and not put it were it’s limitation could be exploited.

Poor argument, different missions, therefore that question doesn't come up.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I think there could be a bit of an argument to keeping the SH. I don't think it centres around having a backup airframe.

SH are two seaters, that alone may make them useful for controlling drones, precision munitions, survellance, complex missions, long flight missions etc. Electronic warfare varients will be useful for a long time, and its entirely possible that a F-35 EW would enter service after the SH airframes have been used up. While still operating two airframes, operating a SH is far far far far far less expensive than operating a F-111. Infrastructure, pilot training is already 80% there today and will 100% be there by the end of the year so the normal additional costs of running two airframes will mostly be absorbed.

I think there is also a benifit of possibly streaching out our delivery dates so our aircraft won't become obsolete or worn at approximately the same time, while also taking advantage of latter build improvements.

 

[Vivendi]

Scientists warned defence department against Joint Strike Fighter | The Australian

What I found most "interesting" is what they are saying about the legacy platforms:

Old airframe lacks agility to outmanoeuvre missiles and has a small internal fuel capacity," the DSTO said of the F-16.

It said Europe's Typhoon fighter had limited strike capability and was unreliable.

"Present (strike) capability is lacking due to limited sensors and weapons carrying capability," it said of the Typhoon.

"Low reliability will mean high costs to operate."

It said Sweden's Gripen fighter had poor stealth, an underdeveloped electronic warfare system and payload and range limitations.

The DSTO found that the earlier version of the F/A-18E Super Hornet -- not the Block II version that has since been purchased by Australia -- was underpowered, lacked endurance and "risks being shot from behind with a radar-guided missile".

The US F-15E lacked stealth while France's Rafale had an unreliable and weak engine.

"The F-15E is good now, but not likely to be defensible in the expected electronic warfare environment in the 2010 timeframe," the DSTO said. "Rafale has short-term shortfalls in engine and radar performance."

The DSTO said the F-22 fighter -- the production of which was recently cancelled by US Defence Secretary Robert Gates -- had limited strike capability and was very expensive.

Despite these criticisms, the study recommended narrowing Australia's choice of a new fighter jet to only three: the JSF, the American F-15E and the French Rafale.

I was surprised they excluded both SH and Typhoon from their list... Also, this one was interesting:

"The F-15E is good now, but not likely to be defensible in the expected electronic warfare environment in the 2010 timeframe..."

Well, we're in 2010 now...

For the SH, did they not have any indications of what would come in block II at that time? Also for the Typhoon, did they not see the growth potential?

 

[hairyman]

Maybe we would have been better off if we had of ordered either the F15E, or the Rafael, back then, which would have started coming into service about 2006 or so, and later buyiong the F35 to replace these aircraft. Maybe we could have bought the F15E to replace the F111, and th e Rafael to replace the F18's. No doubt the Rafael would have been assembled here. There would have been no need for the expensive refurbishment for the F18.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

The inclusion of the F-15E on that list does strike me as interesting.

It seems to me like it would have made more sense to have adopted the F-15E in lieu of the F/A-18, some 20-30 years ago when the RAAF was in the market for Mirage and F-4 replacments. Now it doesn't seem to make sense to me to buy F-15Es. The Beagle is getting old. It's still useful, but I doubt it will have the longevity of the newer F-35.

As for the issue of the F-15E lacking stealth, what about the much-bandied F-15 Silent Eagle? Could this be an option? I know that its LO capability is by no means equal to that of the F-35, but it might be a workable middle ground.

Or is that still something of a pie in the sky?

 

[Vivendi]

The inclusion of the F-15E on that list does strike me as interesting.

It seems to me like it would have made more sense to have adopted the F-15E in lieu of the F/A-18, some 20-30 years ago when the RAAF was in the market for Mirage and F-4 replacments. Now it doesn't seem to make sense to me to buy F-15Es. The Beagle is getting old. It's still useful, but I doubt it will have the longevity of the newer F-35.

As for the issue of the F-15E lacking stealth, what about the much-bandied F-15 Silent Eagle? Could this be an option? I know that its LO capability is by no means equal to that of the F-35, but it might be a workable middle ground.

Or is that still something of a pie in the sky?

This was an evaluation done 10 years ago, long before the Silent Eagle was mentioned.

Also, the recommendation was to go for the F-35...

The Silent Eagle is an interesting concept -- If F-35 becomes sufficiently delayed perhaps South Korea and in particular Japan would reconsider it? Australia, being an F-35 partner, would not, they already got the SH as a stop-gap and in worst case, perhaps get a few more SH to wait it out.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

This was an evaluation done 10 years ago, long before the Silent Eagle was mentioned.

Also, the recommendation was to go for the F-35...

The Silent Eagle is an interesting concept -- If F-35 becomes sufficiently delayed perhaps South Korea and in particular Japan would reconsider it? Australia, being an F-35 partner, would not, they already got the SH as a stop-gap and in worst case, perhaps get a few more SH to wait it out.

I'm in agreement with you on that. The Super Hornet represents an important means of in bridging the cpaabiltiy gap between the F/A-18 and the F-35. And, even after the F-35 is operational the SH could be kept on to be used as a Fast FAC or it could be converted to fulfill the EW mission as a Growler.