A
Aussie Digger
Guest
There was no fly-off, true enough, but to suggest RAAF conducted NO evaluation of other modern fighters isn't exactly true...
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
The word competitive is significant. I did not say the RAAF conducted no evaluation of other modern fighters.
Australia impressed by Super Hornet performance
"It's a little bit embarrassing for me," says Gp Capt Steve Roberton, commander of 82 Wing. "It is fair to say the jet has proven to be more robust and exceeded what we thought."
Roberton pointed to what he considers the aircraft's singular ability to simultaneously track air and ground targets using an array of sensors, including the Raytheon APG-79 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar.
I wonder if the Brazilians and Indians will start talking to the folks down under
I believe at least some of the other a/c out there have progressed quite far in developing such capabilities -- OTOH I can see why it may not be a priority for USN, with the Growlers... but for those without Growlers it may be a priority.
Will the Australian SH be delivered with IRST?
RAAF did have all the prelim material provided by the other vendors as part of initial Air 8000 submissions. They also had a small team attached once Boeing made their first approach mid 2006...
it wasn't a formal run off, but there certainly was sufficient baseline data to compare with.
what was less of an issue from the full blown eval was that systems integration, train and sustain etc... was going to be far easier with the Shornet against a tight budget
I believe Australia is getting one off the line every month or every three weeks. In a few months I expect another five to fly down under... But I doubt any certain day has been picked beforehand... I fully expect when all of the ducks are lined up another flight of five will fly...
blueorchid
Member
Not five but six
Senator the Hon John Faulkner
Minister for Defence
25 Jun 2010
MIN76/10
More Super Hornets to arrive in July
The next stage in Air Force’s air combat capability is about to occur. RAAF is planning to transit six more F/A-18F Super Hornets from the United States to RAAF Amberley in early July.
Minister for Defence, Senator John Faulkner, said a detachment of RAAF aircrew and maintenance personnel from No 1 Squadron is currently conducting work-ups with the brand new aircraft at Naval Air Station Lemoore in California.
“The detachment is completing comprehensive flight testing which includes up to 96 hours of test and evaluation flying and two weeks of Electronic Warfare flight trials from Lemoore,” Senator Faulkner said.
“Another key task involves working with an air-to-air tanker conducting day and night refuelling flights to ensure we are ready for the flight to Australia.”
“When these jets arrive shortly, close to half of Australia’s twenty four Super Hornets will be based at Amberley, and Defence will be working toward the next milestone of achieving Initial Operating Capability by the end of 2010,” Senator Faulkner said.
The first five Super Hornets were welcomed at RAAF Amberley on 26 March this year. Since then, they have been conducting familiarisation training in Queensland.
The Super Hornet is a highly capable, battle proven, multi-role aircraft that has already proved its effectiveness in service with the US Navy. Its flexibility will enhance Australia’s air combat capability, through maritime and land strike, suppression of enemy air defence, reconnaissance, air-to-air combat and close air support. The F/A-18Fs are a bridging capability through Air Force’s transition to the Joint Strike Fighter.
“The Super Hornet project has been a fine example of team work. Reaching this stage of the project on time and on budget has been due to the great partnership between the Royal Australian Air Force, Defence Materiel Organisation, United States Navy, The Boeing Company and their industry partners, General Electric, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon,” Senator Faulkner said.
Details of the second tranche’s arrival at Amberley will be released closer to the date.
By the end of 2011, all twenty four of Australia’s Super Hornets are scheduled to be in Amberley.
Cheers
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #2,109
Posted a RAAF-related reply to prevent hijacking this thread here.
Now, for a purely Australian perspective, what real options are/were available for a RAAF combat aircraft replacement programme? Keeping the F/A-18 A/B Hug Bugs flying was not a 'real' option. The aircraft did undergo an upgrade programme, but as was found withe CBR programme, there is a limit to what can be effectively and efficiently done. Also as has been observed, there are a finite number of flight hours which the Hugs can accrue and remain airworthy. Once that limit has been reached, the aircraft have to be replaced. Apart from the JSF programme, the only other Western aircraft programmes which were underway and available (or expected) at the time were the F-15, F-16, F-18 SHornet, Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen. Given that the future RAAF fighter was/is likely to see service until 2040-2050 or thereabouts, does it really seem reasonable that the above, largely Cold War-era designs can be kept 'relevant' that long?
The F-15 and F-16 have likely reached the pinnacle of their respective developments. For Australia to attempt to 'go it alone' in terms of long term systems development seems unrealistic, particularly when one considers the Australian experience in upgrading the F-111s to keep them relevant after the USAF retired them.
IMO the situation is somewhat similar with the Gripen, except for they have not yet reach their developmental peak since they have not been fitted with AESA yet. Further anecdotal evidence that the Gripen would not be relevant mid-century is available in the Gripen NG programme. If the Gripen would have been able to stay (or be kept) current, then a pseudo-prototype Gripen C/D would not have been rebuilt with modications to the airframe to test potential future mission systems.
At the time of Australian inclusion in the JSF programme, the Typhoon was IIRC just an air superiority fighter, multi-role capability was not yet included or available. This meant that the Typhoon would not have been an appropriate choice for the RAAF, unless it was decided that the RAAF would maintain a two-tiered combat jet force. Such a decision would have then required the RAAF to choose a replacement multi-role and/or strike aircraft from amongst those I have already listed here.
This leaves Australia with two fighter choices apart from the JSF, the F/A-18 SHornet and the Rafale. Given that Australia ran into issues with France which kept the RAAF from using Mirages in Vietnam, and IIRC was one of the reasons why the RAAF chose the F/A-18 A/B Hornet from the US instead of another French fighter, I do not believe that the Rafale was a realistic candidate. When one also examines fighter aircraft orders from the past several years and sees that apart from France, no other country has placed any orders for the design, it strongly suggests that the design is not competitive in terms of foreign orders.
So, now the JSF alternative has been reduced to just one aircraft, the F/A-18 SHornet. Given that the design is new-ish, and in many respects what the F/A-18A/B/C/D Hornets should have been (larger fuel tank, greater range, etc) while also currently in production for the USN, the design will likely remain largely relevant for a signficant period of time. The question then becomes whether or not there will be sufficient improvement in the JSF capabilities beyond what can be achieved in/by the F/A-18 SHornet to justify chosing the F-35. IMV the answer to that question is yes, but only time will tell.
-Cheers
I agree that in the end, the personnel are the most important, better to have well-trained and motivated personnel using standard or perhaps even substandard kit, than have the best kit possible in the hands of poorly trained or motivated troops.
Now, for a purely Australian perspective, what real options are/were available for a RAAF combat aircraft replacement programme? Keeping the F/A-18 A/B Hug Bugs flying was not a 'real' option. The aircraft did undergo an upgrade programme, but as was found withe CBR programme, there is a limit to what can be effectively and efficiently done. Also as has been observed, there are a finite number of flight hours which the Hugs can accrue and remain airworthy. Once that limit has been reached, the aircraft have to be replaced. Apart from the JSF programme, the only other Western aircraft programmes which were underway and available (or expected) at the time were the F-15, F-16, F-18 SHornet, Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen. Given that the future RAAF fighter was/is likely to see service until 2040-2050 or thereabouts, does it really seem reasonable that the above, largely Cold War-era designs can be kept 'relevant' that long?
The F-15 and F-16 have likely reached the pinnacle of their respective developments. For Australia to attempt to 'go it alone' in terms of long term systems development seems unrealistic, particularly when one considers the Australian experience in upgrading the F-111s to keep them relevant after the USAF retired them.
IMO the situation is somewhat similar with the Gripen, except for they have not yet reach their developmental peak since they have not been fitted with AESA yet. Further anecdotal evidence that the Gripen would not be relevant mid-century is available in the Gripen NG programme. If the Gripen would have been able to stay (or be kept) current, then a pseudo-prototype Gripen C/D would not have been rebuilt with modications to the airframe to test potential future mission systems.
At the time of Australian inclusion in the JSF programme, the Typhoon was IIRC just an air superiority fighter, multi-role capability was not yet included or available. This meant that the Typhoon would not have been an appropriate choice for the RAAF, unless it was decided that the RAAF would maintain a two-tiered combat jet force. Such a decision would have then required the RAAF to choose a replacement multi-role and/or strike aircraft from amongst those I have already listed here.
This leaves Australia with two fighter choices apart from the JSF, the F/A-18 SHornet and the Rafale. Given that Australia ran into issues with France which kept the RAAF from using Mirages in Vietnam, and IIRC was one of the reasons why the RAAF chose the F/A-18 A/B Hornet from the US instead of another French fighter, I do not believe that the Rafale was a realistic candidate. When one also examines fighter aircraft orders from the past several years and sees that apart from France, no other country has placed any orders for the design, it strongly suggests that the design is not competitive in terms of foreign orders.
So, now the JSF alternative has been reduced to just one aircraft, the F/A-18 SHornet. Given that the design is new-ish, and in many respects what the F/A-18A/B/C/D Hornets should have been (larger fuel tank, greater range, etc) while also currently in production for the USN, the design will likely remain largely relevant for a signficant period of time. The question then becomes whether or not there will be sufficient improvement in the JSF capabilities beyond what can be achieved in/by the F/A-18 SHornet to justify chosing the F-35. IMV the answer to that question is yes, but only time will tell.
-Cheers
I was just scouring wikipedia on plane prices (cause i was bored...) assuming these are correct. BTW this is all just food for thought so please dont think im saying this is what they should do or get mad at me.
[Mod Edit: Text deleted. For goodness sake, please take the trouble to read the threads you post in. There are no known plans for the RAAF to acquire the F-22 or the A-10 - please do not covert this thread to a pie in the sky discussion. Further off-topic and nonsensical posts by you will just be deleted without further warning.]
[Mod Edit: Text deleted. For goodness sake, please take the trouble to read the threads you post in. There are no known plans for the RAAF to acquire the F-22 or the A-10 - please do not covert this thread to a pie in the sky discussion. Further off-topic and nonsensical posts by you will just be deleted without further warning.]
Last edited by a moderator:
Per-unit costs can be deceptive when you consider the amount of money one must spend throughout the lifetime of the plane on support and so forth. For example, when Australia decided to acquire 24 Super Hornets as an interim strike replacement for the F-111, it paid something like 6.6 billion dollars. Sounds very expensive, but in fact that sum included more than just the aircraft, it included through-life support, weapons systems, and things of that nature.
So even if we could buy hundreds of A-10s, we wouldn't, because they don't suit the requirement and because maintaining a fleet that large would be so expensive that any costs you cut in acquisition would very quickly make themselves apparent in sustainability. So per-unit costs aren't a great indicator for the overall cost to an air force of using a platform.
So even if we could buy hundreds of A-10s, we wouldn't, because they don't suit the requirement and because maintaining a fleet that large would be so expensive that any costs you cut in acquisition would very quickly make themselves apparent in sustainability. So per-unit costs aren't a great indicator for the overall cost to an air force of using a platform.
just trying to give an indication of the costs....
just say sacrifice 15 A-10s for an F-22
[Mod Edit: Text deleted. For goodness sake, please take the trouble to read the threads you post in. There are no known plans for the RAAF to acquire the F-22 or the A-10 - please do not covert this thread to a pie in the sky discussion. Further off-topic and nonsensical posts by you will just be deleted without further warning.]
just say sacrifice 15 A-10s for an F-22
[Mod Edit: Text deleted. For goodness sake, please take the trouble to read the threads you post in. There are no known plans for the RAAF to acquire the F-22 or the A-10 - please do not covert this thread to a pie in the sky discussion. Further off-topic and nonsensical posts by you will just be deleted without further warning.]
Last edited by a moderator:
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Latest Estimate was $60 Million apiece. 191.9 million could be total lifecycle cost?
Correct. Also, the F-22 $150 is Unit Flyaway and not total cost. The total F-22 cost is in the $350 range.
As per OPSSG.
No more F-22 and/or A-10 posts into this thread.
They will be killed automatically by any roving Mod
enough is enough
No more F-22 and/or A-10 posts into this thread.
They will be killed automatically by any roving Mod
enough is enough
Just as a curiosity, if converted into current dollars how does the unit cost and cost through life of the FA-18 (not the super's) compare to the current forcast for the F-35 ? I would not be surprised if it come out to be fairly close ? Also any indication of the time frame of the first batch of F-35's that the RAAF may expect ?
I am not sure about the F/18As that we have, but they are getting more expensive to maintain.
How many of the F-18s underwent the centre barrel repacement?
The USAF's budget data in 2010 projects the F-35 to have a US$89 million fly away costs for FY2010. Steve O’Bryan (Lockheed’s vice president of the F-35 program) says the average cost of an F-35A- could reach $60 million by 2016 to 2017.
The F/A-18F has a US$60.3 million (2010 flyaway cost)
Air 6000 Phase 2A/2B (New Air Combat Capability – 3 Squadrons) has an expected Initial Operating Capability of 2017 to 2019.
I am not how capable or cost effective the F/A-18As will be over the next 7+ years. Personally I would like to see an extra 24 Super Hornets added to our current order to replacing 24 of the original Hornets and ensure there is no capability gap with and as insurance against future problems, delays or continued cost increases with the F-35s.
Thanks for the info, was just curious about the difference in price. There seems to be a lot of squable about the price of the F35, but I dont see in todays dollars much difference between them and the F/A-18's, and they turned out to be a good aircraft for the country, as I remember there was the same carry on about them when we got them, but things always smooth out in time. I am certainly not saying we should just go for the F/A-18 Super's in place of the F35, we need the F35. But I agree that an extra order of the Super's would not go astray and give the RAAF a bit more flexibility. If we did though it should not come at the expense of F35 numbers though
In today's dollars the F-35 is 50% more than the F-18F (and 50% over cost)
The F-35A shoud down in price as more are built (due to economies of scale).
For the same reason the same should happen with the Super Hornet (The USN will eventually have 515 F/A-18E/Fs and 114 EA-18G)
Interestingly the fiscal 2010 defense authorization bill includes language advising the USAF to consider adopting Super Hornets in order to avoid a gap in the nation's air defenses while the JSF ramps up.
The RAAF Super Hornets at this stage are viewed as an interim measure, the plan is that they will be retired as the final 24 JSFs enter service.
Last edited: