I don't know, from what I understand of the decoupled cockpit setup on the F models having a second set of eyes/hands/systems enables much better multitasking and a greater flexibility in prosecuting a given mission. If this is more than a rumour (and that remains to be seen) then I think a pretty good case could be made for more of the F model. They seem to offer more capability than the E (probably one of the other more well informed guys in here could confirm and/or clarify that).
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #2,382
No, if something else is being considered, Australia should look to get something equipped with V-G s-foils, DEW, proton torpedoe launchers and a hyperdrive instead...
Honestly, the story sounds a bit off to me. The SHornet stopgap order for an F-111 replacement was $6 bil. AUD. That covered 24 aircraft, a weapons package (AIM-9X, JSOW, JDAM, etc.) and 10 years of operations. IIRC the per SHornet flyaway cost was more like ~$67 mil. per aircraft.
The and IMO more significant issue, was that the SHornet stopgap order has taken ~5 years for the aircraft to start entering Oz. And that is with the USN having given up some of their order slots to allow the RAAF to 'jump' ahead in the production schedule. If the USN was willing to give up additional slots in the production schedule to another Oz order, it would likely take and additional 5 years or so for the RAAF to start having aircraft enter into service. By my count, that is also about when some of the LRIP F-35A's that the RAAF has ordered should be reaching IOC as well...
Given the additional advanced capabilities of SHornet Block II/III aircraft, it would make sense to me at least, if any future/additional SHornet orders were placed for the two-seater -F model SHornets. Especially if any additional aircraft were also wired/loomed for conversion to -G model Growlers.
-Cheers
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Probably straight from Boeing as DoD officials have requested pricing info IF Australia had to go down this path.
I doubt we will but who knows. If we did, it would have some larger issues than immediately thought.
Super Hornet was originally chosen as a gap filler. It isn't meant to take on the burden of our primary combat aircraft.
Because of this there is no official or dedicated Operational Conversion Unit. I know 6 Squadron is basically filling this role, but it doesn't seem like a permanent arrangement to me. 2OCU is still planned to become the JSF training unit. Will it have to adapt to become a Super Hornet training unit too?
Secondly, why 18x aircraft? We are usually pretty consistent with purchases of 24x aircraft. Is this number only meant to round out 1 Sqn's holdings (presumably as the infrastructure for Super Hornet is only based at Amberley) or is it to replace a legacy Hornet squadron, who will then have to move to Amberley or RAAF will have to invest further to setup additional Super Hornet support infrastructure at Williamstown or Tindal?
Will RAAF then run 2x Super Squadrons and 2x Hornet Squadrons with no attrition or maintenance Super Hornets with 2 OCU providing Super Hornet AND Hornet training capability?
Plenty of questions surrounding this and I don't see it as all that likely just yet...
The RAAF doesn’t have an OCU for Super Hornet – at the moment – because this training is being done in the US. 6 Sqn was the OCU for F-111 operations and after Full Operating Capability (FOC) on the Super Hornet will be responsible for operational training on the new aircraft. However the flying time demand for such training will be a lot less than the F-111 – if pilots aren’t trained from scratch. It only takes about a few weeks to convert a pilot from F/A-18A/B to F/A18E/F. The operational conversion course to F-111 or Hornet is about six months long. So the RAAF can send all prospective fighter pilots to 2 OCU and then do the few week course on Super Hornet for those going to 82 Wing (or even all fighter pilots).
As to the use of airframes the typical fighter mix is 12 planes flying and six in different levels of maintenance and reserve. So with 24 Super Hornets the RAAF will expect to have 16 on the flight line and with 42 in total around 28 on the flight line. Which is enough for two squadrons and a training det for pilot and ACO conversion, refresher and FCI training.
So the additional batch of Super Hornets would enable 50% of the combat coded RAAF fighter force to be Supers and the rest, and majority of the training force un-super Hornets. But realistically any number crunching will be entirely based on the airframe life of the Hornets. Which has been the primary driver on the original Super Hornet acquisition. The RAAF needs to have around 60 air and combat worthy strike fighters if it wants to meet its requirements to government and keep its fighter pilot workforce trained and qualified. So when the number of Hornets available starts to drop below 40 then a new plane needs to fill the gap.
As to the use of airframes the typical fighter mix is 12 planes flying and six in different levels of maintenance and reserve. So with 24 Super Hornets the RAAF will expect to have 16 on the flight line and with 42 in total around 28 on the flight line. Which is enough for two squadrons and a training det for pilot and ACO conversion, refresher and FCI training.
So the additional batch of Super Hornets would enable 50% of the combat coded RAAF fighter force to be Supers and the rest, and majority of the training force un-super Hornets. But realistically any number crunching will be entirely based on the airframe life of the Hornets. Which has been the primary driver on the original Super Hornet acquisition. The RAAF needs to have around 60 air and combat worthy strike fighters if it wants to meet its requirements to government and keep its fighter pilot workforce trained and qualified. So when the number of Hornets available starts to drop below 40 then a new plane needs to fill the gap.
winnyfield
New Member
E model has little extra fuel (not much though) in place of the rear seat. I recall that for a while Block 2 upgrades (aesa radar etc) were only available in the F model - may have changed
USN Hornet Shortfall Poised To Triple (2008)
there is elephant in the room issue here wrt to extra super hornets
we got the last batch because the USN allowed us to interrupt their delivery run and essentially take their aircraft. IOW they are behind in their production delivery due to allowing RAAF to break their cycle. (Kudos to the USN)
either the USN allows us to further interrupt their runs, or we tag along and get aircraft when they meet their own needs first (and bearing in mind we have already compromised their delivery cycle)
that also assumes that extra Shornets are even under consideration to the point where negotiations are on the agenda.
a second batch would however probably firm up the likelihood of keeping them as the infrastructure and maint commitments would tip the numbers over into keeping rather than returning
we got the last batch because the USN allowed us to interrupt their delivery run and essentially take their aircraft. IOW they are behind in their production delivery due to allowing RAAF to break their cycle. (Kudos to the USN)
either the USN allows us to further interrupt their runs, or we tag along and get aircraft when they meet their own needs first (and bearing in mind we have already compromised their delivery cycle)
that also assumes that extra Shornets are even under consideration to the point where negotiations are on the agenda.
a second batch would however probably firm up the likelihood of keeping them as the infrastructure and maint commitments would tip the numbers over into keeping rather than returning
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
That is interesting regarding the delay to their delivery schedule, I knew it took place but not any significant impact certainly shows the flexibility in the phrase
"There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this pro- posed sale."
What would have to happen for Boeing to boost their production rate, an additional order from the USN? Brazil, India, Australia etc?
I don't understand the recent fuss really, people would have to be naive to think the ADF didn't have contingency plans in place, I'm sure the conversation has taken place somewhere. Not until a FMS notification comes would I really sit forward or. Not that I'm opposed mind you.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #2,388
A rough guestimate on my part, but it appears the Boeing facility in Missouri can produce ~4 SHornets per month. That figure might be a bit fungable depending on what additional plant space/infrastructure is available, as well as whether or not the current workcycle is a single shift, or if the workcycle is multi-shift 24 hours...
I do not expect anything sort of a massive government order (i.e. wartime order) and/or a lucrative defence contract requiring deliveries by certain times with bonuses/penalties. From memory, the US ordered an additional ~124 SHornets in late 2009 or early 2010. That order was tacked onto the end of the existing delivery schedule for the SHornet programme.
That suggests to me that current US interest is more to just maintain the line long term, and that Boeing is not currently interested in ramping up production.
-Cheers
they're batched within the run
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
That additional order served several purposes. It filled slots for earlier model Hornets that were retired and not yet replaced by JSF due to the delays in that project, the talked about USN 'fighter gap' and it kept Boeing with a functional fighter production capability and sustained the only real competition to the JSF program, domestically with USA...
I wonder if we did need 18 SH how long it would take assuming we couldn't get the USN spots?
I wonder how shagged our regular hornet airframes are. If wide spread cracking started to appear today, would this be something we would concider?
I wonder how shagged our regular hornet airframes are. If wide spread cracking started to appear today, would this be something we would concider?
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
A minimum of 12 months just to negotiate the deal and have it approved by the NSC I'd suggest...
Gentlemen, I'd just like to thank you for your posts. It makes for captivating reading. I was up to 3.30am. In the bad books and its all your fault!
Just a few of questions.
Firstly with regard to the Super Hornet, have the Aussie fighter pilots given them a nickname yet? The F111 was known as the Aardvark in US and Pig in OZ because they had so much grunt. The Americans call the Super Hornet Rhino. Are there any outstanding features that could influence an Aussie nickname? The Wing Commander on the television said they were a welcome arrival into the force with regard to the leap in technology and performance. Against all the rhetoric said about them prior to acceptances, I think they are deceptively lethal. The nickname I'd give them is Dasy short for Dasyatis Thetidis, the Southern Black Stingray. In Australia we know very well how deceptively lethal these can be! I would change the end of the lightning bolt icon on the tail fins into a Stingray barb. Food for thought. Might catch on?
Secondly with regard to Super Hornet being the bomb truck. Would they be used for deep strike (stand off weapons) at all? If so, does the Super Hornet have ground hugging radar evasion ability as did the Pig, or will it be for defensive and maritime strike only?
Found an interesting report (a good read) regarding F/A-18 Single seat survivability. According to this the Dual Seat has much greater survivability. This would reinforce that if a second squadron was procured filling the gap from further delays re F-35, the Dual seat version would definitely be more practical!
Finally from left field, regarding a level 2 surveillance platform, would the MALE UAV
BAE Mantis be a candidate. Would give a wide range of capability, surveillance, strike and also autonomous. IOC should be achieved in 2015. BAE Australia would certainly rub their hands together I'm sure. Possible?
Few questions from a novice.
Thanks in advance.
Just a few of questions.
Firstly with regard to the Super Hornet, have the Aussie fighter pilots given them a nickname yet? The F111 was known as the Aardvark in US and Pig in OZ because they had so much grunt. The Americans call the Super Hornet Rhino. Are there any outstanding features that could influence an Aussie nickname? The Wing Commander on the television said they were a welcome arrival into the force with regard to the leap in technology and performance. Against all the rhetoric said about them prior to acceptances, I think they are deceptively lethal. The nickname I'd give them is Dasy short for Dasyatis Thetidis, the Southern Black Stingray. In Australia we know very well how deceptively lethal these can be! I would change the end of the lightning bolt icon on the tail fins into a Stingray barb. Food for thought. Might catch on?
Secondly with regard to Super Hornet being the bomb truck. Would they be used for deep strike (stand off weapons) at all? If so, does the Super Hornet have ground hugging radar evasion ability as did the Pig, or will it be for defensive and maritime strike only?
Found an interesting report (a good read) regarding F/A-18 Single seat survivability. According to this the Dual Seat has much greater survivability. This would reinforce that if a second squadron was procured filling the gap from further delays re F-35, the Dual seat version would definitely be more practical!
Finally from left field, regarding a level 2 surveillance platform, would the MALE UAV
BAE Mantis be a candidate. Would give a wide range of capability, surveillance, strike and also autonomous. IOC should be achieved in 2015. BAE Australia would certainly rub their hands together I'm sure. Possible?
Few questions from a novice.
Thanks in advance.
Report regarding Single seat FA-18 survivability.
Single-Seat Fighters: A Question Of Survivability
Enjoy.
Single-Seat Fighters: A Question Of Survivability
Enjoy.
although that could be bought forward if there was an emergency, they'd just have to bounce another project.
it would be a brand new NSC as well... factor in the new head of CDG and you can get a quizzical tilt to your head....
Not exactly, it was an homage to Aardvark and based in the fact that it was able to muck around down in the weeds due to its fitout
ie pigs root around in the weeds...
Last edited:
IIRC it was in RAAF News a while back for the farewell spread....
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I know what you mean. Here it is 0052hrs and I haven't even got the tap on the shoulder yet (ie: the better half telling me it's time to give it a rest)...
The 1 Sqn blokes at Avalon were calling them Rhinos. It seems so far that name has been adopted (similar to Aardvark being adopted from USAF as well).
Definitely lethal. Look at every modern combat aircraft today and name a capability the Super Hornet doesn't have?
It's got just about the best sensor and missile combo going around for air to air combat (APG-79 AESA radar, JHMCS, C7 AMRAAM and AIM-9X Sidewinder) and an even newer new air to air weapon system in a few years.
It's got excellent maritime strike capability with Harpoon Block II, AGM-154 JSOW C1 and a brand new weapon in a few years.
It's got excellent precision attack capability with Paveway and JDAM precision weapons and the Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) in a few years.
It has an excellent standoff weapons capability wth AGM-154C/C1 JSOW and SDBin a few years.
It has an excellent targetting capability with it's radar, ATFLIR targetting pod, advanced Electronic Warfare system and JHMCS.
It features the most extensive use of Low Observable (LO ie: stealthy) materials and design aspects of any in-servce aircraft not specifically designed as an LO platform.
In short it has world class capabilities in virtually every aspect of air combat. A much under-rated platform...
Not much I shouldn't think. Modern thinking is to attack from medium to high altitudes to avoid ground fire ("trash fire"). The problem with low level penetration aided by terrain following radar is a) the huge radar signature that the radar provides to defending forces (ie: it's easily tracked) and b) the effect on the range of the aircraft (thicker air at low levels requires increased fuel burn to overcome drag).
Instead of sending lone aircraft out at low level to pick off enemy targets, modern airforces (or Joint forces really) employ standoff missiles (launched from a variety of platforms - aircraft, ships, submarines etc) Low Observable aircraft (if they have them) Electronic Warfare (both offensive - attack and defensive - jamming), special forces and an abundance of precision guided munitions to enable their missions.
Given the reality of modern warfare, it isn't hard to see why forces want Low Observable aircraft, standoff weapons, precision munitions and increasingly strong electronic warfare capabilities within their forces and why such capabilities take precedence in modern force structures over older more kinetic and "performance orientated" platforms...
A Super Hornet also gives up a bt of range and adds weight to have a second seater. Note sure that the entire force is worth it, certainly the USN doesn't see it as necessary, with E models out-numbering F models, IIRC.
Anyways, I'm not convinced we WILL be buying more Super Hornets. There has been nothing official from government or ADF about it and I still don't count chickens before they hatch with defence, despite a reasonaby good last decade (as far as purchase of new kit goes)...
Welcome to the forums anyway.
Regards,
AD
Last edited by a moderator: