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

[hauritz]

The superhornets are sounding less and less like interim replacements.

This does raise a few issues in my mind.

First of all will there be a growler version of the F-35 at some point and if so will this be an upgraded version of the F-35C?

If this is the case and Australia does want to keep a growler squadron, but also wants to move to and all F-35 force, then does this mean we will have to get the F-35C as well as the F-35A ... presuming that a growler version of the F-35 ever comes to fruition.

Alternatively does this mean that the RAAF will hang on to the dozen or so converted superhornets and trade in the remaining super hornets on additional F-35s?

The final option is that the RAAF will keep all of its superhornets ... including any additional buys ... and buy a reduced number of F-35s.

It seems to me that there are a lot of issues regarding the future of the superhornets and F-35s that need to be sorted before launching into a superhornet upgrade.

 

[the road runner]

The superhornets are sounding less and less like interim replacements.

Super Hornets were bought to replace 1 and 6 Squadrons ,F-111, that were getting very expensive to keep in the air.

First of all will there be a growler version of the F-35 at some point and if so will this be an upgraded version of the F-35C?

Why wait 10-20 years to get a Growler capability for the RAAF? The one thing that people forget is that making a jump from a F-18 classic hornets to JSF would be a massive step.With F-18 Super hornets we get a 5 generation capability(in avionics and radar) The RAAF can take baby steps from F-18 classics to F-18 Super to JSF.Also note our Hawk trainers are very Hornet friendly,in that the Hawk cockpit resembles a Hornet cockpit.

Alternatively does this mean that the RAAF will hang on to the dozen or so converted superhornets and trade in the remaining super hornets on additional F-35s?

Hopefully we keep all the F-18 Super's,for spare parts for Growlers(or a Lead in fighter) or even sell to our cousins across the ditch.Time will tell

 

[ADMk2]

The superhornets are sounding less and less like interim replacements.

This does raise a few issues in my mind.

First of all will there be a growler version of the F-35 at some point and if so will this be an upgraded version of the F-35C?

If this is the case and Australia does want to keep a growler squadron, but also wants to move to and all F-35 force, then does this mean we will have to get the F-35C as well as the F-35A ... presuming that a growler version of the F-35 ever comes to fruition.

Alternatively does this mean that the RAAF will hang on to the dozen or so converted superhornets and trade in the remaining super hornets on additional F-35s?

The final option is that the RAAF will keep all of its superhornets ... including any additional buys ... and buy a reduced number of F-35s.

It seems to me that there are a lot of issues regarding the future of the superhornets and F-35s that need to be sorted before launching into a superhornet upgrade.

That's probably why there is a new White Paper and Defence Capability Plan process underway at present...

If the full 12x Growler capability is chosen and additional Super Hornets are acquired, I think it reasonable to assume despite RAAF and ADF's likely objection that Super Hornet and Growler will become a more permanent part of the RAAF's order of battle...

Time will tell.

 

[hauritz]

That's probably why there is a new White Paper and Defence Capability Plan process underway at present...

If the full 12x Growler capability is chosen and additional Super Hornets are acquired, I think it reasonable to assume despite RAAF and ADF's likely objection that Super Hornet and Growler will become a more permanent part of the RAAF's order of battle...

Time will tell.

It is interesting that you mention that the RAAF and ADF might object to the superhornet becoming a permanent part of its ORBAT. Presumably they would have been the ones pushing the case for growlers in the first place.

They must have realised at the time that this would have had implications further down the track.

 

[Jezza]

What is the cost difference in the single seater over the double seater.
If there is some debate on additional Super Hornet purchase, The single seaters would be the preference over the double seat Super Hornets.
Just crewing the single seaters would be cheaper down the track.

 

[StevoJH]

What is the cost difference in the single seater over the double seater.
If there is some debate on additional Super Hornet purchase, The single seaters would be the preference over the double seat Super Hornets.
Just crewing the single seaters would be cheaper down the track.

To be honest, given the cost of a single flight hour for one of these things, I doubt the cost of one extra crew member would be a *major* problem.

 

[ADMk2]

It is interesting that you mention that the RAAF and ADF might object to the superhornet becoming a permanent part of its ORBAT. Presumably they would have been the ones pushing the case for growlers in the first place.

They must have realised at the time that this would have had implications further down the track.

You might recall RAAF advised initially after JSF was down-selected that it didn't need an interim aircraft and with Hornet Upgrade Program, FOSOW (AGM-158 JASSM), KC-30A tanker, Wedgetail, networking improvements (HF Mod, WGS, Link 16 etc), Project Vigilaire and the Bomb Improvement Program (JDAM etc) it could cover the strike and air defence roles required of it merely with the 3 Hornet squadrons and the F-111 could be retired without direct replacement.

Government initially agreed with this proposal and F-111 was slated to retire in 2010. RAAF repeatedly argued during this time it didn't need to extend F-111 and didn't need an interim or bridging fighter jet

Around 2006, Government became concerned with JSF delays, increasing levels of fatigue in the Hornet fleet and probably (unofficially) increasing regional capabilities and directed Defence to investigate improving our air combat capabilities until the JSF arrived.

The Super Hornet was the result of that and became the Bridging air combat capability.

Bridging between the Hornet and the JSF. Despite the size of the Super Hornet funding RAAF and the White Paper / DCP confirmed that the JSF was going to remain our sole future air combat capability, with the timing and manner of the disposal of the Super Hornets yet to be decided but to occur in the mid 2020's in accordance with how well JSF was proceeding.

Defence no doubt have pushed the Growler capability, identifying the maintainence of the Super Hornet fleet as a unique opportunity to move into a much more capable and offensive EW arena for the first time.

One point doesn't necessarily follow the other in a linear fashion however. A small sub-flight of Growlers could well be maintained within RAAF whilst JSF remains the "sole" or "main" combat aircraft, in the way that RAAF maintains a variety of sub-unit special mission aircraft and the bulk of the Super Hornet fleet still be disposed of.

I tend to think we'll be seeing the acquisition of more Super Hornets under the current regime and these, the existing aircraft and the Growlers may then come at the expense of some of the planned JSF's.

Such is against ADF and RAAF's publicly released advice and planning, but ADF doesn't always get what it wants...

 

[StingrayOZ]

I tend to think we will have a mixed fleet. SH and F-35.

I don't think we will get any more SH. The government on both sides has been spending money convincing everyone the F-35 is the best plane. We are ideologically committed to it. I don't think we will get the 100 or 120 aired previously. More like 75, replacing 1 for 1 the hornets. We keep the SH however so we end up with ~100 top class units. Keeping the hornets we already have will be cheaper than handing them back and getting F-35's.

Plus if we do get growler capability then we get that over and above the F-35. The SH should be easy and straight forward to fly upgrade as long as the USN is flying them. Growler capability also justifies why not just get less planes or more F-35's. The SH is also more multi-role than the F-111 ever were so we get most of the benefit the RAAF was complaining about only having 70 odd hornets, using planes we already have to round out the numbers.

 

[ngatimozart]

I tend to think we will have a mixed fleet. SH and F-35.

I don't think we will get any more SH. The government on both sides has been spending money convincing everyone the F-35 is the best plane. We are ideologically committed to it. I don't think we will get the 100 or 120 aired previously. More like 75, replacing 1 for 1 the hornets. We keep the SH however so we end up with ~100 top class units. Keeping the hornets we already have will be cheaper than handing them back and getting F-35's.

Plus if we do get growler capability then we get that over and above the F-35. The SH should be easy and straight forward to fly upgrade as long as the USN is flying them. Growler capability also justifies why not just get less planes or more F-35's. The SH is also more multi-role than the F-111 ever were so we get most of the benefit the RAAF was complaining about only having 70 odd hornets, using planes we already have to round out the numbers.

I think it would be a wise move for the RAAF to keep the 24 Shornets it has now when the F35 eventually arrives and becomes fully operational. Firstly, is that the RAAF will already have 12 Growlers so that negates the eed to go down the F35 Growler track in the short to medium term anyway. Second, the hoary old adage about having all your eggs in one basket comes to mind, in this case vis a vis F35. Methinks that prudence would dictate a F35 Shornet mix for the medium term anyway. Even if the USN stop flying the Shornet & Growler, Boeing will still be supporting Shornets because they will be trying to sell it to other nations, and with the avionics etc for the Growler that is something that could possibly be negotiated with the USN.

 

[colay]

Even if the USN stop flying the Shornet & Growler, Boeing will still be supporting Shornets because they will be trying to sell it to other nations, and with the avionics etc for the Growler that is something that could possibly be negotiated with the USN.

Unless Boeing secures new sales for the SH, I understand that the production line will shut down by 2016 with the last long lead time items being placed a couple of years before that time. Production will cease long before the last USN SH/Growler ceases flying.

 

[hairyman]

I have been reading that the Super Hornet is not considered adequate in the air to air role, compared with the other current fighters. As it is apparent we will not be getting the F35 for quite some time, and there is a question mark over some of our Hornet fleet, would not a purchase of a squadron or two of an aircraft that is considered better in the air to air role, be sensible. The Gripen N for example is cheap compared with what we will be paying for the F35, although I am not sure if its range is adequate.

 

[ngatimozart]

I have been reading that the Super Hornet is not considered adequate in the air to air role, compared with the other current fighters. As it is apparent we will not be getting the F35 for quite some time, and there is a question mark over some of our Hornet fleet, would not a purchase of a squadron or two of an aircraft that is considered better in the air to air role, be sensible. The Gripen N for example is cheap compared with what we will be paying for the F35, although I am not sure if its range is adequate.

The Aussie Govt is caught between a rock and a hard place. The Shornet is more than likely quite capable for what its role is. The problem is the delays in th F35 program and the US poltical shambles around it. The US DoD does need a rather large budget cut but how this is being handled by US politicians is like a kindy full of 2 year olds who have severe sugar overdosage issues. The way the F35 progam is being managed has apparently caused other problems as well. So the order numbers have been butchered and nations like Canada and Japan are very concerned about costs to them on an indiviual aircraft basis. McDonnel Douglas this week threatened Canada by saying that if it pulled out of the program they would ensure no F35 work went north to Canada.

From the Australian perspective buying a third paltform on a short or even medium term basis until the F35 arrives, would create more problems and wouldn't make fiscal sense, especially in the current economic climate. IMHO the ADF is best placed by staying with the Shornet and if the F35 program becomes far to expensive for Australian pollies, then that is the time to look at other options. It will be the pollies who make the decision in the end and the rest of us have to live with it rightly (rarely) or wrongly (frequently). You in Australia are lucky you aren't lumbered with the bunch of mongrels we've had here over last 20 odd years. At least you still have an Air Combat capability.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I have been reading that the Super Hornet is not considered adequate in the air to air role, compared with the other current fighters. As it is apparent we will not be getting the F35 for quite some time, and there is a question mark over some of our Hornet fleet, would not a purchase of a squadron or two of an aircraft that is considered better in the air to air role, be sensible. The Gripen N for example is cheap compared with what we will be paying for the F35, although I am not sure if its range is adequate.

There are lots of things you can read that are totally wrong. Like that pyramids were built by space aliens, inoculation against disease is harmful, solar power will save the world, etc. That the Super Hornet isn’t adequate for air to air combat can be added to this list. Also that the Gripen N can be a remote competitor to the F-35 is another one.

 

[mybacker46]

The Aussie Govt is caught between a rock and a hard place. The Shornet is more than likely quite capable for what its role is. The problem is the delays in th F35 program and the US poltical shambles around it. The US DoD does need a rather large budget cut but how this is being handled by US politicians is like a kindy full of 2 year olds who have severe sugar overdosage issues. The way the F35 progam is being managed has apparently caused other problems as well. So the order numbers have been butchered and nations like Canada and Japan are very concerned about costs to them on an indiviual aircraft basis. McDonnel Douglas this week threatened Canada by saying that if it pulled out of the program they would ensure no F35 work went north to Canada.

From the Australian perspective buying a third paltform on a short or even medium term basis until the F35 arrives, would create more problems and wouldn't make fiscal sense, especially in the current economic climate. IMHO the ADF is best placed by staying with the Shornet and if the F35 program becomes far to expensive for Australian pollies, then that is the time to look at other options. It will be the pollies who make the decision in the end and the rest of us have to live with it rightly (rarely) or wrongly (frequently). You in Australia are lucky you aren't lumbered with the bunch of mongrels we've had here over last 20 odd years. At least you still have an Air Combat capability.

The criticism thown towards the US government handling of the F35 program is quite harsh and doesn't hold water. It is an normal development process of an new advance weapon system such as this aircraft IMHO. I sincerely don't expect for Lockheed Martin to develop a complex aircraft without any hitch. Politicians are as always playing politics no matter what country they are from. These politicians, I would think, know what is really happening with the program. Everyone knows that the cost per aircraft gets higher when the overall number of aircraft planned for procurement is reduced. Also, I would not think the USA will subsidize the costs of the aircraft so other countries will be able to acquire the F35. I thought it is Lockheed Martin that is producing the aircraft. And what is this "Shornet"?

 

[ADMk2]

The criticism thown towards the US government handling of the F35 program is quite harsh and doesn't hold water. It is an normal development process of an new advance weapon system such as this aircraft IMHO. I sincerely don't expect for Lockheed Martin to develop a complex aircraft without any hitch. Politicians are as always playing politics no matter what country they are from. These politicians, I would think, know what is really happening with the program. Everyone knows that the cost per aircraft gets higher when the overall number of aircraft planned for procurement is reduced. Also, I would not think the USA will subsidize the costs of the aircraft so other countries will be able to acquire the F35. I thought it is Lockheed Martin that is producing the aircraft. And what is this "Shornet"?

Shornet is the abbreviated term for Super Hornet.

 

[Air Force Brat]

The criticism thown towards the US government handling of the F35 program is quite harsh and doesn't hold water. It is an normal development process of an new advance weapon system such as this aircraft IMHO. I sincerely don't expect for Lockheed Martin to develop a complex aircraft without any hitch. Politicians are as always playing politics no matter what country they are from. These politicians, I would think, know what is really happening with the program. Everyone knows that the cost per aircraft gets higher when the overall number of aircraft planned for procurement is reduced. Also, I would not think the USA will subsidize the costs of the aircraft so other countries will be able to acquire the F35. I thought it is Lockheed Martin that is producing the aircraft. And what is this "Shornet"?

Welcome mybacker, the F-35 is a very important airplane in that many of our allies are depending on us to do what we said we would do and that is share some of the production opportunities with them as we provide an aircraft with some outstanding capabilities, in several different roles. We will subsidize some of the acquisition costs for some of our partners, in order to provide them with the aircraft they will need to defend themselves. [We are building the AT-6 in a counterinsurgency version to help Afghanistan.] It is in our strategic interest to allow our partners to field this aircraft, we have a very strong relationship with Australia as we share many of the same concerns and interests, and fielding a common aircraft will help eliminate some forward basing needs for the US and this applys to all of our F-35 partners. Hope that helps put some of this in perspective. Cheers Brat.

 

[ngatimozart]

The criticism thown towards the US government handling of the F35 program is quite harsh and doesn't hold water. It is an normal development process of an new advance weapon system such as this aircraft IMHO. I sincerely don't expect for Lockheed Martin to develop a complex aircraft without any hitch. Politicians are as always playing politics no matter what country they are from. These politicians, I would think, know what is really happening with the program. Everyone knows that the cost per aircraft gets higher when the overall number of aircraft planned for procurement is reduced. Also, I would not think the USA will subsidize the costs of the aircraft so other countries will be able to acquire the F35. I thought it is Lockheed Martin that is producing the aircraft. And what is this "Shornet"?

I actually think the criticism is quite valid because I do follow the US political landscape reasonably closely where it involves military affairs and international security and I would submit that my comments are a fair representation of my interpretation of recent events, albeit using a slightly colourful analogy. I have very little faith in politicians of any ilk and haven't found a decent use for one yet. However I do note that they have a habit of sending the likes of myself and others to wars that they have started and we are the ones who pay with our blood whilst the politician stays at home nice and safe sending more people to be butchered. I note a former US president who dodged the draft and yet went to war over spurious claims and killed God knows how many. I also note a former Prime Minister of my own country who castrated her own Air Force for some political point that had little support within the country. I will finish with this. the greatest threat to world security is not Iranian nukes or Islamic terrorism but it is narrowminded self interested corruptable politicians and politcal systems.

 

[MickB]

I will finish with this. the greatest threat to world security is not Iranian nukes or Islamic terrorism but it is narrowminded self interested corruptable politicians and politcal systems.

I have always suspected that a large part of the reason for invading Iraq, was that certain special interest groups, with great influence over the US government of the time, realised how much money was being made from the war in Afganistan and used false information to expand the war and thus expand their profits.

This in no way should be taken as in any way critical of the men and women serving in these conflicts. Just of the people who sent them there.

I note that as the war in Iraq winds down a profits from military sales begin to decrease, that rhetoric against Iran increases.

 

[jack412]

There are lots of things you can read that are totally wrong. Like that pyramids were built by space aliens, inoculation against disease is harmful, solar power will save the world, etc. That the Super Hornet isn’t adequate for air to air combat can be added to this list. Also that the Gripen N can be a remote competitor to the F-35 is another one.

nar, the gripen is even better than the f-35, and very close to the f-22 so clown club told the joint committee in their submission
scroll to very end chart


http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary...ceannualreport_2010_2011/submissions/sub5.pdf

 

[ngatimozart]

nar, the gripen is even better than the f-35, and very close to the f-22 so clown club told the joint committee in their submission
scroll to very end chart


http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary...ceannualreport_2010_2011/submissions/sub5.pdf

According to the clown club Isn't the Grippen supposed to be able to walk on water, is supplied with it's own Jedi Knights, defeat Death Stars and all that for a very cheap price?