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

[jack412]

I think that a few more hundred million to squeese some more life out of the hornets would make more sense than $3b on SH, if it's viable.
I know they are spreading the G time ratings across the fleet to average a2a and a2g G loading across the frames and which frames can be used for what, to get them to 2020

Management of Australia
Management of Australia’s Air Combat Capability—F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet Fleet Upgrades and Sustainment

 

[hauritz]

Worst case scenario.

Lets say that there were further delays in the F-35 program and the classic hornets were withdrawn from service before they arrived.

In that situation could we get by for a few years with 48 Superhornets ?

 

[jack412]

The trouble is once we have 48 SH, I think we will have them for more than a few years and it may mean we run them to 2030 odd

 

[Todjaeger]

Worst case scenario.

Lets say that there were further delays in the F-35 program and the classic hornets were withdrawn from service before they arrived.

In that situation could we get by for a few years with 48 Superhornets ?

Again, people seem to miss the point that the USN would need to allow other air forces/air arms to take delivery prior to the USN order being completed. If there is any significant delays in the F-35, the USN would be even less likely or able to afford to have delivery delays in the current USN F/A-18 SHornet order.

The only way that the RAAF would likely get SHornets faster than F-35's, is if the JSF order was either postponed significantly, or if a major delay were to push back JSF deliveries by 5+ years.

-Cheers

 

[Todjaeger]

The trouble is once we have 48 SH, I think we will have them for more than a few years and it may mean we run them to 2030 odd

Most likely past 2030, unless the air threats became so significant they were no longer viable in any capacity. If a 2nd tranche of SHornets were ordered today, delivery would likely come ~2018 to 2020-ish. With a planned service life of ~20 years, the first tranche would start to come up for retirement around 2030, but the 2nd tranche should still be airworthy until 2040 or later.

-Cheers

 

[hauritz]

In today's Australian

AUSTRALIA'S Super Hornet fighter-bombers, including 12 fitted out for the RAAF as "Growler" electronic warfare aircraft, will be a major part of the nation's arsenal for many years and will not merely be a stopgap until the arrival of the promised Joint Strike Fighter.

Defence Minister Stephen Smith said yesterday that, quite apart from bridging a capability gap if the new JSFs were delayed, the government was now looking at the longer-term use of the Super Hornet and the Growler.

Mr Smith said that, putting aside concerns about delays to the JSFs, standard Super Hornets and Growlers used by the US during the campaign in Libya had demonstrated the aircraft's high-edge performance.

"(That) is now seeing people look more generally at the longer-term utility of Super Hornets and Growlers in combination with the Joint Strike Fighter," Mr Smith said.

He said the government had written to the US asking if it would agree to sell Australia 24 more Super Hornets. The RAAF already has 24 of the jets.

Sounds official enough ... looks like the future fighter force for the RAAF will be a mix of F-35s and Superhornets.

 

[ADMk2]

In today's Australian

Sounds official enough ... looks like the future fighter force for the RAAF will be a mix of F-35s and Superhornets.

Sounds fine to me. Given the increasing air combat threat in SEA, I can see a sound rationale being made that RAAF's tactical fighter force needs to be substantially beefed up.

48 Super Hornet / Growlers and 72 F-35A's would certainly achieve that. Such a force would give us roughly 5 fighter squadrons, a short squadron of Growlers plus aircraft for OCU, and development needs.

It would position us well to join any Super Hornet replacement, of whatever designation too.

 

[hauritz]

Sounds fine to me. Given the increasing air combat threat in SEA, I can see a sound rationale being made that RAAF's tactical fighter force needs to be substantially beefed up.

48 Super Hornet / Growlers and 72 F-35A's would certainly achieve that. Such a force would give us roughly 5 fighter squadrons, a short squadron of Growlers plus aircraft for OCU, and development needs.

It would position us well to join any Super Hornet replacement, of whatever designation too.

72 F-35A's might be optimistic ... the money for the extra superhornets will come from somewhere and it is likely to be out of the F-35 funding.

I would say the original plan of around 100 fighters in total could be the best case scenario. The worst case might be a silver bullet buy of 24 F-35s.

 

[ADMk2]

72 F-35A's might be optimistic ... the money for the extra superhornets will come from somewhere and it is likely to be out of the F-35 funding.

I would say the original plan of around 100 fighters in total could be the best case scenario. The worst case might be a silver bullet buy of 24 F-35s.

F-35 was funded for 3 tranches, the first 2 are for 72 fighters and the final tranche of 28.

I'm suggesting the final tranche of F-35's may be traded in now for this purchase of 24 Super Hornets.

The existing Super Hornet fleet was funded separately to the F-35 acquisition, so nothing is really changing, except the possible number of overall fighter numbers for RAAF.

Through-life support costings will obviously be different for a larger fleet, but acquisition costs likely won't be, even with Growler costings added in.

I think you might also be under-estimating the growing chorus (rubbish though it may be) of yappers who think we should go back to "defending the air-sea gap" in which maritime strike and air defence capability will be a force structure priority, should the Government adopt such a course.

 

[south]

Doubt we are going to get more than 100 fighters.

I can't see what Super's offer over jsf's except maybe getting them a 2-3 years earlier best case, like maybe having a squadron up and running and fully operational by 2016 instead of 2018

 

[aussienscale]

Doubt we are going to get more than 100 fighters.

I can't see what Super's offer over jsf's except maybe getting them a 2-3 years earlier best case, like maybe having a squadron up and running and fully operational by 2016 instead of 2018

Agree, I just don't understand this move at all It makes no logical sence to me, so what is the underlying reason for this apart from Defmin being an idiot ?

My bet it comes down to dollars ? the country is broke and they are trying everything they can to cover it in the effort to produce a lie of a surplus ?

 

[hauritz]

Doubt we are going to get more than 100 fighters.

I can't see what Super's offer over jsf's except maybe getting them a 2-3 years earlier best case, like maybe having a squadron up and running and fully operational by 2016 instead of 2018

It isn't an absolute certainty that the extra Superhornets will be bought. So far it is just the government checking on availability and pricing.

I agree that it would be preferable to wait for the F-35 but it won't go into full production until 2019. Australia will then have to compete for spots in the production line. As far as I know we have only committed to 2 aircraft so any talk of when the first squadron could be formed is speculation.

Another problem is whether or not the classic hornets just "lasting" until the 2020s is good enough. Surely they would also have to be able to fight if necessary. I wonder what sortie rate the classic hornets would be able to sustain in an actual war.

 

[south]

It isn't an absolute certainty that the extra Superhornets will be bought. So far it is just the government checking on availability and pricing.

I agree that it would be preferable to wait for the F-35 but it won't go into full production until 2019. Australia will then have to compete for spots in the production line. As far as I know we have only committed to 2 aircraft so any talk of when the first squadron could be formed is speculation.

Another problem is whether or not the classic hornets just "lasting" until the 2020s is good enough. Surely they would also have to be able to fight if necessary. I wonder what sortie rate the classic hornets would be able to sustain in an actual war.

I understand that we haven't bought anything. Just pondering the reasons for the announcement.

 

[ADMk2]

I understand that we haven't bought anything. Just pondering the reasons for the announcement.

1. Because the Boss and Government don't want to shell out on JSF because it "might" be delayed and they "might" look bad and because they think they "might" be able to save cash this way.

2. The Boss and Government want to have an answer ready to the "you're letting Defence go to the dogs and not investing in it" now that we've just about finished all our operations and they've decided to abandon most of the commitments they made only 3 years ago...

3. The Boss and Government want to push JSF back even further and are worried the Hornets might not make it...

 

[hairyman]

I am a bit confused. Were'nt we originally buying the F35 as a strike aircraft, to replace the F111? Now we have bought the Super Hornet as a strike aircraft, actually replacing the recently retired F!!!. Does that mean the F35 is now going to be our fighter, replacing the classic hornets? Either that or they all are going to be strike aircraft, with nothing in the category of fighter.

 

[hairyman]

Alternatively, if the order for Super Hornets only include a few F18-F's, and a squadron of F18-E's to replace the classic hornets. That would make more sense.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Alternatively, if the order for Super Hornets only include a few F18-F's, and a squadron of F18-E's to replace the classic hornets. That would make more sense.

There is a tipping point where the number of aircraft needed means that the acquisition and support model needs closer attention

as soon as that through life model comes under consideration then a whole pile of other things get impacted upon.

eg leasing 48 aircraft is a far more complex and fiscally invasive model than 24 aircraft.

at that point, your aircraft are keepers, your force model changes, your through life model changes. your doctrine is impacted upon, your conops gets modified.....

its a non trivial task

 

[John Newman]

I am a bit confused. Were'nt we originally buying the F35 as a strike aircraft, to replace the F111? Now we have bought the Super Hornet as a strike aircraft, actually replacing the recently retired F!!!. Does that mean the F35 is now going to be our fighter, replacing the classic hornets? Either that or they all are going to be strike aircraft, with nothing in the category of fighter.

Hairyman,

Originally the plan was to obtain 100 F35A's to replace both the Classic Hornets and the F111's, therefore having a single type of aircraft.

The F35 is to replace the roles of both the Classics and F111, it is a mulit-role aircraft, not just strike. (Do a bit of research on Wiki and have a read).

The F111's were planned to operate till 2020, the Classic's were going to be replaced first.

The previous Howard Government then decided to retire the F111's early, eg in 2010.

The Super Hornets were purchased to avoid having a "gap" in capability, and planned to be operated for a period of approx 10 years, then somewhere in the 2020's they would be replaced with a final Sqn of F35A's.

Since then we've had the various issues for the delay into service of the F35's, technical, political, etc.

The DCP, currently, has the Government committing to purchase 72 F35A's, eg to replace the 71 Classic Hornets.

14 were supposed to be the first approved, of which only 2 are actually starting production, the following 12 were/are to have had a decision made next year, and the balance, 58 after that.

Then some where a bit later down the track a final decision to order another 28 to replace the SHornets, eg, getting to the total of 100 as originally planned.

But now its all up in the air!!

 

[hauritz]

Anyway you look at it ... it will be a cockup.

That decade of planning for a single aircraft type and more efficient force structure right down the drain.

Probably the best option would be to stick with F model hornets and use them in the strike role rather than a mix of F-18E/F-18F/F18G and F-35A aircraft with all the different training and maintenance regimes that this mix of aircraft would require.

 

[hauritz]

I will probably be shot down in flames for suggesting this ... but would we be better off with an all Superhornet fleet?

What if we were to buy 48 extra super hornets instead of the 24 currently being planned and run with a stripped back fighter capability of 72 superhornets until the early 2030s. The SH should still be competitive in this region until that time.

We could then start buying the F-35s from the early 2030s .

There would be no money spent on a midlife upgrade for the SHs because they will be retired after 20 years, the F-35 will be fully debugged and be at the cheapest point in its production cycle, and the RAAF will have a single airframe in service rather than a mix of SH and F-35s.