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

[Tasman]

I am not saying its the right or wrong. All I am saying if their was no additional risk why not squeeze the juice out of the soon to be replaced aircraft and minimise the impact of the new equipment

I am personally thankful (as I am sure that the crews are) that the RAAF is deploying its most capable combat aircraft rather than worrying about preserving them as shiny new toys for airshows at home. I don't like the idea that the legacy Hornets (and by inference their pilots) might be considered as éxpendable and therefore a better option.

Tas

 

[StingrayOZ]

I would think other allies are quite keen to see how we operate with them, as well as a government keen to justify their purchase (and additional?). Many airforces are shrinking, so I wonder if any are looking to move.

Wouldn't we be racking up the hours on them anyway with training and what not. They might as well go and do something worthwhile. I would feel far worse that we have purchased all this capability, and then can't back our belief and actions and help our allies.

I would imagine it would be pretty bad form to say your going to help out, then send the oldest, clapped out hornets we have, which then promptly break down and fail or can only fly a few missions and then need to be replaced or significantly overhauled and put a huge strain on the logistics for everyone else. I recall there are some countries that do this.

I don't think we have to baby the SH either, given the F-35 coming on line I would imagine we are going to try to use them frequently. If ~2030 comes around and we have a bunch of low hour SH it not really saving anything.

 

[ADMk2]

So the legacy Hornets are that fragile that the only time we use them is break glass and push button and or only training aids now

Of course they won't replace a legacy hornet but we do have a fleet of 70 odd compared to the Super Hornets of 24, we have the next generation planes on order if their is no additional risk to the crew and they can operate in the area safely losing a legacy hornet whilst problematic is not the end of the world compared to the new aircraft with no guarantee of replacement

No they aren't but as Abe said, they are required to be operational until their retirement, there is no need to rack up the hours in them unnecessarily and put that planned retirement date at risk, when we have better options available and the threat doesn't dictate large scale deployment of fighters. We have only sent 8 fighters and they are only using 6 operationally afterall.

It's not as if this deployment is at all beyond the Shornet force...

 

[ADMk2]

I am not saying its the right or wrong. All I am saying if their was no additional risk why not squeeze the juice out of the soon to be replaced aircraft and minimise the impact of the new equipment

Squeezing the juice out of them, is exactly what we're doing with the Super Hornets. Like it or not, they (and the Growlers eventually alongside them) will get the bulk of the operations, overseas deployments and training opportunities until the F-35 becomes operational.

The legacy Hornet fleet has been carefully managed for many years now. No-one is saying this deployment isn't important, quite the contrary, we're sending our most capable strike fighter to it, but it doesn't (as yet) require a deployment of fighters so large that we would have to consider deploying Hornets as well.

 

[t68]

Squeezing the juice out of them, is exactly what we're doing with the Super Hornets. Like it or not, they (and the Growlers eventually alongside them) will get the bulk of the operations, overseas deployments and training opportunities until the F-35 becomes operational.

The legacy Hornet fleet has been carefully managed for many years now. No-one is saying this deployment isn't important, quite the contrary, we're sending our most capable strike fighter to it, but it doesn't (as yet) require a deployment of fighters so large that we would have to consider deploying Hornets as well.

So what are you’re really saying? Due to circumstances beyond RAAF control our classic Hornet fleet are not deployable and needed to be replaced a long time ago because of need to be managed to the degree you are stipulating. Would the RAAF be in a position to send any fast jet aircraft if we had not replaced F111 with Super hornet?

USMC F/A-18C seem to be doing just fine

 

[ADMk2]

So what are you’re really saying? Due to circumstances beyond RAAF control our classic Hornet fleet are not deployable and needed to be replaced a long time ago because of need to be managed to the degree you are stipulating. Would the RAAF be in a position to send any fast jet aircraft if we had not replaced F111 with Super hornet?

USMC F/A-18C seem to be doing just fine

That is not what I or anyone else has said, though you seem to want it to be the case for some reason.

Any ageing fleet needs to be managed through to it's life of type. That is not a difficult concept to grasp, surely?

The fact is that Hornets have what I believe is described as a fatigue life expiry index figure or similar. Their effective life ends when they reach this figure and the entire fleet is very close to reaching this figure. Their effective life (as a fleet, rather than individual airframes) is now being measured in years, rather than decades as is the case with Super Hornet.

Deploying Hornets to Iraq to do a job that the Super Hornet can do better, achieves nothing more than using up that remaining fatigue life at a far faster rate than planned which WILL result in RAAF having to spend far more cash than planned to extend their lives (as Canada seems to be intent on doing) or forgoe airframes and reduce the overall Hornet capability much quicker.

Do we NEED to do either of those things? No. We have a more capable asset available and deploying it won't have the overall impact on RAAF that deploying Hornet now would.

If a significant enough operational requirement dictated it, the Hornets of course would be deployed.

The USMC F/A-18C/D aircraft are between 5-10 years younger than RAAF's F/A-18A/B fleet AND they ARE being replaced from 2015, whereas our Hornets are to start to be phased out from 2018, ie: nice way to reinforce the point I'm making, so why you pretended not to understand it in the first place is beyond me.

Consider it this way if you're still having trouble understanding this decision.

Army has F-88A2 rifles (Super Hornet) and F-88A1 rifles (Hornet) in-service and both will be replaced by the F-90 (F-35) soon enough.

Under your apparently preferred option you'd see Army take F-88A1 overseas instead of F-88A2, the newer more capable design, for some baffling reason...

 

[t68]

Not having trouble understanding the decision, as I said before I am not saying it’s right or wrong just seeing it from a different perspective at the end of the day it’s a moot point anyway the RAAF and government has decided that they will deploy F’s.

 

[RobWilliams]

USMC F/A-18C seem to be doing just fine

That's the thing, it's a case of the F/A-18C being 'fine' and the F/A-18F being 'better'.

Considering the reasons why the USN wanted the F/A-18F squadron on CVN-77 to do the initial strikes (another person making sense of what's on the ground can only be good if there's nobody on the ground to guide you in) then factor in that IS is going even more underground after losing their armoured vehicles and artillery that RIO is going to become more and more important as IS fighters get harder and harder to distinguish from Iraqi civilians.

May as well deploy the better platform for the job otherwise to get the same effect from an aircraft which isn't as well suited you'd need to scale up the effort to get the same effect.

 

[ADMk2]

Not having trouble understanding the decision, as I said before I am not saying it’s right or wrong just seeing it from a different perspective at the end of the day it’s a moot point anyway the RAAF and government has decided that they will deploy F’s.

Of course the F's are over there and they are hardly going to 'swap' them out now, but the point is still valid.

Why would you want to run airframes into the ground, that we need to keep 3, 75 and 77 Sqn's operational until F-35A arrives, when you don't have to, because you have a newer, better and more survivable asset to send it their place? Shortnets you may have noticed are deployed in the Squadrons we have that historically are our primary strike squadrons, and this asset was bought specifically for that role?

RAAF's sole operational purpose isn't sending a taskforce overseas. The RAAF fighter capability is our primary (and indeed very arguably ONLY real) air defence capability for our Country. That is and always has been the Hornet's primary role, strike is a secondary role for them.

 

[t68]

Of course the F's are over there and they are hardly going to 'swap' them out now, but the point is still valid.

Why would you want to run airframes into the ground, that we need to keep 3, 75 and 77 Sqn's operational until F-35A arrives, when you don't have to, because you have a newer, better and more survivable asset to send it their place? Shortnets you may have noticed are deployed in the Squadrons we have that historically are our primary strike squadrons, and this asset was bought specifically for that role?

RAAF's sole operational purpose isn't sending a taskforce overseas. The RAAF fighter capability is our primary (and indeed very arguably ONLY real) air defence capability for our Country. That is and always has been the Hornet's primary role, strike is a secondary role for them.

Don’t know why you think I want to swap them out now they are in theater is beyond me and have suggested no such thing, all this line of thought came about because someone wanted to know why they sent Super Hornet instead of classic you have your view and I have mine.

I have said it before and ill say it again, If there is no additional risk to the crew then using an aircraft which will be replaced(if lost or damaged beyond economic repair) and if operational demands permit than why risk the newer platform which we have in lesser numbers after all we only sent over 8 out of a possible 70 units of classic. It is highly unlikely that’s IS can threaten the Coalition’s high-value aircraft in the air and RAAF E7A/ upgraded Hornets can share tactical information and would not be at such a huge disadvantage when comparing the difference with F/A-18F to the likely capability of IS.

It just seems to me if we have to wrap the legacy hornets in cotton wool till F35 is here, then we have kept them to long, yes we can keep the airframe in the air till the F35 come along which I concede are arriving later than RAAF would have liked, but if the capability has to be managed to that extent that they become a risk to do they job they were designed to do then it’s a training capability only at the moment.

 

[Bonza]

Repeating your position doesn't do anything for your argument, nor does sticking words into other people's mouths. No one is saying "wrap the legacy Hornets in cotton wool", for god's sake. If you can't tell the difference between that statement and what AD has said, then I don't know what to tell you...

 

[t68]

Repeating your position doesn't do anything for your argument, nor does sticking words into other people's mouths. No one is saying "wrap the legacy Hornets in cotton wool", for god's sake. If you can't tell the difference between that statement and what AD has said, then I don't know what to tell you...

Wrapped up in cotton wool
definition
“To protect someone or something too much without allowing them to be independent enough”

The fact is that Hornets have what I believe is described as a fatigue life expiry index figure or similar. Their effective life ends when they reach this figure and the entire fleet is very close to reaching this figure. Their effective life (as a fleet, rather than individual airframes) is now being measured in years, rather than decades as is the case with Super Hornet.

 

[Bonza]

And? That's a completely subjective statement and you're applying it to an objective topic, that is the service life of the Hornets which is being used appropriately in order to complete the type's service life as the F-35 enters the RAAF. It's hardly "wrapping them in cotton wool". How does "without allowing them to be independent enough" even apply to a military-managed aircraft inventory?

 

[Raven22]

Why do I get the feeling that if we sent the legacy Hornets and not the Super Hornets, you'd be asking the question why we didn't send the Super Hornets.

Following this thread is like having a conversion with my three year old cousin. He disagrees with everything you say to him as well.

 

[t68]

I think its time to agree to disagree, my thoughts on the matter differ from those on here. doesn't mean I'm a three year old

 

[Volkodav]

I think its time to agree to disagree, my thoughts on the matter differ from those on here. doesn't mean I'm a three year old

Basically the F-18F equip our primary strike force and this is a strike mission, it makes sense that these aircraft and their crews were sent to do the job they exist to do. I can not see what the issue is, you use the best tool available for the job at hand.

 

[meatshield]

Basically the F-18F equip our primary strike force and this is a strike mission, it makes sense that these aircraft and their crews were sent to do the job they exist to do. I can not see what the issue is, you use the best tool available for the job at hand.

Bad Eggs meet the sledgehammers!:smash

 

[t68]

Basically the F-18F equip our primary strike force and this is a strike mission, it makes sense that these aircraft and their crews were sent to do the job they exist to do. I can not see what the issue is, you use the best tool available for the job at hand.

I’d have my doubts that they would even send them on HAVCAP: "High Asset Value Combat Air Patrol", with supers in the fleet

 

[ADMk2]

Wrapped up in cotton wool
definition
“To protect someone or something too much without allowing them to be independent enough”

And this doesn't apply in the slightest to this situation. The Supers were bought partly to relieve the strain on the Hornets which have, do and will remain our primary air combat force. To allow them to reach their effectve life of type, without risking the capability failing on us.

Yet you want to deliberately run these aircraft into the ground and use up all remaining fatigue life on them? Yeah tremendous idea... Let's just pray 3,75 and 77 Sqn won't need the airframes anywhere else until F-35 arrives, because their remaining life has been used up instead of using a more suitable asset t do the same (only better) job?

Tremendous planning there old boy! A truly masterful way of managing risk...

 

[t68]

And this doesn't apply in the slightest to this situation. The Supers were bought partly to relieve the strain on the Hornets which have, do and will remain our primary air combat force. To allow them to reach their effectve life of type, without risking the capability failing on us.

Yet you want to deliberately run these aircraft into the ground and use up all remaining fatigue life on them? Yeah tremendous idea... Let's just pray 3,75 and 77 Sqn won't need the airframes anywhere else until F-35 arrives, because their remaining life has been used up instead of using a more suitable asset t do the same (only better) job?

Tremendous planning there old boy! A truly masterful way of managing risk...

Whilst it is unfortunate that the F35A is delayed, classic Hornets were originally slated to begin being phased out in 2014 to coincide with the Initial Operational Capability of the first F-35 squadron, as you put it to manage these setbacks the classic fleet we now have to have operational restrictions until the arrival of the F-35s which in amounts to a capability gap. At the same time to keep all remaining classic Hornets in the air we need to manage airframe structural refurbishments and increase periodic Deeper Maintenance out past 2020 five plus years more than anticipated which increasly puts a strain on budgets which could have an effect on the amount of F35 the government is willing to order in the future. With the E/A-18G on the way Super Hornet I am expecting will become part of our long term Air Combat Capability past the original phase out date of 2025 when an all F35A fleet was expected.

The way I see it if we have to take a capability gap in the short term till F35A arrive by using selected classic Hornet on operational duties and then not put those aircraft airframe structural refurbishments and then could be parted out for parts may prolong the service life of the remaining classic and Super Hornets fleet down the track is a prudent move, and which could also relive budgetary pressure the government may be feeling, the government as yet has explicitly said that we will get all the F35 RAAF is hoping.