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

[ADMk2]

Not quite 13 years. The first flight of a Super Hornet for the RAAF occurred in July 2009 in the US. The arrival of the first set of RAAF SHornets in Australia proper happened several months later in early 2010. Australia signed the contract ordering the SHornets in 2007, which would be 13 years ago, but the aircraft were not built & completed until about two years later.

Fair enough, getting old...

But the point remains I believe. Gripen of any variant offers us next to nothing we don’t already have, and indeed in reality, much less than we already have...

 

[StobieWan]

The SHornets and Classic Hornets are two very different birds. They look quite similar and have certain parts similarities as well as handling, which eased transition training, but they remain two different aircraft. Some examples of the different is that the SHornet is longer, has a greater wing area and wingspan and has both a greater empty and MTOW weight than a Classic Hornet.

Yeah - the SH was the bird the Navy really wanted in the first place - better fuel fraction, more payload, the list goes on. I think the design brief was "we need this, and this and the other stuff, but it *has* to look just like the Hornet, or someone will catch on that we're buying a new aircraft..."

 

[StobieWan]

Fair enough, getting old...

But the point remains I believe. Gripen of any variant offers us next to nothing we don’t already have, and indeed in reality, much less than we already have...

It also introduces a further type to support, with the spares, logistics and training requirements, which carries it's own penalties in terms of cost that would scrub out any notional savings in buying Gripen. It's a nice looking aircraft but I think it's become the darling of the internet keyboard purchasing wing for all sorts of reasons, most of which aren't particularly correct.

As it is the flyaway cost is within spitting distance of a SH anyway so what are you getting for the commitment ?

 

[John Fedup]

Yeah - the SH was the bird the Navy really wanted in the first place - better fuel fraction, more payload, the list goes on. I think the design brief was "we need this, and this and the other stuff, but it *has* to look just like the Hornet, or someone will catch on that we're buying a new aircraft..."

I vaguely recall the only way the Superhornet happened was as an upgrade to the classic. It was all BS of course as it really was a new design but nobody lost face with this approach. The USN absolutely needed its superior performance. They also needed a SuperTomcat.

 

[hauritz]

Yeah - the SH was the bird the Navy really wanted in the first place - better fuel fraction, more payload, the list goes on. I think the design brief was "we need this, and this and the other stuff, but it *has* to look just like the Hornet, or someone will catch on that we're buying a new aircraft..."

The RAAF might have pulled the same trick. The Superhornet was selected for Australia without competition, or at least none that was made public. I suspect the justification was something along the lines of this being the obvious choice because we already operated the classic hornet and this was just a later version. Canada might have used the same reasoning when it almost bought them.

 

[Todjaeger]

Fair enough, getting old...

But the point remains I believe. Gripen of any variant offers us next to nothing we don’t already have, and indeed in reality, much less than we already have...

I really only pointed it out since the SHornets just recently celebrated a decade of service in the RAAF.

The RAAF might have pulled the same trick. The Superhornet was selected for Australia without competition, or at least none that was made public. I suspect the justification was something along the lines of this being the obvious choice because we already operated the classic hornet and this was just a later version. Canada might have used the same reasoning when it almost bought them.

Personally, I suspect the SHornet selection without competition had more to do with there having been a gov't eval done once it was determined that the F-111 had to go by 2010 with the goal of determining what could provide the RAAF with a replacement strike capability as quickly as possible. I do not know for certain that such an eval was done, but it would be logical to assume that someone in gov't checked to see what aircraft were available for ordering.

The RAAF was able to start getting the SHornet in service, in Australia, about three years after signing the purchase contract. Part of this was the willingness of the USN to let the RAAF 'cut' the production order queue. Another part was due to the similarities between the Classic Hornet and the SHornet, which made it easier for personnel to be transition-trained to the SHornet. I do not know of another fighter aircraft of comparable capability to the SHornet, or appropriate for a strike/swing role, which could have been gotten into RAAF service in Australia within three years from the signing of the contract.

 

[ADMk2]

The RAAF might have pulled the same trick. The Superhornet was selected for Australia without competition, or at least none that was made public. I suspect the justification was something along the lines of this being the obvious choice because we already operated the classic hornet and this was just a later version. Canada might have used the same reasoning when it almost bought them.

At the time I recall Brendan Nelson mentioned that RAAF and Govt compared F-15E and Super Hornet, before the latter was selected. F-15E was significantly more expensive to acquire and support, would have taken longer to deliver (due to a smaller production order run) and (at the time) didn’t offer capabilities RAAF was looking to gain expertise on ahead of JSF, such as AESA radar, LO technology and so forth.

 

[John Fedup]

I really only pointed it out since the SHornets just recently celebrated a decade of service in the RAAF.



Personally, I suspect the SHornet selection without competition had more to do with there having been a gov't eval done once it was determined that the F-111 had to go by 2010 with the goal of determining what could provide the RAAF with a replacement strike capability as quickly as possible. I do not know for certain that such an eval was done, but it would be logical to assume that someone in gov't checked to see what aircraft were available for ordering.

The RAAF was able to start getting the SHornet in service, in Australia, about three years after signing the purchase contract. Part of this was the willingness of the USN to let the RAAF 'cut' the production order queue. Another part was due to the similarities between the Classic Hornet and the SHornet, which made it easier for personnel to be transition-trained to the SHornet. I do not know of another fighter aircraft of comparable capability to the SHornet, or appropriate for a strike/swing role, which could have been gotten into RAAF service in Australia within three years from the signing of the contract.

It would be interesting to know how easy the transition from classic to SH really is, say in comparison to a F-15EX? Boeing is using this as a feature in the RCAF fighter replacement. For the RAAF, the SH selection was right for Australia as per your comments even if the transition advantage was minimal.

 

[Todjaeger]

It would be interesting to know how easy the transition from classic to SH really is, say in comparison to a F-15EX? Boeing is using this as a feature in the RCAF fighter replacement. For the RAAF, the SH selection was right for Australia as per your comments even if the transition advantage was minimal.

Keeping in mind that both the SHornet and F-15 are Boeing products, I would then expect if Boeing suggested ease of transition from a Classic Hornet to Super Hornet as an advantage vs. an F-15, then I would expect there is something to it in terms of being an advantage.

Also consider the published timeline. The first flight of a RAAF SHornet took place 20 July 2009 in St. Louis MO in the US and the first RAAF SHornet detachment arrived at RAAF Base Amberley 25 March 2010 with a RAAF Group Captain commenting that they (RAAF personnel presumably) had been flying them for over 12 months. I take this to mean that RAAF personnel would have been getting trained using other SHornets, since the RAAF ones had been manufactured less than 12 months prior.

Not knowing how long it takes to transition to the F-15 makes it difficult to assess how long it would take personnel already familiar with fighter operations to be transitioned to a new aircraft which is quite different but I would expect it would take 18+ months, give or take.

 

[Bob53]

I mentioned earlier that the only thing that F15 brought over the Shornets was range but missed load. Here Is Our First Look At One Of Boeing's New F-15EX Eagle Fighter Jets For The Air Force

 

[ngatimozart]

Off Topic

I mentioned earlier that the only thing that F15 brought over the Shornets was range but missed load. Here Is Our First Look At One Of Boeing's New F-15EX Eagle Fighter Jets For The Air Force

Yep it basically doubles the number of missile launch rails that the F-15E has. They're mounting four rails per pylon. Plus the F-15E capability to ca carry four Harpoons vs the Shornet's two. So the question would be how many LRASM will the F-15EX be able to carry compared to the Shornet.

 

[seaspear]

If the R.A.A.F was in the market for a cheap bomb truck it might tick a few boxes, with its range and load-bearing perhaps that's another discussion .

 

[swerve]

At the time I recall Brendan Nelson mentioned that RAAF and Govt compared F-15E and Super Hornet, before the latter was selected. F-15E was significantly more expensive to acquire and support, would have taken longer to deliver (due to a smaller production order run) and (at the time) didn’t offer capabilities RAAF was looking to gain expertise on ahead of JSF, such as AESA radar, LO technology and so forth.

Singapore ordered F-15SG with the APG-63(v)3 AESA radar in 2005, 18 months before Australia ordered the F-18E, so that seems unlikely to have been a real reason. The other reasons all seem valid, though.

 

[Bob53]

If the R.A.A.F was in the market for a cheap bomb truck it might tick a few boxes, with its range and load-bearing perhaps that's another discussion .

I am 100% certain it won’t be a cheap option. The numbers being quoted put F15EX on par or north of F35. The saving for the US airforce is in transition and support costs and flight hrs cost.

 

[seaspear]

I am 100% certain it won’t be a cheap option. The numbers being quoted put F15EX on par or north of F35. The saving for the US airforce is in transition and support costs and flight hrs cost.

Compared to a B-2 its cheaper, cheap, of course, is the wrong term, if the R.A.A.F identified a need for the role this type of aircraft may bring perhaps this aircraft may be considered in the future as a mature platform

 

[ngatimozart]

Compared to a B-2 its cheaper, cheap, of course, is the wrong term, if the R.A.A.F identified a need for the role this type of aircraft may bring perhaps this aircraft may be considered in the future as a mature platform

Let's get this straight. There is no way that Australia will acquire the B-2. The US regards the B-2 as a national strategic asset because it's the third leg of their nuclear triad. As such it is not available for export.

 

[Todjaeger]

Let's get this straight. There is no way that Australia will acquire the B-2. The US regards the B-2 as a national strategic asset because it's the third leg of their nuclear triad. As such it is not available for export.

Not to mention it is out of production, and has been for ~20 years, and only 21 were ever built and one was lost in a crash.

Also a B-2 to a strategic bomber with intercontinental range and a 40k+ lb. payload if using conventional ordnance. Those characteristics put it into a completely different class from the F-15EX, or any other combat aircraft in the RAAF inventory. Also AFAIK, the RAAF has never had an intercontinental bomber. The most recent bomber aircraft in RAAF service was the English Electric Canberra which would be considered a medium bomber by some definitions, and was retired in 1982.

 

[ngatimozart]

Not to mention it is out of production, and has been for ~20 years, and only 21 were ever built and one was lost in a crash.

Also a B-2 to a strategic bomber with intercontinental range and a 40k+ lb. payload if using conventional ordnance. Those characteristics put it into a completely different class from the F-15EX, or any other combat aircraft in the RAAF inventory. Also AFAIK, the RAAF has never had an intercontinental bomber. The most recent bomber aircraft in RAAF service was the English Electric Canberra which would be considered a medium bomber by some definitions, and was retired in 1982.

The bombers before the Canberra were the Avro Lincoln preceded by the Consolidated B-24 Liberator.

 

[seaspear]

I mentioned the b2 as that plane had been mentioned previously with the same response I was not suggesting it only comparing its price to the f-15ex, also on bombers what about the F1-11 which at its time of service was the longest range aircraft in Southeast Asia over six thousand kilometres

 

[Redlands18]

Not to mention it is out of production, and has been for ~20 years, and only 21 were ever built and one was lost in a crash.

Also a B-2 to a strategic bomber with intercontinental range and a 40k+ lb. payload if using conventional ordnance. Those characteristics put it into a completely different class from the F-15EX, or any other combat aircraft in the RAAF inventory. Also AFAIK, the RAAF has never had an intercontinental bomber. The most recent bomber aircraft in RAAF service was the English Electric Canberra which would be considered a medium bomber by some definitions, and was retired in 1982.

.
Actually the RAAF has recently operated US Strategic Bombers, the 15 F-111Gs the RAAF operated from 93-07 were ex USAF FB-111s