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

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Even taking a Ukrainian Mig29/Su27 driver, the Opcon would still likely be 4-6 months, given they’ve never flown a western jet before, with western weapons etc. that’s before anyone considers how long the airframes would take to make airworthy.

Of course you could probably do it faster. Methods to do this might include: lack of consolidation in the conversion syllabus, excluding parts of the syllabus, or operating at a higher rate of effort. All of those have drawbacks in some way shape or form, which ultimately would result in a reduced output standard. That decision is likely for the Ukrainians to balance.

Re training options, Australia doesn’t really have a dog in the fight. I guess you could argue there is potential to regenerating the FA-18 skill set, but at what cost to current RAAF operations. Give the jets away sure, but let someone else provide the training.
If NATO can convert them to F-16s quickly then the F-18s are no different. You are dealing with combat experienced and capable pilots who will pick up the trainings quickly. You don't have to teach them tactics etc., just how to fly the aircraft and the ground crews how to maintain them. I would suspect that conversion courses are down to about 8 weeks. You are training a war time air force, not a peacetime one.

I stand corrected:
In this video Brig Gen John Teichert USAF (ret) states that in the USAF F-16 simulator the Ukrainian pilots were going fully combat capable in less than four months.

 
Last edited:

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
If NATO can convert them to F-16s quickly then the F-18s are no different. You are dealing with combat experienced and capable pilots who will pick up the trainings quickly. You don't have to teach them tactics etc., just how to fly the aircraft and the ground crews how to maintain them. I would suspect that conversion courses are down to about 8 weeks. You are training a war time air force, not a peacetime one.
For active personnel definitely shorter conversion times. When all said and done all you are doing is teaching a bloke taught how to handle a Holden how to handle a Ford (over simplification but generally that is what it is), but likely longer times for personnel out of the service so knowledge, muscle memory etc can all be refreshed.

I also dont think its a matter that Ukraine will need to find a new pilot and crew for each aircraft they receive. I see it being a case they will make use for the excess of pilots they have how ever many they might be then start to switch some of the Su-27/Mig-29 pilots across freeing up some of those birds as a source of parts to keep the rest of the fleet flying.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Aussie F/A-18 Hornets are in 'preservation storage' with Boeing Defence Australia paid to keep them in some sort of sellable condition. Same thing is happening with the ex RAN MRH90s. It is costing Australia money to keep the Hornets, might be smart to sell them to Ukraine in this crowd funding scheme being talked about.
Its the buying thing that is different.
If the US blocks sales of its fighters to Ukraine, Russia wins, because they will be forced to buy non-American and that is a small pool, and increases the value of Russian (and French/etc gear which is still heavily reliant on US tech) as its proven to be less likely to be sanctioned and there is more demand for it.

There is a more at play than Ukraine here. India has some big procurements, as do other non-aligned nations. US slapping restrictions on gear so that even if its a good idea and everyone agrees, it can't happen, is bad. Bad for US sales.

The RAAF needs these planes gone. They need to be disposed of, now.

For active personnel definitely shorter conversion times. When all said and done all you are doing is teaching a bloke taught how to handle a Holden how to handle a Ford (over simplification but generally that is what it is), but likely longer times for personnel out of the service so knowledge, muscle memory etc can all be refreshed
Rating for aircraft, isn't like a car, its a whole different thing. Its like comparing a motorbike licence and a 125cc and a b double articulated trucks with 21 gears. They move on roads, but that is about it. Everything else is different.

However, late mig to 1990s NATO aircraft isn't that hard. People exist who fly both aircraft and can maintain both aircraft. In multiple countries. The bigger issues are things like Ukrainian pilots and aircraft engineers that speak perfect English, and people who have the knowledge who speak Ukrainian/Russian. Not huge in Spain/Australia. But can be found in Finland, Germany. But loyalty and clearance are going to be issues perhaps.

The other issue is the F-16 Mafia. Those that think the F-16 is the only aircraft that can possibly do the job and that the F-18 is not good enough. I don't believe that is the case. The other issue is will Ukraine be able to have a unified fleet. They seem un-interested in a hodgepodge fleet like they got with tanks, with M1, Leopard, Challenger, various Russian gear, all in a mixed force logistics nightmare. Ukraine want at least 100 aircraft. A single sell of 36 is a big step toward that. But is it enough for useful capability from the get go?

But there are other issues, what weapons, and from whom, for how long, how to coordinate efforts.

This internet/cybersecurity fellow, also is curious. Deals aren't run through single people.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
I imagine it is possible to upgrade further, but most F-18 users are dumping them, meaning there probably isn't a long term future in them, unlike the F-16 there is open production line selling new ones. Unlike F-16 which will probably fly for a while the F-18 probably won't get anymore funded upgrades etc. They can always do their own thing, I don't imagine the F-18 software is hard to crack by modern standards, and its a versatile aircraft. I think the US wouldn't be particularly worried about F-18 secrets. The F-16 is still sold commercially.

I can understand Ukraine wanting F-16's, and if they want to hold onto them long term, that is the aircraft to get. But most of the fleet will be shedding in small numbers, and not until the 2030s.

Does Ukraine have the ability to wait 7-10 years for fighters?
Is the F-18 that terrible that it can't be used in 2023?

I think Ukraine needs to be less picky about fighters if they want western fighters they can afford. Post war, I think F-16 and F-18 fighters are dead end. At least with the Hornets, the engines are used on grippens and KA-50 golden eagles.

They could have a mixed fleet of aircraft with the same engines fairly easily. KA-50 could be light aircraft and the F-18 heavier.
 

seaspear

Well-Known Member
I think their mixed fleet might include F/A-18 and F-16 possibly before end of year ,I'm not sure though of the current condition of the F/A-18s in storage and flyaway time
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
In the short term Ukraine will likely be happy with anything it can get so long as it is capable of performing the task and is available in sufficient numbers, With Australia allegedly having up to 36 flight worthy F/A-18's available then there is potential for at least 2 squadrons, Ideally it would involve raising a new squadron out of spare pilots (assuming Ukrainian statements about excess pilots is accurate and still current) and converting an Su-27 or Mig-29 squadrons across to the F/A-18's freeing up birds there to cover attrition and provide a boost to the parts pool. Means more birds in the air and those that are in the air having whats needed to keep them up.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
If the storage originally of the classic Hornets were with the destruction of such aircraft then the radars and other valuable parts removed? if not it should be possible to upgrade the radars further
New Radars Are Giving Old Air Force F-16s Capabilities Like Never Before (thedrive.com)
It might be possible to upgrade HUG Bug radars, but I would question whether or not it would be worth the time and costs involved. I suspect that the answer would be, "no."

Firstly, there are the questions involving how much airframe life is remaining, as well as what the situation is or would be in terms of parts and spares availability. At this point, the newest ex-RAAF F/A-18 A/B Hornet would be 33 years old and would certainly have accumulated some time. I certainly do not think it would be enough to make an aircraft unsafe to operate (otherwise why consider selling them & why would others consider purchasing them?) but if there are high flight hours accumulated, it would certainly make sense to question spending R&D monies to develop a new version of radar to the fit as an upgrade.

I can understand doing so for F-16's, as there are likely quite a few earlier block F-16's that have few flight hours accumulated that have been sitting, effectively mothballed out at AMARC. Having older aircraft with little airframe fatigue upgraded, particularly if there are quite a number available, can make far more sense than dumping coin into upgrading a limited number of old aircraft with long service lives.
 

seaspear

Well-Known Member
It not that I suggest this for adding "years", in going to Ukraine on the frontline against advanced Russian jets and some formidable ground radar linked missile systems what would give the pilot a chance of being effective in various tasks?
 

south

Well-Known Member
It might be possible to upgrade HUG Bug radars, but I would question whether or not it would be worth the time and costs involved. I suspect that the answer would be, "no."

Firstly, there are the questions involving how much airframe life is remaining, as well as what the situation is or would be in terms of parts and spares availability. At this point, the newest ex-RAAF F/A-18 A/B Hornet would be 33 years old and would certainly have accumulated some time. I certainly do not think it would be enough to make an aircraft unsafe to operate (otherwise why consider selling them & why would others consider purchasing them?) but if there are high flight hours accumulated, it would certainly make sense to question spending R&D monies to develop a new version of radar to the fit as an upgrade.

I can understand doing so for F-16's, as there are likely quite a few earlier block F-16's that have few flight hours accumulated that have been sitting, effectively mothballed out at AMARC. Having older aircraft with little airframe fatigue upgraded, particularly if there are quite a number available, can make far more sense than dumping coin into upgrading a limited number of old aircraft with long service lives.
The upgrade path already exists. Firstly, it’s an entirely new radar, the APG-79v4. It has been integrated to USMC FA-18, and is planned for RCAF FA-18.



These radars promise significant improvement in lethality as well as reliability (when compared to APG-73). Manufacturers have claimed improved reliability will pay for itself in only a few years (no idea if that’s just snake oil). So it’s certainly feasible with minimal integration issues.

Also if you look at how much some of the USAF and RCAF hornets have been dragged out its service life (10k hours), there is definitely life in the ex-RAAF jets.

 
Last edited:

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
The RAAF hornets as a whole are fairly low in hours. From various media reports 408,000 hours as a whole if you ignore the 4 lost early on (4 lost early on would have little effect on fleet wide total hours) still means an average of under 5,750 hours a bird. Should also be noted Australia played a big role in identifying and creating solutions to structural fatigue improving the lifespan. Could very well be the ex RAAF Hornets could have an easy 2,000+ hours each still in them with proper maintenance and support.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
The upgrade path already exists. Firstly, it’s an entirely new radar, the APG-79v4. It has been integrated to USMC FA-18, and is planned for RCAF FA-18.



These radars promise significant improvement in lethality as well as reliability (when compared to APG-73). Manufacturers have claimed improved reliability will pay for itself in only a few years (no idea if that’s just snake oil). So it’s certainly feasible with minimal integration issues.

Also if you look at how much some of the USAF and RCAF hornets have been dragged out its service life (10k hours), there is definitely life in the ex-RAAF jets.

If someone else has already developed a new radar version which will fit into the space an APG-73 occupies in a F/A-18 then the situation changes considerably. The article I had been replying to was discussing a new, scalable APG-83 radar developed to be fitted to F-16's which could potentially see versions developed to fit aboard other aircraft. In that regard, it would not make much sense to try and take a development like that and then try and develop a version which could fit into the space of an APG-73 so that ex-RAAF Classic Hornets would be more capable. That sort of R&D time and costs would prob be significant for such a small pool of aircraft.

OTOH if the US did have an AESA version developed to replace the APG-73 still in use aboard C/D model Hornets, and potentially the early production SHornets as well, the situation becomes different. I seem to recall that early Block 1 SHornets were fitted with the APG-73 and that these aircraft could not be refitted with the APG-79 once it entered service because the APG-79 did not fit into the nose cone like an APG-73 did, though not sure if the problem was the APG-79 was too big, or required a different spacing arrangement than the APG-73.

With the potential size of the orders for the APG-79(V)4 to fit to USN and RCAF Hornets, then the questions become more about what would the cost be to make the upgrade, how long it would take to complete, and then how many more months or years of service might the aircraft likely see.
 

Mark_Evans

Member
Ukraine would not be using our F18's for very long. They just need them to last long enough for a longer term solution to be agreed to and delivered. That might involve more f18 from other countries to build the numbers up a bit. Modern Gripens would be my thought, something that can operate with minimal infrastructure.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
The upgrade path already exists. Firstly, it’s an entirely new radar, the APG-79v4. It has been integrated to USMC FA-18, and is planned for RCAF FA-18.

These radars promise significant improvement in lethality as well as reliability (when compared to APG-73). Manufacturers have claimed improved reliability will pay for itself in only a few years (no idea if that’s just snake oil). So it’s certainly feasible with minimal integration issues.

Also if you look at how much some of the USAF and RCAF hornets have been dragged out its service life (10k hours), there is definitely life in the ex-RAAF jets.
That would make the Hornets a pretty compelling acquisition for Ukraine. The instant availability of Ex-RAAF F-18, of being somewhere around 30-40 airframes just from Australia would be quite attractive. Given that Finland/Canada is still using them to oppose any Russian intrusions and they directly border Russian territory, it would be hard for Ukraine to claim they aren't good enough. It would be a hard offer to turn down. Nothing else is packed up ready to go.

The F-16 is in pretty high demand, by operators that already have F-16 fleets. See Indonesian thread. Even F-16 operators are having to source aircraft from elsewhere.

Modern Gripens would be my thought
Not particularly cheap, or particularly available in large numbers. I think they would be looking at augmenting with something like the KAI T-50 which still operates the same engine as the Hornets. IMO I always thought it would be a good trainer for AUS because of that. Poland operates 48.

Australia seems to need to dispose of the F-18's, and options other than Ukraine are drying up. It now seems like its Ukraine or the shredder.

F-18 is still a decent plane. Having another 10-20 years as a front line fighter is probably reasonable for a country like Ukraine. Even then, if operating something like the T-50, the RAAF F-18 support gear/engines etc will still be useful for them or say Poland.

I imagine one aspect Ukraine is assessing is, perhaps in the future if any of the Ex-RAAF stuff would be useful for Poland after the conflict.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Ukraine would not be using our F18's for very long. They just need them to last long enough for a longer term solution to be agreed to and delivered. That might involve more f18 from other countries to build the numbers up a bit. Modern Gripens would be my thought, something that can operate with minimal infrastructure.
Yes, Gripen (either JAS39E/F or upgraded C/D) looks like a perfect fit for Ukraine's requirements, but as others have said there aren't enough, & at the moment the production rate is very low.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
I think they would be looking at augmenting with something like the KAI T-50 which still operates the same engine as the Hornets. IMO I always thought it would be a good trainer for AUS because of that. Poland operates 48.
Poland operates none. The first two are scheduled to be delivered in August, i.e. two months from now. The first batch of pilots is still in training. Poland won't have 48 until 2028 under current plans. And they're FA-50 light fighters, not T-50 trainers.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Ukraine would not be using our F18's for very long. They just need them to last long enough for a longer term solution to be agreed to and delivered. That might involve more f18 from other countries to build the numbers up a bit. Modern Gripens would be my thought, something that can operate with minimal infrastructure.
It's all to do with time.

If the political and financial boxes can be ticked off then the F18 transfer has promise.
But lets remember it will still take some time to get the aircraft over to Europe and further more time to train up the Ukraine Airforce to employ these aircraft in a meaningful way.
If Ukraine can see merit in this venture well lets do our best from our end to make it work.
Unfortunately Ukraine's needs are for today. In fact this very minute.

This would of being a good idea 12 month's ago.

Now if you are looking at what Aircraft will best suite Ukraine for down the track.
It's probably not some used F18's however well intentioned.

With the summer offensive now started, would the F18's be available in time to provide aerial support.?




Cheers S
 

Bob53

Well-Known Member
It's all to do with time.

If the political and financial boxes can be ticked off then the F18 transfer has promise.
But lets remember it will still take some time to get the aircraft over to Europe and further more time to train up the Ukraine Airforce to employ these aircraft in a meaningful way.
If Ukraine can see merit in this venture well lets do our best from our end to make it work.
Unfortunately Ukraine's needs are for today. In fact this very minute.

This would of being a good idea 12 month's ago.

Now if you are looking at what Aircraft will best suite Ukraine for down the track.
It's probably not some used F18's however well intentioned.

With the summer offensive now started, would the F18's be available in time to provide aerial support.?




Cheers S
It’s going to take time. Apparently the meeting room has been booked for the meeting to choose the font they will use to create the presentation to go to the minister.
 
Top