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

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
For continental defence, the F-15EX would be a decent choice, great range and huge weapon load. The F-35 with block 4 also works. Problem with both is delivery, especially the latter because block 4 and TR3 delays. Even with block 4 and TR3 finally arriving, there is still a long wait for the ECU for the F135 engine (2030?). Then as others have mentioned, there is a long queue for F-35s and the USAF and USN will have priority for upgrades. Question is, could 24 F-15EXs arrive faster than new F-35s?
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Superhornet was introduced in 1995. It was sold as an upgrade of the Hornet. While that isn't the reality. Basically no parts are common, the concept of the plane is similar. The 70's and 80's to a 1990's plane. Crews/pilots that worked on them in the 80s/90s/2000s/2010/2020s may still be useful. It uses logistics systems, warehousing systems etc from that era. We can target ex-raaf particularly from 2010) and ex-USN (from 1995! onwards). That is all I am really trying to communicate.

The F-35 is a paradigm shift. And was only introduced in small numbers to australia in 2018. Its a completely different game in capabilities, but also design, systems, logistics, warehousing, production etc. We are currently moving block III to Block IV a huge upgrade that is going to keep everyone in the F-35 world, pilots/maintainers/accountants busy.


True. But I think we all get a bit fixated on the future rather than the here and now. In 2020ish, a functional US seemed probable, China hadn't conducted any ops in the Tasman, global order seemed likely to continue particularly around Australia.

But it is a huge risk to both politicians and career people in uniform, to shoot the baby horses and ride the horses you have into war. You are actively sacrificing future capability for the here and now. Perhaps than analogy is a bit brutal.

Perhaps it's more like last drinks. When the call goes out for last drinks, you buy whatever you can as much as you can and take it back to your table. Even if it means, some wastage, something you don't really want or need.



As we get closer we know when the more opportune time is likely to precipitate.

2027 is still highly likely. We may even see smaller conflicts happen then related to the major conflict. China for example may take minor islands off Taiwan and Japan and Vietnam for example. There was a directive to be ready for war by 2027.

We are already seeing frantic preparations, including hardened aircraft hangars, amphibious ship production, a rapid expansion of the ballistic missile stock pile by 300%. So much so the US is frantically fitting CIWS and defences to Guam, including Marines, to stop the chinese taking Guam. Taking Guam.

2028 seems like the most likely currently. There is a US election in 2028. Several Chinese projects come in on 2028. US also has its own challenges for 2028, including the SH production line ending, its cruisers being decommissioned etc. Chinese production lead means the waiting a year gives them the advantage. So now highly likely to be late 2028 to start. Maybe early 2029. Conflict before 2030.. We are talking trying to lock in a future date of a war by a matter of months.

I'm not saying the FSP2020 was not correctly performed. But things have changed very dramatically. The future isn't as certain.


But will we be able to acquire, train, test and FOC that capability for the F-35 by 2028-2030? With the F-18 it is atleast a platform that is operational with Aim174.

I've already mentioned we should acquire more P8s. This isn't an either or type situation. I am saying acquire additional of any platform/munition we can. These capital costs can be written off over multiple years, presumable the defence budget will get some sort of increase in 2028 when we are fighting a peer war in the Pacific and the US looses half its airforce and carriers. Presumably.

Even acquiring the F-18s isn't a easy thing and may be too late. Even then it would be 5 single seat F-18E and 12 two seat 18F. So unless we want to horse trade with the USN, that is all that is on the shelf. It wouldn't even be available for anyone else than Australia, if we asked for it. In fact we may never receive them, we may have to give them back to the USN.

Maybe this is dumb. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed/considered. If we are talking about acquiring 28 F-35 (which we probably should order anyway), then perhaps a discussion on what is and is not possible. Having discussion right now, means the blame game doesn't have to get played later. Those F-18 may not be available, even if we wanted them.
F-35 is a platform that is operational today, with the AIM-120D3 (as does Shornet) that meets the threshold range requirement for the USAF JATM requirement. So I am not so confident we are so lacking in long ranged “spears”. I also note that RAAF has not yet demonstrated any interest in adding the AIM-174 to it’s Super Hornet fleet, nor is it by any means certain that weapon is even cleared for foreign sales even though the SM-6 it is based on is - for example AIM-260 JATM is not. In fact until about 7 days ago, it wasn’t cleared to be shown publicly what it even looks like. In any case I am sure both AIM-174 and AIM-260 will become cleared for Australia eventually and RAAF will likely have to choose between them.

Even if the AIM-174 were chosen by RAAF the weapon would still have to be integrated on our Super Hornets, which while we maintain overall commonality with the USN birds they are rarely at the exact same level. For example our Growlers could carry AIM-9X at entry to service whilst the USN variants could not. Then just like any weapon on the F-35, the same caveats apply in terms of acquisition, test, train and achieving FOC. As we can see with LRASM that is a years long process at the very least and one that won’t even start until RAAF receives them, which wouldn’t happen before 2027 even if the ALP were to order 28 of them tomorrow.

Block IV on F-35 will be a big endeavour, but it is also a series of rolling upgrades over time. There won’t be a single moment in time where overall availability of the F-35 fleet won‘t meet expected availability. Aircraft will go offline for some period of time and then come back on, just as we do now with both F-35 and Super Hornet. But the overall readiness impact will be managed.

There is some talk now that Hastie’s plan is 28x F-35A would be in addition to our current fleet, so a substantial enhancement to the size of the fleet. Some time to acquire the airframes will be required no matter what because RAAF won’t be in a position to accomodate a 20% increase in fleet size immediately anyway, just like RAN or Army couldn’t. Units will have to be stood up, infrastructure built and so forth.

I just don‘t see any scenario where RAAF orders more Shornets instead of F-35, short of some outrageous wartime contingency where we buy already manufactured aircraft where for some equally outrageous and unknown reason the USN can afford to sell us some of their own because we are heavily taxed in military operations but they are not, yet are still willing and able to support us with equipment...
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
There have recently been photos released showing trial fits of inert Meteor's for internal carriage on the F-35. Hopefully they can get that integrated soon, it should be a significant improvement on AMRAAM.
A significant improvement on AMRAAM-C variant. Not such a huge improvement against the latest AIM-120D3 variant, unlikely to out-range the AIM-174 and unknown on a capability comparison with AIM-260 JATM.
 

Bluey 006

Active Member
I'm not sure how quickly we could get another 28 F35s but we could have 50+ CCAs in 2030.
Exactly!

Future air combat in any near-peer conflict will be shaped by manned-unmanned teaming, with the F-35’s advanced sensor fusion (which will only get better) and ability to act as a force multiplier in a networked battlespace having a decisive impact on air dominance. Moving toward this now sets us up well for whatever comes next.

We can manufacture loyal wingmen in Australia, and if things go any further south rapidly. Which they might. We can churn them out.

Huge fan of the Super Hornet—especially its potential in anti-missile defence when paired with the AIM-174, a capability we should absolutely enable and keep flying as long as practical.

As Takao points out our Super Hornets are tied into the US upgrade path, post 2030 as US transitions to NGAD, upgrades may not be as forth coming, or limited in scope. Short-Term Gain, Long-Term Risk. A limited upgrade path beyond the Block III is even more likely, given the fiscal efficiency gains being pushed in the US.

As others have argued we need capability now, and that is fair and reasonable but in the lead up to an election, the F-35 presents a much lower risk announcement, until you can get a look under the hood and quickly assess the situation, across all services. Maybe you pick up a half a dozen SH or Growlers too if the situation warrants it.

But buying loads more SHs now would be like buying a FJ Holden to put in a race against a Bugatti. I acknowledge that, a Bugatti my not be suitable for running down to the shops. But the strategic conclusions in the DSR suggest that peer conflict (high end race) is what we are building our "focused force" for then that's the focus. A peer that happens to have highly advanced air defence and A2AD capabilities.

The MQ-25 should also be a priority IMHO.
 
Last edited:

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Recent article in the APDR says Ghost Bats will be in full rate in 2028 and the facility at Wellcamp will be able to produce dozens per year at a cost 1/10th of a crewed fighter.

Im not sure how quickly we could get another 28 F35s but we could have 50+ CCAs in 2030.
50 un-armed ones unfortunately…
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Because you have paid a premium for a expensive capability that you are not using. If you are going to not use stealth, then why spend all the $$ buying it and sustaining it. A Super costs significantly less, and the delta in up-front cost will pay for years of sustainment.
Because aircraft (and platforms in general) routinely operate with some elements of capability and not with others. The F-35A already in RAAF service for example fly on occasion with external stores and on occasion without. The training or mission at hand requires the specific capability employment, does it not?

Do we need the full LO capability of the F-35? Clearly we do. Hence why the RAAF and ADF in general have advocated for it for years. Within that need, is also the need for the F-35 to carry external weapons, hence why it is designed to do so and why RAAF fly their F-35’s in just such a configuration. Why would this be any different for a standoff missile such as the LRASM?

As to cost, which Super Hornet? The Block II we bought in 2007 or the Block III we’d be buying today? It‘s been a long time since the ADF bought Super Hornet aircraft. Recent publicly acknowledged packages for the 2 aircraft show little in the way of price difference per aircraft with the substantial differences being the support, sensor and weapons packages for each.

Yes, the AGM-158C is integrated onto the F/A-18F. Has been for a while, and our Hornets are (with one exception that is being cleared up), in lock step with the USN. So it's just a case of us getting the missiles - which are on order. Integration is happing on the P-8 (which will carry over to ours), and for external carriage on the F-35C. Which has two problems - it's not our F-35 and it's for external carriage. Which wrecks the stealth and goes to my point above.
It has been the case with the USN, is it so with RAAF? If it is, it hasn’t been announced publicly. The work also wasn’t contracted to be completed until March 2026…


Hmmm....I'm trying to find a source on 2027, but I can't find anything other than bloggers making claims. I seem to recall there is an open source review of the AUKUS nations, highlighting that all are focused on 2035 at the expense of the next four years, but can't find it right now. Either way, I don't think you can say the focus is on '27. If it was, we wouldn't be buying anything new except weapons and fuel. The force that fights in 2027 is today's force - it's simply too late to alter. Also remember, there are other customers expecting their aircraft in 2025, 26 and 27. To get an F-35 you have to be having the US as an ally, with the associated Defence questions since Januarary - who can afford to look weak on Defence by push

And, at this point, the Super's are still stop gapping. The F-35A cannot do, today, what the F/A-18F can. And is unlikely to exceed that (outside a very niche task of penetrating land IADS - not really a task likely to face us in the near future) for a while.
There are a few, the INDAPACOM Commanders assessment and testimony to US Congress in 2001 for one, but it is getting a bit long in the tooth now and looking dated as we get closer to 2027.


The point was however directed at the idea that even though we will not get F-35’s straight away, we won’t get Super Hornet in the required timeframe either. So if the short-term is ruled out then we must consider what is best for the medium and long term and in a Super Hornet v F-35 comparison, I would hope few would be advocating we fly Super Hornets in the long term…
 

Bob53

Well-Known Member
I’ve never quite understood why a non-stealthy aircraft carrying LRASM (or any other standoff weapon of choice) is considered a good capability, but an F-35 carrying the same weapons is frowned upon?

I’ve always assumed it‘s ability to switch between full LO configuration or full external load carriage is actually a tactical benefit, not a detriment…

The program and users certainly seem to think so as well.

Curious.

View attachment 52389
Mainly because carrying external stores defeats the purpose of paying the extra cost of stealthy aircraft. Same if carrying LRASM or AIM 174B. I understand your point though that a non stealthy aircraft is not stealthy at any point. As mentioned I think F15EX is the better solution for Australia for that role due to its capacity and range.
 

Bob53

Well-Known Member
If we are defending Australia from a Chinese fleet in the 2030s (say multiple aircraft carriers with 5th generation fighters and ship borne AEW aircraft) we will have to fight against a modern IADS in our own backyard. I’m just not sure a Super Hornet is going to cut it in that environment.

By all means keep the Super Hornet in service until something like the GCAP is ready for service. However that does not mean we don’t need additional F-35s now. The idea we can defend a continent with 72 F-35s and 24 super hornets in a rapidly deteriorating security environment is just ludicrous. Norway has (or will have) 75% the number of F-35s we currently have and they have smaller population and territory to defend.
Yes they would cut it. LRASM-ER range is over 800km. What Chinese ship borne fighter is going to get out to that range to find and hit them before they launch? Four Stealthy AGM-158C Long-Range Anti-Ship Missiles Flew Together In "Historic" Test
 

Bob53

Well-Known Member
The F-15EX has the potential to be a bit of an orphan unless the USAF orders more depending on how much commonality it has with previous F-15E derived platforms. There are currently only 105 aircraft on order.

Saying that, if considered as a replacement for Super Hornets and there is enough appetite for risk to integrate new weapons onto a platform it is likely more capable then a Super Hornet.
However the F15 EX has much in common with the other 450 odd F15s ordered by Singapore, Saudi Arabia, QATAR, Indonesia and Israel. Plus the 105 for the USAF….
 

Bob53

Well-Known Member
Currently? Shornet. As the SHornet has LRASM and drop tanks.

Future?
F-35, with LRASM and drop tanks. When the LRASM integration is completed, and the drop tanks are developed and sold, and we then start a project to acquire them. So when will our F-35's be able to fire them? When will their block IV be finished...
The LRASM integration is going to happen soon, but will require block IV.
A F-35C was shown with LRASM last year.
Not known where the F-35A integration. External fuel stores are another thing.. They were meant to show up years ago.

But unfinished projects can be hurt badly/delayed if funding suddenly dries up, which is a genuine fear.
But if we are making acquisition announcements, the said status of such things should be clear and upfront.

Don't we remember the popeye acquisition and how that ended?
I realise it’s peacetime here but amazes me that the Ukraine seems to integrate weapons never designed for the aircraft they are being adapted to …in months not years.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
I realise it’s peacetime here but amazes me that the Ukraine seems to integrate weapons never designed for the aircraft they are being adapted to …in months not years.
A wartime environment with survival at stake makes stuff happen way faster, if first solutions don't work out, no blaming BS, rapidly move on to plan
B solutions. Not a bad option for peacetime as well...just my two cents.
 

Armchair

Well-Known Member
I would find it helpful if commenters (and political parties) specified whether they are advocating replacement of the SH (and or Growler capability) with F-35, F-15EX or Ghostbat or creating one or more new squadrons with these aircraft or with new Super Hornets. Is your proposed force structure for the RAAF to have 4, 5 or 6 squadrons of fast jets?

If the proposal is to replace 24 Super Hornets (and possibly 12 Growlers) with 28 F-35 then I think it Is problematic for the reasons @Takao provides.

If the proposal is to replace 24 Super Hornets with F-15EX I think it is not viable due to the change over costs, limited maritime strike capability, and the likely diminishing capability of the platform. If we assume 10 years to acquire the capability (for a new F-15 operator) and a service life of 30 years then the mid service life of the new aircraft would be 2050. My guess is F-15EX (and same applies for new SH) would be close to obsolete by 2050. Same problems apply to adding a new squadron of SH or F-15 on top of the existing force.

If the proposal is to add a new squadron of F-35 and gradually phase out SH and Growler then that makes more sense but then the issue becomes whether that is the best prioritising of resources (It is a lot more than the $3bn initial investment).

Adding or replacing capability specifically with Ghostbat seems to have been overtaken by events unless Boeing can find another customer for it.

Replacing SH and Growler (and incrementally F-35) with a future air combat capability through a consortium seems to be the best solution but Australia may be leaving it late.
 

MARKMILES77

Well-Known Member
ADM2
There are a few, the INDAPACOM Commanders assessment and testimony to US Congress in 2001 for one, but it is getting a bit long in the tooth now and looking dated as we get closer to 2027.
I think you are referring to Adm. Phil Davidson, the retiring head of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command's testimony to Congress.
But you have your dates out by Two decades. Davidson spoke to Congress on 9 March 2021.
Hardly dated. His assessment that a China takeover was likely by 2027 became known as the "Davidson Window".

The Davidson Window has hugely influenced U.S. Defence planning in the Pacific.
The U.S. Military is clearly structuring themselves to be ready for a Pacific conflict with China in the next few years.
The massive expansion of air defence/missile defence on Guam.
The refurbishment of Island airfields that have been unused or little used since WW2. Tinian being one great example but there are others like Peleliu and Yap.
The empasis on Agile Combat Employment in the Pacific for survivability.
The restructuring of the USMC as an island hopping force with Littoral Marine Regiments and an Anti-Ship Missile Capabilty.
The divestment of tanks.
Even the U.S. paying for increased facilities in Australia. Fuel storage at Darwin, expansion of Tindal for example.
They demonstrate that the U.S. has taken seriously the fear that a China move on Taiwan is a serious short term risk.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
There is a lot we don’t know about the F35 in the public domain.
Stealth qualities and capabilities are a feature and understandably should be kept secret.
I wonder how much stealth is compromised when carrying external ordnance.
A lot , some or minimal
I don’t need the answer

For all the attributes of the S Hornet, sales speaks volumes.
F35 wins
The F35 is the platform of choice for the western world in the immediate future and I guess the nations selecting this aircraft are going with it for a reason.


Cheers S
 
Last edited:

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Mainly because carrying external stores defeats the purpose of paying the extra cost of stealthy aircraft. Same if carrying LRASM or AIM 174B. I understand your point though that a non stealthy aircraft is not stealthy at any point. As mentioned I think F15EX is the better solution for Australia for that role due to its capacity and range.
The external stores are removable though, they are not permanently affixed to the aircraft. It is literally a matter of a technician with a few tools and a few minutes to work on the aircraft to switch between roles. You are talking about a situation where an F-35’s stealth is “compromised” allegedly, because it is carrying a 200nm ranged standoff weapon… How much is this a “compromise” in reality? Doesn’t seem like an awful lot to me, but investing in an aircraft that never offers that LO capability seems like a much bigger compromise to me...

As to F-35A v F-15EX cost…

Newest F-35, F-15EX contracts are set. Here's how much they cost. (EXCLUSIVE) - Breaking Defense

RAAF looked at F-15 when it chose the Super Hornet. Not in great detail I believe, but they concluded the range and payload benefits of the F-15 weren’t sufficient to justify the cost compared to the capability benefits the Super Hornet brought and the ease of transition from legacy Hornet to the new fighter.

18 years on from that decision, I am struggling to see any new interest from RAAF in revisiting that F-15 decision and zero from government, with the ALP deciding to retain the Super Hornet and the LNP announcing they are going to acquire additional F-35A if elected.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I realise it’s peacetime here but amazes me that the Ukraine seems to integrate weapons never designed for the aircraft they are being adapted to …in months not years.
They only achieve a partial integration via a wireless connection to a tablet used by a pilot. There is no “integration into the combat system of the aircraft. They flight test and make sure it’s safe to carry and employ it via said tablet.

Most of the weapons modes cannot be used in such a state and the weapon cannot leverage data from the aircraft systems, nor off-board data.

It is an adhoc, urgent implantation that has still taken months if not years to achieve.

They use the concept of a rudimentary capability being better than no capability to it’s fullest extent, out of sheer necessity,
we are a long way from that point.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I think you are referring to Adm. Phil Davidson, the retiring head of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command's testimony to Congress.
But you have your dates out by Two decades. Davidson spoke to Congress on 9 March 2021.
Hardly dated. His assessment that a China takeover was likely by 2027 became known as the "Davidson Window".

The Davidson Window has hugely influenced U.S. Defence planning in the Pacific.
The U.S. Military is clearly structuring themselves to be ready for a Pacific conflict with China in the next few years.
The massive expansion of air defence/missile defence on Guam.
The refurbishment of Island airfields that have been unused or little used since WW2. Tinian being one great example but there are others like Peleliu and Yap.
The empasis on Agile Combat Employment in the Pacific for survivability.
The restructuring of the USMC as an island hopping force with Littoral Marine Regiments and an Anti-Ship Missile Capabilty.
The divestment of tanks.
Even the U.S. paying for increased facilities in Australia. Fuel storage at Darwin, expansion of Tindal for example.
They demonstrate that the U.S. has taken seriously the fear that a China move on Taiwan is a serious short term risk.
Re-read what I wrote. I literally linked to an article discussing him and wrote that he made these comments in 2001…
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
RAAF looked at F-15 when it chose the Super Hornet. Not in great detail I believe, but they concluded the range and payload benefits of the F-15 weren’t sufficient to justify the cost compared to the capability benefits the Super Hornet brought and the ease of transition from legacy Hornet to the new fighter.

18 years on from that decision, I am struggling to see any new interest from RAAF in revisiting that F-15 decision and zero from government, with the ALP deciding to retain the Super Hornet and the LNP announcing they are going to acquire additional F-35A if elected.
IIRC one of the critical or perhaps most critical factors which strongly favoured the F/A-18F was the time in which the RAAF could get them into inventory and in service. With the USN being willing to let Australia 'jump' the order book queue and receive aircraft build slots already allocated to USN/USMC SHornet orders, Australian SHornets could get built far sooner than an Australian F-15E order could have been. Between that and the similarity to Classic/HugBug Hornets making transition easier.

Even with the F-15E having greater range and payload capacity, it would not make sense as a strike replacement for F-111's retiring around 2010 if the RAAF could not stand up the interim replacement until a few years after their (the F-111's) retirement.

As a further thought, what is a reasonably likely answer to the following question. Which aircraft will have a greater signature/RCS, an F-35 carrying ordnance externally, or a 4th/4.5 gen aircraft like the SHornet, F-15E, or F-15EX, all also carrying stores externally. Now I would fully expect that an F-35 with external loads would not be as good as an F-35 in a 'clean' config, but at the same time such an F-35 should still have a signature/RCS that is significantly less than older gen aircraft. That is also before considering that there has work being done quietly to develop external carriage options for 5th gen fighters which do not compromise the LO characteristics of the fighters as much.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
IIRC one of the critical or perhaps most critical factors which strongly favoured the F/A-18F was the time in which the RAAF could get them into inventory and in service. With the USN being willing to let Australia 'jump' the order book queue and receive aircraft build slots already allocated to USN/USMC SHornet orders, Australian SHornets could get built far sooner than an Australian F-15E order could have been. Between that and the similarity to Classic/HugBug Hornets making transition easier.

Even with the F-15E having greater range and payload capacity, it would not make sense as a strike replacement for F-111's retiring around 2010 if the RAAF could not stand up the interim replacement until a few years after their (the F-111's) retirement.

As a further thought, what is a reasonably likely answer to the following question. Which aircraft will have a greater signature/RCS, an F-35 carrying ordnance externally, or a 4th/4.5 gen aircraft like the SHornet, F-15E, or F-15EX, all also carrying stores externally. Now I would fully expect that an F-35 with external loads would not be as good as an F-35 in a 'clean' config, but at the same time such an F-35 should still have a signature/RCS that is significantly less than older gen aircraft. That is also before considering that there has work being done quietly to develop external carriage options for 5th gen fighters which do not compromise the LO characteristics of the fighters as much.
Indeed, there were a multitude of good reasons to choose the Super Hornet over the F-15 variants at the time and only a couple of contrary points to oppose the idea. Ironically if they had, the standard of F-15 we bought then would almost certainly have been MLU’d since - just as the Super Hornets have been (or continuously upgraded, however you want to describe it) and they would have been of a comparable standard to the current F-15EX (possibly minus the digital fly by wire capability) and would thus be yet another reason (if one were even needed) to argue against buying F-15EX for the RAAF, particularly given the apparent near term rise of 6th Generation capabilities as well as ‘other’ capabilities as noted by @Takao (including but not limited to missile and collaborative combat aircraft, supporting the fast jets).

I agree with the point about F-35, yes it’s radar cross section will be compromised to some degree compared with a “clean” F-35 I don’t know that anybody is denying that, but is that the F-35’s only combat advantage compared to 4th gens? Do they benefit from the reduced thermal and sensor signature management the F-35 does? Do they somehow suddenly get the same sensor and combat system capability advantages the F-35 enjoys? The carriage of external weapons will affect these attributes no one iota.

For the record, I am in favour of retaining the Super Hornets until a long term future solution presents itself, but buying more of them over the F-35A “today” and because of the one weapon they could carry sooner than F-35 might be able to? (While also ignoring RAAF F-35A’s are gaining JSM in the same timeframe)?

I am not so sure about that…


IMG_1184.jpeg
 
Top