EA/18G Growler

[swerve]

huh??? What's with all the double talk RJ?

The first sentence is sarcastic. He's saying Oz pols are pretending it's just an upgraded Hornet, although (as we all know) it's actually a different aircraft with superficial similarities.

 

[gf0012-aust]

If this is truly just a stopgap measure then perhaps something different is called for.

How about the Su-30MKOZ?

Similar idea to the MKI but less advanced (no thrust vectoring for instance)

1. cheaper than the SuperHornet
2. faster than the SuperHornet
3. much longer range the SuperHornet
4. get opportunity study capabilities of the plane all the neighbors are getting
5. great resale value

Basically it comes far closer to replacing the raw capabilites of the Pig than the SH and is very upgradeable to take whatever electronics or carry whatever weapon you want.

Yes it would require training to convert aircrew over, but a) it can't be harder than the effort currently expended maintaining the Pig and b) the SH would require training too.

There may be some areas where SH is more advanced (lower RCS, radar), but it does maintain a credible strike capability till the F-35 arrives, which is supposedly the whole purpose of this exercise.

The Russians offered up a modified Flanker for the RAAF. They also offered up discrete missile sharing technology including long range supersonics.

The first year they tried to bring in a demo model it didn't pass the air worthiness certificate and was denied entry.

The second year they indicated that one was on its way they ran out of money. A "no show".

You aren't going to see RAAF roundels on russian aircraft for any time forseeable.

 

[irtusk]

The Russians offered up a modified Flanker for the RAAF.

How long ago was this?

Were maybe the proposed mods too ambitious? (as they were trying to become the future of the fleet instead of just a stopgap)

It just seems strange because they must be doing something right.

The Indians absolutely love theirs and keep ordering more and more of them, can't be all that bad.

If Australia expressed serious interest in a closer-to-baseline craft, I can't imagine they couldn't put together something that would pass air-worthiness tests

 

[Aussie Digger]

RAAF got in this position because they did not buy C model hornets and decided it was cheaper to upgrade our A models to C model spec.

This is the tight ass Australian way. The pen pushers in charge look at the money value when comparing aircraft instead of looking at the big picture. Comparing the numbers would see that upgrading the A models would cost a fraction of a new C model aircraft.

The money for the APG-73 etc upgrades on our A model hornets is/was a complete waste of money when you know the aircraft doesn't have much life left. A small/mid sized purchase of C model aircraft in the 90's could have used the money from the pointless upgrades on the A model hornets. The only upgrade i would have performed on our A hornets would be to carry AMRAAM.

As our current hornets are now pretty high tech due to the many upgrades, it would be a waste seeing them all retire when they could still be very useful. This is why merging the current 3 squadrons of classic Hornets into 2 Squadrons would give us another 5 years. Merging into a single squadron would see them operational well into the 2020's. This would link nicely with AIR 6000 Phase 3 which could see a UCAV purchase which would then replace the remaining Classic Hornets instead of Phase 1 & 2.

Funnily enough, Australia intended to purchase only 2 F/A-18 Squadrons until Russia invaded Afghanistan. The 3rd Squadron was added as a direct result of this.

I wonder how we'd be sitting right now with only 48-50 Hornets in total???

Rm, the APG-65 radar HAD to be upgraded to keep our Hornets competitive at all. That radar was "compromised" (ie; tab data stolen) by the Russians a LONG time ago and keeping it in-service was NOT a good idea, strategically speaking...

 

[Jezza]

Found a sweet video of FA18F

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7317698505552705186&q=van+halen+dreams&hl=en

 

[Occum]

Missing Post

Admins,

What happened to the post between the last two?

 

[tphuang]

How long ago was this?

Were maybe the proposed mods too ambitious? (as they were trying to become the future of the fleet instead of just a stopgap)

It just seems strange because they must be doing something right.

The Indians absolutely love theirs and keep ordering more and more of them, can't be all that bad.

If Australia expressed serious interest in a closer-to-baseline craft, I can't imagine they couldn't put together something that would pass air-worthiness tests

Indians may love theirs, but China hates its. Of course, MKI is a superior fighter, but the reliability issues will persist with Russian planes no matter who they sell them too. And one thing that the Chinese found out (I'm sure Indians also know this) is that the Russians are high on promises and low on deliveries (especially since they always lack money on these projects that they are working one).

 

[Jezza]

Indians may love theirs, but China hates its. Of course, MKI is a superior fighter, but the reliability issues will persist with Russian planes no matter who they sell them too. And one thing that the Chinese found out (I'm sure Indians also know this) is that the Russians are high on promises and low on deliveries (especially since they always lack money on these projects that they are working one).

I honestly dont think the RAAF would never buy Russian aircraft purely
because of reliabilty issues and of course the above.
The euro and american aircraft will almost always be selected purely on
being good aircraft and being reliable.

 

[rjmaz1]

The suhkois are so cost effective. That if you needed 60 aircraft you'd buy 80 and use 20 aircraft for spare parts. Completely dismantle the 20 aircraft and keep the parts in storage that will last the decades with only new engines needed every so often.

 

[Big-E]

The suhkois are so cost effective. That if you needed 60 aircraft you'd buy 80 and use 20 aircraft for spare parts. Completely dismantle the 20 aircraft and keep the parts in storage that will last the decades with only new engines needed every so often.

Giving a SU-30 the appropriate Western avionics will run you about $50 million flyaway. The cheapest flyaway of the F-35 is going to cost a little more. If you have to buy 3:2 just to keep them flying you got ripped.

 

[gf0012-aust]

only new engines needed every so often.

IIRC, their servicing rates are 3-4 times higher. Their cost effectiveness is an urban myth when service life issues are factored in.

At various stages all of their modern users, malaysia, india, germany and china have seen the cost of support is not counterweighted by the value of initial purchase price.

In the early 1990's we interviewed ex Russian AME's for BAE in the US. I assume that it was for servicing the Moldovan Mig29's. Every AME we interviewed indicated that servicing was intensive. BAEA charged the US contractors a high premium for the consultancy as they knew that they could get their monies worth in tapping ex service and maint crew.

In 2001 I was contracted to an Australian Mil Cable and Connector supplier, we were regularly approached for substitute components for ex WarPac fleet users and periodic approaches by Indian 3rd party suppliers for Ilyushin and Mig parts. The quality control on the parts provided to us for assessment was appalling. eg, We had Polish companies wanting to replace entire harness systems with ex commercial grade from Boeing and Airbus refurbs as they considered the commercial quality to be better than the std grade connectors and looms.

We had Indian 3rd parties attempting to buy the ex RAAF P3C looms (removed for the AP3C upgrades) and harnesses to use in their Ilyushins. The cables and connectors couldn't be onsold as they were US Milspec and had to be certified as destroyed to comply with US State Dept requirements.

Maybe the later Su27's/30's are better - but its interesting to note that both India abd China have modified their platforms and are using alternative kit.

The Russians had offered local build opportunities, as well as build rights for any other regional sales - so they were keen. It wasn't going to happen though.

 

[tphuang]

IIRC, their servicing rates are 3-4 times higher. Their cost effectiveness is an urban myth when service life issues are factored in.

At various stages all of their modern users, malaysia, india, germany and china have seen the cost of support is not counterweighted by the value of initial purchase price.

In the early 1990's we interviewed ex Russian AME's for BAE in the US. I assume that it was for servicing the Moldovan Mig29's. Every AME we interviewed indicated that servicing was intensive. BAEA charged the US contractors a high premium for the consultancy as they knew that they could get their monies worth in tapping ex service and maint crew.

In 2001 I was contracted to an Australian Mil Cable and Connector supplier, we were regularly approached for substitute components for ex WarPac fleet users and periodic approaches by Indian 3rd party suppliers for Ilyushin and Mig parts. The quality control on the parts provided to us for assessment was appalling. eg, We had Polish companies wanting to replace entire harness systems with ex commercial grade from Boeing and Airbus refurbs as they considered the commercial quality to be better than the std grade connectors and looms.

We had Indian 3rd parties attempting to buy the ex RAAF P3C looms (removed for the AP3C upgrades) and harnesses to use in their Ilyushins. The cables and connectors couldn't be onsold as they were US Milspec and had to be certified as destroyed to comply with US State Dept requirements.

Maybe the later Su27's/30's are better - but its interesting to note that both India abd China have modified their platforms and are using alternative kit.

The Russians had offered local build opportunities, as well as build rights for any other regional sales - so they were keen. It wasn't going to happen though.

they were saying that when SAC first got the assembly line from the Russians for su-27, the quality of the assembly line was even lower than that of the J-7 assembly line at CAC. I could see why no one else is interested in local build opportunites.

 

[RubiconNZ]

Tailhooks have come in handy though - and we have them on the F-111 as well.

To pull this in from the F16 thread, is it possible, or even been discussed that the RAAF purchase the Carrier Version of the JSF, they cost more yes, but what would be the benefits of that version do they offset the cost? It does continue the tradition of operation carrier capable aircraft. The differences I am aware of for the Carrier Version is larger Wings, stronger fuselage and a tail hook what else is there?

Does the greater wing size increase payload, endurance or decrease due to weight?

 

[Aussie Digger]

To pull this in from the F16 thread, is it possible, or even been discussed that the RAAF purchase the Carrier Version of the JSF, they cost more yes, but what would be the benefits of that version do they offset the cost? It does continue the tradition of operation carrier capable aircraft. The differences I am aware of for the Carrier Version is larger Wings, stronger fuselage and a tail hook what else is there?

Does the greater wing size increase payload, endurance or decrease due to weight?

It reportedly provides greater range AND payload over the F-35A version, but at a heftier price. The additional price may not be worth it. More tankers would be a better investment, IMHO.

 

[chrisrobsoar]

The F-35A also has a lightweight arrestor hook for engaging a wire in the event of brake/brake chute failure.

I don’t think the F-35B with be equipped with a hook because it would get in the way of the exhaust nozzle when pointing downwards.

Chris

 

[Occum]

Flying The Super Hornet

For those interested in knowing more about the Super Hornet -

http://www.ausairpower.net/SuperBug.html

Reducing the data from the HUD video shows some interesting anomalies with the name 'super'.

 

[Aussie Digger]

For those interested in knowing more about the Super Hornet -

http://www.ausairpower.net/SuperBug.html

Reducing the data from the HUD video shows some interesting anomalies with the name 'super'.

Are you referring to the indicated air speed of the aircraft???

Reputedly the F-18L was "supercruise" capable when in "clean" configuration. Are you hinted the Rhino might be too???

 

[Occum]

Are you referring to the indicated air speed of the aircraft???

Reputedly the F-18L was "supercruise" capable when in "clean" configuration. Are you hinted the Rhino might be too???

Mmmmh, the HUD displays a little bit more than just KIAS!

As to your belief that "Reputedly the F-18L was 'supercruise' capable" and "the Rhino might be too???", all I can report is "these must also be, reputedly <sic>, in your dreams!"

Sorry about that!

I suggest you should read the TechEd. You might also want to take particular note of the fuel burn . . . and this aircraft was clean, in more ways than one!

 

[Aussie Digger]

Mmmmh, the HUD displays a little bit more than just KIAS!

As to your belief that "Reputedly the F-18L was 'supercruise' capable" and "the Rhino might be too???", all I can report is "these must also be, reputedly <sic>, in your dreams!"

Sorry about that!

I suggest you should read the TechEd. You might also want to take particular note of the fuel burn . . . and this aircraft was clean, in more ways than one!

The source was in fact the esteemed Mr Andrew McLaughlin, in his excellent "Hornets Downunder" book, so a little more substantial than my "dreams" and a LITTLE bit more researched than referring to airpowerint.net...

 

[Magoo]

The source was in fact the esteemed Mr Andrew McLaughlin, in his excellent "Hornets Downunder" book, so a little more substantial than my "dreams" and a LITTLE bit more researched than referring to airpowerint.net...

"esteemed"

Oh, he'll love that! nfloorl:

Just to clarify, according to former RAAF test pilot Bob Richardson who tested all the Mirage replacement contenders, he told Andrew that he had slipped the YF-17 through the sound barrier without the aid of AB a couple of times quite easily at altitude, however I don't think this bit of info made it into the final draft of the book.

A clean 'classic' will just nudge but not exceed the Mach without ABs, however I think the Super would struggle to better this.

The argument is pretty moot anyway, as the only tactical application for such a capability is...well... never really, as the jet would never be flying around in a clean config in hostile airspace. The only tactical application for supercruising is for an aircraft with an internal weapons bay, i.e. F-22 and F-35 etc. A supercruising clean aircraft is just a supercruising target!

You might also want to take particular note of the fuel burn . . . and this aircraft was clean, in more ways than one!

Dr Kopp's article suggests the combat radius of the Super with three jugs and four missiles is similar to that of a similarly configured F-15C. Is that now not the case?

Magoo