EA/18G Growler

[MarcH]

Well, the history of the Australian replacement programme looks for me that way:
1st step: by around 2000, the need for new airframes arose. Australian authorities quickly identified the need for 5th generation aircraft. Since the Raptor wasn't available for exports, and most probably to expensive to aquire in the desired numbers, the decision was to go into the paper aircraft JSF.
Unfortunately, that didn't match with the remaining airframe life of your existing aircraft. So it was intended to invest roughly $3 billion into the F-18 and an unknown amount of money into the F-111 to slip into JSF timtable. You remember, nothing short of a 5th generation fighter would meet the Australien defense needs.
2nd step: completely surprisingly the programme costs rose and in service date of the yet to materialize JSF slipped.
Now the F-18 comes into play. It is of course meant only as a stop gap. But as of now, those F-18F will be bought, not leased. Resulting in a reduced JSF number. Therefore, I think the term stop gap is wrong. It will be a long term investment.
Since local air superiority has been stressed so much in the past, that somewhat surprises me. The F-18E/F really doesn't score with it's aerodynamics. Wing fences, restricted flight envelop to overcome wingflutter, aligned pylons to overcome seperation issues,... The list is long.
The things that are in favour of the F-18 for the US Navy (bring back capability, made in USA, high availability rates) are only partly of interest for Australia.
The not carrier-specific plus points could be matched or surpassed by any other 4.5 generation fighter. What remains is the availability of an AESA antenna for it's radar set, and some commonality with existing Hornets.

So, why is it on one side beyond imagination to buy something short of a 5th generation fighter (local air superiority rhetorics), and then go for the weakest 4.5 generation design as a mid-therm solution ?

 

[Tasman]

Well, the history of the Australian replacement programme looks for me that way:
1st step: by around 2000, the need for new airframes arose. Australian authorities quickly identified the need for 5th generation aircraft. Since the Raptor wasn't available for exports, and most probably to expensive to aquire in the desired numbers, the decision was to go into the paper aircraft JSF.
Unfortunately, that didn't match with the remaining airframe life of your existing aircraft. So it was intended to invest roughly $3 billion into the F-18 and an unknown amount of money into the F-111 to slip into JSF timtable. You remember, nothing short of a 5th generation fighter would meet the Australien defense needs.
2nd step: completely surprisingly the programme costs rose and in service date of the yet to materialize JSF slipped.
Now the F-18 comes into play. It is of course meant only as a stop gap. But as of now, those F-18F will be bought, not leased. Resulting in a reduced JSF number. Therefore, I think the term stop gap is wrong. It will be a long term investment.
Since local air superiority has been stressed so much in the past, that somewhat surprises me. The F-18E/F really doesn't score with it's aerodynamics. Wing fences, restricted flight envelop to overcome wingflutter, aligned pylons to overcome seperation issues,... The list is long.
The things that are in favour of the F-18 for the US Navy (bring back capability, made in USA, high availability rates) are only partly of interest for Australia.
The not carrier-specific plus points could be matched or surpassed by any other 4.5 generation fighter. What remains is the availability of an AESA antenna for it's radar set, and some commonality with existing Hornets.

So, why is it on one side beyond imagination to buy something short of a 5th generation fighter (local air superiority rhetorics), and then go for the weakest 4.5 generation design as a mid-therm solution ?

Thanks for your response MarchH.

There are a number of things that happened in the Australian air combat replacement program that I would rather have seen differently. The original intention to short list aircraft for evaluation would in my opinion have been better than the sudden decision of the air force to go with the JSF. The JSF may still have been the choice but it would have been good to have looked properly at other possibilities. Secondly I have always disliked the concept of a one aircraft combat force and would have preferred the RAAF to have selected one aircraft for the strike role and another for air superiority (e.g. 40 F15E Strike Eagles for 2 squadrons and 60 Typhoons for 3).

However that is all water under the bridge. It didn't happen and the RAAF now has to make the most out of the situation it is in. I agree that if F18Fs are bought rather than leased they may end up complementing a reduced number of F35s rather than being a stop gap. But after the F35 order is completed the option will remain for more F35s, UCAVs or perhaps an air dominance aircraft if the need is demonstrated in the future. The F18Fs will provide breathing space for future decisions to be made in a less rushed manner.

Magoo has stated:

The plan is to push back the introduction of the F-35 from 2012/14 until the Block 4 becomes available in the 2016 sort of timeframe.

The Super Hornets will either be upgraded or more likely replaced by either more F-35s or perhaps UCAVs in the early 2020s.

I give a lot of credibility to comments from Magoo so the RAAF could end up with one of the following combinations:
100 F35s
24 upgraded FA18Fs/75-80 F35s
75-80 F35s/20-25 UCAVs

It could also end up with something like 75 F35s and approx 25 aircraft for air dominance if circumstances show that the RAAF needs to go that way. At this stage it is apparent that that won't be the F22 but perhaps a late development of the Typhoon may yet find its way to Australia.

The F35 is still clearly the RAAF's preferred option for the air combat force but it cannot risk a lengthy period during which the F111s have been retired and the existing force of classic Hornets has been run down in numbers. In that respect the FA18F should fill the strike role reasonably well. The F15 may be better in this respect but it would be far more difficult to introduce quickly into the service. I accept that there are probably better aircraft for the air superiority role but again the RAAF seems committed to the F35 in the long term and certainly could not afford an interim air combat type as well as an interim strike aircraft. The FA18F has a reasonable air to air capability but at this stage it seems the strike role (replacing the F111) is the priority.


Cheers

 

[MarcH]

Thanks for the explanation Tasman.
One thing I understand, is that there is now a demand for an airframe, that can be put into service as soon as possible. Here the Hornet fits really good.Why that demand surfaced that suddenly, oh well...
But if we now distinguish between two scenarios:
a) The Hornets are kept beyond 2020. Then the question for me would remain, why purchasing something, that lost out in Korea and Singapore for example, against F-15, Rafale, Typhoon. The latter are said to be pretty easy to fly, and designed with the same emphasis on combat readiness, turn around times...
b) The Hornets are replaced by 2020. That would be roughly in the middle of their lifecycle. Who would buy them ? I mean $3 billion is a bit too much to use them as landmark in the desert after 15 years.
Some MLU'd F-16 or Gripens would to that trick at a fraction of the costs.

 

[Tasman]

Thanks for the explanation Tasman.
One thing I understand, is that there is now a demand for an airframe, that can be put into service as soon as possible. Here the Hornet fits really good.Why that demand surfaced that suddenly, oh well...

As I said, 'Water under the bridge'. But I agree that the situation has come about because, IMHO, the RAAF rushed the JSF decision. It probably delayed too long in getting the original air combat replacement program up and running but I suspect it was hoping to go straight to a 5th generation aircraft rather than a scenario like the one I suggested earlier of say an F15E/Typhoon combination. It was also trying for a one aircraft solution which I am certain is still its preferred position.

But if we now distinguish between two scenarios:
a) The Hornets are kept beyond 2020. Then the question for me would remain, why purchasing something, that lost out in Korea and Singapore for example, against F-15, Rafale, Typhoon. The latter are said to be pretty easy to fly, and designed with the same emphasis on combat readiness, turn around times...

I think the RAAF is confident in the capability of the FA18F and believes it will meet its needs. As I said before, it will be much easier to incorporate quickly than any of the others you mention. Personally though, I would have liked the latest version of the F15.

b) The Hornets are replaced by 2020. That would be roughly in the middle of their lifecycle. Who would buy them ? I mean $3 billion is a bit too much to use them as landmark in the desert after 15 years.
Some MLU'd F-16 or Gripens would to that trick at a fraction of the costs

I believe the twin engined FA18F is a better option for Australia to cover the loss of the F111 than either the F16 or Gripen and these would have been more difficult to get into service quickly. My expectation is that we will see the (upgraded) FA18F fly on alongside the F35 for some time after 2020. The $3.1bn figure covers much more than the basic aircraft. Also I can't see any evidence that the SH will be more difficult to sell after 2020 than any of the other types mentioned.


Cheers

 

[MarcH]

Thx for your patience in underlining those arguments Tasman.
Nethertheless, it remains somewhat strange to me, that on one side the Aussie AF is willing to do any trick to get the arguably highest quality aircraft (JSF), and on the other side is willing to go for the F-18F. The same aircraft, that has been washed out in round one in any serious competition before. :nutkick
To top this off,a certain Mr. Shepherd can be quoted with: "We believe it is the most capable combat-proven, multi-role fourth generation fighter in the world today".
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/chief-slightly-sorry-for-rushed-jet-deal/2007/02/14/1171405299822.html
Wohoo, it was used as tanker to refuel Tomcats doing the work above A'stan. That thing must be really good. :
So, what does this man know, that authorities in Singapore and South Korea, who wasted their time with actually evaluating the respective aircraft, overlooked ?
Sometimes I really believe there is someone afraid the stopgap could become too close in capability to the pet project JSF.
But as you said, 'water under the bridge'. Looking forward to the next "mea culpa".

 

[Magoo]

Nethertheless, it remains somewhat strange to me, that on one side the Aussie AF is willing to do any trick to get the arguably highest quality aircraft (JSF), and on the other side is willing to go for the F-18F. The same aircraft, that has been washed out in round one in any serious competition before. :nutkick

So, what does this man know, that authorities in Singapore and South Korea, who wasted their time with actually evaluating the respective aircraft, overlooked ?

Not quite right there MarcH. Firstly, the Super Hornet wasn't considered by either Singapore or South Korea for a number of reasons. Both of these air arms already have existing support infrastructure through the USAF, and they both operate F-16s with F100 and F110 engines which are common to the F-15. Additionally, their requirements are likely to be very different to those of Australia.

To top this off,a certain Mr. Shepherd can be quoted with: "We believe it is the most capable combat-proven, multi-role fourth generation fighter in the world today".
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...rushed-jet-deal/2007/02/14/1171405299822.html
Wohoo, it was used as tanker to refuel Tomcats doing the work above A'stan. That thing must be really good. :

As AIR MARSHAL Shepherd said, the F/A-18E/F IS the most capable fourth gen strike fighter around...period. The F/A-18Es were used as buddy tankers, because the USN doesn't have any other shipborne buddy tankers, but the Supers also did their fair share of mud moving as well. Also, in the early days, the F-14s far outnumbered the Super Hornets.

Sometimes I really believe there is someone afraid the stopgap could become too close in capability to the pet project JSF.

This is something Boeing is no doubt counting on. They already have their foot in the door, so to speak, with a Super Hornet 'bridging' order, and now they're no doubt hoping the F-35 keeps slipping up and to the right so that they can slip another batch or two of jets in as well, something which is a very real possibility.

Magoo

 

[Tasman]

It certainly looks like Air Marshal Shepherd's "mea culpa … slightly" shows that the RAAF is a bit embarrassed about the way things have developed. Still six weeks passed between Defence assuring the Senate that there were no problems with the JSF project and then admitting there was and even one week is a long time in politics!

Cheers

 

[MarcH]

Not quite right there MarcH. Firstly, the Super Hornet wasn't considered by either Singapore or South Korea for a number of reasons. Both of these air arms already have existing support infrastructure through the USAF, and they both operate F-16s with F100 and F110 engines which are common to the F-15. Additionally, their requirements are likely to be very different to those of Australia.

Last October, Singapore eliminated three other contenders for the new fighter: the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, the Lockheed Martin F-16 Block 60 and the Sukhoi Su-30MKS.
http://www.ainonline.com/Publications/asian/asian_04/d1_singaporep16.html
This article states otherwise. :unknown

 

[Magoo]

Last October, Singapore eliminated three other contenders for the new fighter: the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, the Lockheed Martin F-16 Block 60 and the Sukhoi Su-30MKS.
http://www.ainonline.com/Publications/asian/asian_04/d1_singaporep16.html
This article states otherwise. :unknown

These were never real contenders, for all the reasons I listed above. The shortlisted aircraft were the F-15SG, Rafale and Typhoon.

Magoo

 

[Aussie Digger]

Well, the history of the Australian replacement programme looks for me that way:
1st step: by around 2000, the need for new airframes arose. Australian authorities quickly identified the need for 5th generation aircraft. Since the Raptor wasn't available for exports, and most probably to expensive to aquire in the desired numbers, the decision was to go into the paper aircraft JSF.
Unfortunately, that didn't match with the remaining airframe life of your existing aircraft. So it was intended to invest roughly $3 billion into the F-18 and an unknown amount of money into the F-111 to slip into JSF timtable. You remember, nothing short of a 5th generation fighter would meet the Australien defense needs.
2nd step: completely surprisingly the programme costs rose and in service date of the yet to materialize JSF slipped.
Now the F-18 comes into play. It is of course meant only as a stop gap. But as of now, those F-18F will be bought, not leased. Resulting in a reduced JSF number. Therefore, I think the term stop gap is wrong. It will be a long term investment.
Since local air superiority has been stressed so much in the past, that somewhat surprises me. The F-18E/F really doesn't score with it's aerodynamics. Wing fences, restricted flight envelop to overcome wingflutter, aligned pylons to overcome seperation issues,... The list is long.
The things that are in favour of the F-18 for the US Navy (bring back capability, made in USA, high availability rates) are only partly of interest for Australia.
The not carrier-specific plus points could be matched or surpassed by any other 4.5 generation fighter. What remains is the availability of an AESA antenna for it's radar set, and some commonality with existing Hornets.

So, why is it on one side beyond imagination to buy something short of a 5th generation fighter (local air superiority rhetorics), and then go for the weakest 4.5 generation design as a mid-therm solution ?

Actually the Super scores VERY highly in the areas that counts as far as Australia is concerned.

1. Full multi-role capability resident in a 4.5gen fighter available in-service by late 2010. No other new build 4.5 gen fighter can match that. Neither Typhoon, F-15K/SG or Rafale can meet this requirement. Gripen's "might" if we were to accept refurbished A/B models, but your chief complaint seems to be the SH's lack of "aerodynamic performance", but then you advocate the Gripen???

Pardon me, but what capability (apart from airframe life) does the Gripen bring to the table that is not already resident in our "HUG" Hornet fleet? Apart of course from a completely different weapon system, meaning we'd be required to integrate a large amount of current and future weapons and sensor systems onto the platform that will not be operated by any other Gripen user, ie: (Litening AT, JDAM, JASSM, ASRAAM etc). Would you care to pay the engineering NRE's on behalf of RAAF?

2. The F/A-18E/F exceeds the aerodynamic performance of our "legacy" Bugs, provides greater payload/range capability and has significantly enhanced networking capability, enhanced EWSP and an enhanced AESA radar system. The "EPE" engines should be available to Australia as well during the service life of the SH, meaning improved performance or increased reliability and lower maintenance costs.

3. Why on Earth would we want an F-16 variant? To obtain greater capability than that extant in our HUG BUG fleet, we'd need the E/F variant. Again this could not be in-service by 2010, would require a COMPLETELY different logistical support capacity and pilot training program, to gain an aircraft which in aerodynamic performance offers little more than our current Hornet fleet and to date has only been ordered by 1 customer (to which we'd have to pay royalties) and costs according to some reports, more than new build F-15G/SK's. I know what I'd rather have...

In terms of funding this aircraft, Air Commodore HARVEY admits that while possible in future, the SH purchase is not currently affecting the JSF budget. He states RAAF consider the SH to have a 25-30 year service life, but would probably look at selling the aircraft in the 10-15 year range, meaning around 2020 - 2022, before moving to a final JSF Squadron or possible UCAV based platform.

As far as I can tell, the SH is exactly what RAAF requires to "bridge" any gap until JSF is ready and I for one am more than happy about this decision.

Out of interest, I guess many people were having much the same arguments when the F-4 Phantom replaced the Canberra bomber in RAAF service...

 

[Tasman]

Out of interest, I guess many people were having much the same arguments when the F-4 Phantom replaced the Canberra bomber in RAAF service...

That was certainly the case AD. I was one of them! There were also a fair few who thought that the F111 was too expensive, too sophisticated, too big a risk, etc, (shades of the F-35!) and who would have liked the F-4E as the permanent rather than 'bridge' strike aircraft. Let's hope the F-35 is as successful in RAAF hands as the F111 has been.

The Phantom II was a wonderful aircraft and I always thought it was a pity that Australia didn't exercise the option to purchase the 23 survivors but I guess it would have been inefficient for the RAAF to have operated it in small numbers alongside two other combat aircraft (F111C and Mirage IIIO). Had the F111 failed, the Phantom IIs would most likely have remained in service with the RAAF for a long time. In the same way, whilst I don't expect the F-35C to fail, I do think that further delays in the program could see the FA-18F remain on beyond the 10-15 years planned and in greater numbers than the 24 now being discussed.

Cheers

 

[Thumper]

With the Rhino Australia is getting an AC that is second only to the F-22 in overall capability. This is a was great investment and you could do far worse.

I too felt little love for the Rhino until I did some research. Sure it's a bit slow for an interceptor and its a bit short legged for a striker, but both shortcomings can be mitigated and there is still a lot of growth left. From what I have read I think the block II Hornet is a great plane but the block III Hornet is going to be truly special. Do not be surprised if the USN passes completely on the JSF and opts for further developing the Rhino and UCAVs.

What I don't understand is that Australia is much like the USN IMHO in that they plan on deploying two AC that are really very similar in mission and capablities in the JSF and SH.

The Navy has no choice but Australia may. I know that Raptors are not for sale, yet. By 2014 this may change. It happened with the Eagle and I am sure it will happen with the Raptor.

Someone said that the Varks you have are still in pretty good shape. Why not upgrade them and have them perform the interceptor(equip them to fire AMRAAM), long range strike role and buy more Rhinos for everything else. Once the Varks wear out I bet you would be able to get 3 or 4 dozen Raptors to replace them in 2014.

This way you get the best of both worlds with a hi lo mix of planes and it does not break the bank.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Someone said that the Varks you have are still in pretty good shape. Why not upgrade them and have them perform the interceptor(equip them to fire AMRAAM), long range strike role and buy more Rhinos for everything else. Once the Varks wear out I bet you would be able to get 3 or 4 dozen Raptors to replace them in 2014.

This way you get the best of both worlds with a hi lo mix of planes and it does not break the bank.

Too expensive and "orphaned". Australia would have to have to set up or arrange special F-111 specific support that would drive cost up astronomically as a sole user of the platform. Also, look at the service life of the aircraft. Australia would need to have a 2 to 3 year advanced notice to the manufacturer to keep up the logistics necessary to support the F-111 SLEP. By that time, the RAAF would reach a point of unacceptable readiness. Additionally, if you wanted to throw in the avionics necessary to adequately support a2a operations that would also add time and cost.

Considering all that, Oz cannot afford to bet its security on "maybe" getting several billion worth of Raptors that will probably not be offered except maybe to Japan and even thats not too likely. Additionally, take a look at the Oz threat matrix. F/A-18F and F-35 are more than a match for anything that could challenge Oz. Those solutions(F/A-18F) are available today and bring the benefit of shared risk with allies who are current users. The F/A-18F and F-35 mix bring forth a very potent complimentary capability that ensures Australia will have one of the regions most advanced air forces. Perhaps the most advanced all things considered. This decision by Australia was obvious for some time IMV.

DA

 

[Tasman]

Too expensive and "orphaned". Australia would have to have to set up or arrange special F-111 specific support that would drive cost up astronomically as a sole user of the platform. Also, look at the service life of the aircraft. Australia would need to have a 2 to 3 year advanced notice to the manufacturer to keep up the logistics necessary to support the F-111 SLEP. By that time, the RAAF would reach a point of unacceptable readiness. Additionally, if you wanted to throw in the avionics necessary to adequately support a2a operations that would also add time and cost.

The Defence Department certainly seem to agree that evolving the F111 is too risky and difficult and rightly or wrongly this is now a dead issue for the RAAF. The government has made it clear that the F111 will not be evolved and it will be phased out from 2010.

Considering all that, Oz cannot afford to bet its security on "maybe" getting several billion worth of Raptors that will probably not be offered except maybe to Japan and even thats not too likely. Additionally, take a look at the Oz threat matrix. F/A-18F and F-35 are more than a match for anything that could challenge Oz. Those solutions(F/A-18F) are available today and bring the benefit of shared risk with allies who are current users. The F/A-18F and F-35 mix bring forth a very potent complimentary capability that ensures Australia will have one of the regions most advanced air forces. Perhaps the most advanced all things considered. This decision by Australia was obvious for some time IMV.

The RAAF already has egg on its face over the 'sudden' need for a bridging aircraft. There is no way I believe it would risk making decisions on what 'might be available after 2014'. If the Raptor does become available in the future then it could be considered at that time but at present the F-22, like the evolved F111, is a dead issue for the RAAF, IMHO.

Cheers

 

[Thumper]

I would think that with all the low mileage Varks sitting in the boneyard spares would be easy. It also seems to me that while the JSF is going to be a fine AC it's mission, design and even to an extent capabilities are very similar to the SH. JSF has more stealth, JSF greater combat persistance (especially when JSF is clean). Both are in effect very capable medium fighters/strikers. F-111 does/could be the heavy, long range compliment.

I disagree about the F-22. One just has to look at the previous world beater, the F-15. At first it was not for export either. That changed over time and it will happen with the Raptor too. It may not have all the capablities of the domestic version but I think that there will be an export version of the AC available to select allies.

 

[Tasman]

I disagree about the F-22. One just has to look at the previous world beater, the F-15. At first it was not for export either. That changed over time and it will happen with the Raptor too. It may not have all the capablities of the domestic version but I think that there will be an export version of the AC available to select allies.

If and when it does the RAAF will be in a position to consider it at that time. One advantage of purchasing the FA-18F as a bridging aircraft is that it provides an option in 10-15 years of acquiring a supplement to the F-35 as an alternative to an an all F-35 force. Present plans envisage more F-35s or perhaps UCAVs but if circumstances change and the RAAF needs an air superiority type aircraft then the opportunity will be there. There is no need for the air force to do more at the moment than keep all future options (including availablity or non availablity of the F-22, along with any other possibilities) under review, which I think any prudent force would do.

Cheers

 

[Magoo]

I disagree about the F-22. One just has to look at the previous world beater, the F-15. At first it was not for export either. That changed over time and it will happen with the Raptor too. It may not have all the capablities of the domestic version but I think that there will be an export version of the AC available to select allies.

The F-15 was available for sale early - it was offered to Austalia in 1976, one year after it entered service with the USAF, and it was in service with Japan and Israel by 1980.

For any "export version" of the F-22, you can bet neither the USAF nor LockMart will be paying for the NRE development costs of an export version!

Magoo

 

[Iceman255]

Plus you must not forget that the RAAF's are already geared for Hornet operations, even if its the old F/A-18A's - the pilots will make a quicker transition than if a new aircraft is purcahsed.

 

[Iceman255]

Sorry, i'm new, didnt read the post properly :sleepy anys, RAAF cant afford the F-22, others in the area might get pretty annoyed at a sale of F-22's to the aussies

 

[Tasman]

Sorry, i'm new, didnt read the post properly :sleepy anys, RAAF cant afford the F-22, others in the area might get pretty annoyed at a sale of F-22's to the aussies

Iceman, the RAAF cannot buy the F-22 if it wanted to and had the money to do so.

The thread Aussie JSF to outcost F-22s? has contained several recent posts about this. Here is one posted by Aussie Digger (Post 410):

I have read that Gordan ENGLAND (US Deputy Secretary of Defence) has written personally to Defmin NELSON stating that the USA will NOT sell the F-22 to Australia, thus if not ending this debate, at least moving it firmly into the "what if" (or rather "red herring" IMHO) category here:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi...&modele=jdc_34

Cheers