EA/18G Growler

[heyjoe]

Even with HUGed bugs the F 18F's will still be our most capable Air Superiority platform, so why would we put AIM 9x on it when weve got an arguably more capable (longer ranged) ASRAAM in the inventory?

Range is also a benefit of AIM-9X, but not as critical forward quarter you have AMRAAM for MRM work although AIM-9X is now classed as a "near BVR" weapon due to its increased range over the earlier Sidewinders. AIM-9X attributes include high off boresight targeting capability (virtually same seeker as ASRAAM) integrated with JVC for kinematics to match and a larger warhead. UK ASRAAM has a slightly different design/employment philosophy. It will be interesting to see what the RAAF pilots think when they get to compare the two.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Range is the benefit of AIM-9X as you have AMRAAM for MRM work although AIM-9X is now classed as a "near BVR" weapon due to its increased range over the earlier Sidewinders. AIM-9X attributes include high off boresight targeting capability (virtually same seeker as ASRAAM) integrated with JVC for kinematics to match and a larger warhead. UK ASRAAM has a slightly different design/employment philosophy. It will be interesting to see what the RAAF pilots think when they get to compare the two.

True, RAAF will be (I think) the only Western force with both weapons in-service. I have read RAAF are extremely pleased with ASRAAM, citing it's extremely long range (for a WVR missile) as a major plus.

If only RAAF could now acquire HDAM, I'd be one happy chappy indeed...

 

[swerve]

Range is the benefit of AIM-9X ....

Can you explain this? Are you saying AIM-9X has a greater range than Asraam?

 

[heyjoe]

Can you explain this? Are you saying AIM-9X has a greater range than Asraam?

No, I wasn't saying that at all, I said increased range over the earlier Sidewinders. , but I did reword it to make it a bit more clear

 

[swerve]

No, I wasn't saying that at all, I said increased range over the earlier Sidewinders. , but I did reword it to make it a bit more clear

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[rossfrb_1]

If only RAAF could now acquire HDAM, I'd be one happy chappy indeed...

...and some G conversion kits.


as an aside, it doesn't seem like everyone is happy with the announced acquisition
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21342853-31477,00.html

"Six billion flight of fancy

* The Government's Super Hornet purchase is an expensive and unnecessary triumph of politics over strategic knowledge.
Patrick Walters and Cameron Stewart report
* March 08, 2007
IT'S Brendan Nelson's $6 billion bonanza.
On Tuesday afternoon as a stiff breeze rippled across the tarmac at Canberra's Fairbairn airbase,
the Defence Minister proudly announced the RAAF's latest multi-billion-dollar purchase, 24 F/A-18 F Super Hornets................
.............Up until Nelson intervened, the firm conclusion inside defence was that Australia did not need a new fighter jet to plug any gap between the retirement of the F-111 strike bombers in 2010 and the arrival of the F-35s from 2013........."

I wonder if that last bit really was the case?
$6 billion sure could have bought some other goodies

-tracked/wheeled 120mm mortars
-real IFVs
- SPAAG/SAM systems
-ensured that the numbers or tracked artillery systems for land 17 wasn't scrimped.

rb

 

[Tasman]

...and some G conversion kits.


as an aside, it doesn't seem like everyone is happy with the announced acquisition
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21342853-31477,00.html

"Six billion flight of fancy

* The Government's Super Hornet purchase is an expensive and unnecessary triumph of politics over strategic knowledge.
Patrick Walters and Cameron Stewart report
* March 08, 2007
IT'S Brendan Nelson's $6 billion bonanza.
On Tuesday afternoon as a stiff breeze rippled across the tarmac at Canberra's Fairbairn airbase,
the Defence Minister proudly announced the RAAF's latest multi-billion-dollar purchase, 24 F/A-18 F Super Hornets................
.............Up until Nelson intervened, the firm conclusion inside defence was that Australia did not need a new fighter jet to plug any gap between the retirement of the F-111 strike bombers in 2010 and the arrival of the F-35s from 2013........."

I wonder if that last bit really was the case?
$6 billion sure could have bought some other goodies

-tracked/wheeled 120mm mortars
-real IFVs
- SPAAG/SAM systems
-ensured that the numbers or tracked artillery systems for land 17 wasn't scrimped.

rb

I'm just thankful that the Defence Minister didn't accept the reported advice of his Defence 'experts' that Australia could go from 2010 until 2013 (at least) with a 25% reduction in the size of its air combat force. To reduce from almost 100 down to 71 (and many of them out of service undergoing extensive modernisation) for a period of at least three years and probably more, we would have had to gamble on a prediction that the force would not be needed for any military crisis during that time. It seems to me that it would also have proven difficult for the RAAF to maintain the currency of its pilots with such a huge reduction in the numbers of its operational aircraft.

BTW, in Tasmania's major 'so called' newspaper the purchase was greeted with total disinterest - just a tiny section in the bottom corner of page 2!

Cheers

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

its a shame we couldn't make the pigs streach, but who knows when we will actually have F35 in squadron service. $6 billion could have been used to buy IFV's!!! what we really need!

 

[Tasman]

its a shame we couldn't make the pigs streach, but who knows when we will actually have F35 in squadron service. $6 billion could have been used to buy IFV's!!! what we really need!

The same report in the Australian suggests that the Defence Minister was worried about a classified report re keeping the F111s beyong 2010.

According to senior Government sources, Nelson seized on a classified assessment by defence scientists at the November NSC meeting outlining the risks of keeping the F-111s in service beyond 2010. He then proceeded to hammer home the political consequences for the Government should any of the nearly 40-year old planes fall out of the sky.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21342853-31477,00.html

BTW, I have no argument about the need for IFVs for the army, but this money is additional and obviously the Minister was able to convince Cabinet of its need. It would be good if the army could come up with a convincing argument for supplementary funding for IFVs - perhaps based on its needs in Afghanistan or Iraq. I would hate to see inter service rivalry lead to an attempt to derail the FA-18F deal.

Cheers

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I compleatly agree. The simple fact is that the F111 just isn't feasable beyonde that time, and therefore the F18F purchase is desperatly needed. Its just a shame about the pigs.

 

[Maverick65]

There are plenty around who say the -18F purchase isn't warranted and that we can wait for F-35s, still others ask if we aren't propping up the -35 program given it's haziness within the US. In addition, Defence sources have been rather unkind regarding the -18F's capabilities and to suggest it's at 'Tier 5' would be laughable in the extreme. As has been said in another forum, I hope the -18F and JSF programs come with a generous supply of body bags in case we actually go to war.

 

[Magoo]

There are plenty around who say the -18F purchase isn't warranted and that we can wait for F-35s, still others ask if we aren't propping up the -35 program given it's haziness within the US. In addition, Defence sources have been rather unkind regarding the -18F's capabilities and to suggest it's at 'Tier 5' would be laughable in the extreme. As has been said in another forum, I hope the -18F and JSF programs come with a generous supply of body bags in case we actually go to war.

Geez Mav, way to come out swinging! Why don't you tell us what you REALLY think???

Most people when they come into a new forum tend to introduce themselves and perhaps listen a little before chiming in, but you've just waded in boots'n'all!

You've managed to bag the JSF and the Super Hornet while labelling the F-22 as...

something ridiculously over tech

So, what's your solution???

I'm not sure about the others, but I'd be interested in hearing a little more about you and your qualifications to make such sweeping statements. :unknown

Cheers

Magoo

 

[Rich]

There are plenty around who say the -18F purchase isn't warranted and that we can wait for F-35s, still others ask if we aren't propping up the -35 program given it's haziness within the US. In addition, Defence sources have been rather unkind regarding the -18F's capabilities and to suggest it's at 'Tier 5' would be laughable in the extreme. As has been said in another forum, I hope the -18F and JSF programs come with a generous supply of body bags in case we actually go to war.

Boy, if the Mods cant see what this guy is about then were all in trouble. Me? I'm just going to put him on ignore.

Mod edit: he's been taken to task for his unsupported statements and we are more than capable of "seeing" what he's about. He like everyone else is monitored.

Cheers

AD.

 

[old faithful]

Boy, if the Mods cant see what this guy is about then were all in trouble. Me? I'm just going to put him on ignore.

...Just like a lot of us did to you....

 

[radiosilence]

...Just like a lot of us did to you....

nfloorl: sorry couldn't help myself.

 

[old faithful]

There are plenty around who say the -18F purchase isn't warranted and that we can wait for F-35s, still others ask if we aren't propping up the -35 program given it's haziness within the US. In addition, Defence sources have been rather unkind regarding the -18F's capabilities and to suggest it's at 'Tier 5' would be laughable in the extreme. As has been said in another forum, I hope the -18F and JSF programs come with a generous supply of body bags in case we actually go to war.

G,day mav. Im pretty sure that the F18F,s will hold their own,given the weopons,radar,ECM and training that RAAF has access to. As a gap filler,they will be fine. There havnt been any allied air to air losses in confilcts for some time now,and i dont see that as a worry in the near future. Remember,they will be primarily maritime strike/strike aircraft that can pretty much go un escorted.

 

[alexsa]

There are plenty around who say the -18F purchase isn't warranted and that we can wait for F-35s, still others ask if we aren't propping up the -35 program given it's haziness within the US.

As has been asked previously if we don't buy the JSF what do we buy. And what makes the F-18F such a poor purchase given the obvious synergeis with the HugBUG and advanced systems it carries. I hope you are not proposing Eastern block equipment otherwise all that is left is EF, F-15, F16 and Rafale. The F-18F in the Australian context stacks up pretty well against all these options as an interim aircraft.

In addition, Defence sources have been rather unkind regarding the -18F's capabilities and to suggest it's at 'Tier 5' would be laughable in the extreme.

What sources.

As has been said in another forum, I hope the -18F and JSF programs come with a generous supply of body bags in case we actually go to war.

Compared to what? An updated F-111, EF, F-15, F16 or Rafale. The F-35 if it lives up to expectations will much more survivable than any of these even with the F-111's range and speed. Using your arguement we should just give up as you have effectively panned every available option noting the F-22 is over tech and not available (and not designed as a strike aircraft in any case).

 

[rjmaz1]

The same report in the Australian suggests that the Defence Minister was worried about a classified report re keeping the F111s beyong 2010.

No that classified report was about the current Hornet fleet and came from DSTO Melbourne.

The original plan was to just use the current hornets and retire the F-111. However the current hornets are the problem and cannot handle defending the entire country. That report came to the conclusion that the Super Hornet is needed to fill the gap.

The current F-111 fleet has alot of airframe life left, though they are no longer technically advanced. If the F-111 was kept in service until the first JSF squadron arrived then it would have taken the load off the Classic hornets which are the problem.

 

[Tasman]

No that classified report was about the current Hornet fleet and came from DSTO Melbourne.

The original plan was to just use the current hornets and retire the F-111. However the current hornets are the problem and cannot handle defending the entire country. That report came to the conclusion that the Super Hornet is needed to fill the gap.

The current F-111 fleet has alot of airframe life left, though they are no longer technically advanced. If the F-111 was kept in service until the first JSF squadron arrived then it would have taken the load off the Classic hornets which are the problem.

Hi rjmaz.

I am the first to admit that newspapers are often an unreliable source but the report actually said:

According to senior Government sources, Nelson seized on a classified assessment by defence scientists at the November NSC meeting outlining the risks of keeping the F-111s in service beyond 2010.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21342853-31477,00.html
The Air Force Chief said:

The F-111 has been a stalwart aircraft at the centre of Australia's strike capability for over three decades. The Chief of Air Force, Air Marshal Geoff Shepherd, a pilot with around 2500 hours flying F-111’s, said it is important for Australia to retire the F-111 at a time of our choosing. This ensures that the men and women who operate them are not endangered through the risks of an aging platform.
The withdrawal of the F-111 is expected in 2010 with the F/A-18F Super Hornets to be operational that same year.

http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/NelsonMintpl.cfm?CurrentId=6437

The air force hierarchy seems to have real concerns about keeping the F111 beyond 2010. Maybe it could be kept longer but at what cost? Incidently I have always been an enthusiastic fan of the 'Pig' and I will be very sorry to see it go

Cheers

 

[Todjaeger]

The air force hierarchy seems to have real concerns about keeping the F111 beyond 2010. Maybe it could be kept longer but at what cost? Incidently I have always been an enthusiastic fan of the 'Pig' and I will be very sorry to see it go

Cheers

Keep in mind, the concerns about keeping the F-111 aren't necessarily centred just on airworthiness. While I do admit I'm not sure that there are all that many hours left on the F-111 airframes without major structural work, other factors come into play as well. For instance, with more advanced systems entering service in the region, will the F-111 be able to conduct missions like it had been designed for, like low-level rapid strike? If the F-111 can be detected before it reaches the target, or pursued by enemy aircraft, then either the mission and method of operating needs to be revised or aircraft losses will occur. In order to revise operations, as well as make use of new and upcoming ordnance, then upgrades need to be considered to allow use of more advanced munitions and defensive electronics.

When you couple the costs of mission systems upgrades, and structural upgrades/maintenance, significant costs and risk gets introduced to the aircraft. Look at the Seasprite program for example. Given the potential costs and risks with the potential return, and then factor in what is or will be available soon. After that, it becomes a judgement call as to which path makes more sense.

While it's sad to see the F-111s go, given the technological progress made, and the move to greater situational awareness, I think it's the right decision. I don't see the F-111 being able to be effectively "networked" with the rest of the ADF in a timely or cost efficient manner.

-Cheers