EA/18G Growler

[gf0012-aust]

What I respectfully suggest to some of you is that you read up on all of your neighbors and how they are getting all different kinds of Chinese inspired funding for any number of domestic infrastructure projects and how part of that will be paid for by giving the PLA military access in all shapes and forms. Part of that is happening now in small ways ( E.Timor ) and other places and can be expected only to increase over the years with a PLA that is flush with cash.

Please enlighten me over Timor Leste. I have relatives in the TL Govt who actually work with Aust Govt across a broad range off issues. I'd like to know what they're missing out on.

Locking yourself into certain fighter purchases without considering others, will lock you into an aircraft type that once Army and Navy declare that RAAF has their toys now and they need funding for Army/Navy projects x y and z, getting further funding to replace your stop-gap Super Hornet if JSF falls on it's face, is going to be a problem not fixed any time soon. Boeing will be only to glad to see LM fall on its face and kindly offer you a deal on Super Hornets to replace your legacy Hornets.

No offense, but I'd bet London to a Brick that if the bypass process had tagged F-22, then none of the whiteanters would be singing falsetto. As for some of those individuals who have been loud and proud in their concern, its ironic that they have other issues with ADF and AustGov and so the question of the sincerity and absolute conviction is somewhat suspect. (Criss being a prime example of this). But never let a good "lead and bleed broadsheet announcement" get by.

**=Defence announced the other day ASRAAM/AIM-132 wont' go on Super Hornet. AIM-9X will be part of the deal to "add more comonality with the USN". Funny as for RAF ASRAAM is part of their JSF plan.

And the cost to recertify and rail the ASRAAM to rhino is acceptable? Why would we when we already have systems in stock and its an interim issue?

we already paid for AIM132 ourselves on the legacy bugs - you do know how long that took to do? why would we go in to do it on another platform when the major user won't have any interest in absorbing the costs. They'll stick with the x and we'll have 24 certified rhinos that will be of little use to the USN on return except to play as weapons testers for other euro mounts. Thats daft economics.

clutching at straws I think.....

 

[alexsa]

I especially include USN leadership in that statement. Part of the difference here is that USN had to pay out funds to a ship building lobby in their budgets also. A-12 being mismanaged into the dirt, F-14 production equipment being scrapped. A thin post cold war budget in the 90s that would see almost a whole squadron of legacy Hornets put up unflyable on sawhorses with their spare parts stripped so another squadron could go on carrier duty and have spares available at sea etc. etc. And any number of other things. SH ended up on the deck because it had a new car smell and was in production. Super Hornet solved an alleged* problem of the checkbook.

I don't even think dr Kopp would agree wiht this sumation. According to him (and many others) the F-18E/F was the size of aircraft they wanted in the first place but budget retraints saw the classic developed instead. Combined with this it is a little more than new car smell noting the range and carrying capcicity increase combined with moder sensors in the block 2 and block 2+ which are a signficant improvement on systems carried by the F-14. In addition, and often ignored inthe slanging match, the F-18E/F are much less maintencae intensive than the F-14 providing a better availability than the F-14 and F-18 classic.

**=Defence announced the other day ASRAAM/AIM-132 wont' go on Super Hornet. AIM-9X will be part of the deal to "add more comonality with the USN". Funny as for RAF ASRAAM is part of their JSF plan.

Still is part of the the JSF loadout as ASRAAM will be intergrated on JSF (don't forget the UK is buying them as well). The difference is now we will have both rather than just ASRAAM due to the F-18F purchase. If we keep the F-18F beyond the bridging option (i.e we have a two tiered force) then maybe ASRAAM and JASSM will be intergrated but this is just speculation.

 

[Aussie Digger]

**=Defence announced the other day ASRAAM/AIM-132 wont' go on Super Hornet. AIM-9X will be part of the deal to "add more comonality with the USN". Funny as for RAF ASRAAM is part of their JSF plan.

Before you start making "pithy" remarks, perhaps you should find out exactly what you're talking about.

RAF has ONLY signed up for ASRAAM integration onto the F-35B. Not the "A" that RAAF is interested in. Given the completely different sized weapons bays, there is a significant difference between the 2 aircraft and the integration costs most probably will be borne by us alone, given no other Country is using the weapon.

That we've done this already on A/B model Hornets I agree. There is no guarantee it'll be done again. Particularly when we'll have a weapon that is "base lined" in-service anyway.

Given the 5 or so years of operating BOTH types in-service, I have no doubt RAAF will have an excellent idea of the EXACT capabilities of both weapons.

I also love how the operators of the aircraft are maligned in their opinions about their own aircraft. How could they possibly know it's capabilities, compared to us here in the public domain?

I can quote a USN Squadron Commander who describes the Super Hornet's capability as "eye watering". But hey, what would he know right?

 

[Thumper]

I can quote a USN Squadron Commander who describes the Super Hornet's capability as "eye watering". But hey, what would he know right?

Yeah but don't you know they are all lying.

 

[ELP]

Before you start making "pithy" remarks, perhaps you should find out exactly what you're talking about.

RAF has ONLY signed up for ASRAAM integration onto the F-35B. Not the "A" that RAAF is interested in. Given the completely different sized weapons bays, there is a significant difference between the 2 aircraft and the integration costs most probably will be borne by us alone, given no other Country is using the weapon.

That we've done this already on A/B model Hornets I agree. There is no guarantee it'll be done again. Particularly when we'll have a weapon that is "base lined" in-service anyway.

Given the 5 or so years of operating BOTH types in-service, I have no doubt RAAF will have an excellent idea of the EXACT capabilities of both weapons.

I also love how the operators of the aircraft are maligned in their opinions about their own aircraft. How could they possibly know it's capabilities, compared to us here in the public domain?

I can quote a USN Squadron Commander who describes the Super Hornet's capability as "eye watering". But hey, what would he know right?

Hi AD,

The idea that yet another A2A missile has to be incorporated into the RAAF isn't too bright. Especially as the AIM-132 ability is pretty good. Putting AIM-132 into the JSF CTOL shouldn't be especially hard or significantly different than the STOVL. Getting a -"stop-gap"- jet that needs yet more things like additional types of A2A missiles isn't too good either. Then there is AGM-142... No indicator that this will be put on to the Super Hornet yet. If not, yet more money on that program thrown away. That will make the taxpayer happy. It is obvious that the snap decision to get Super Hornet didn't consider existing weapons in the inventory. More fleecing of the taxpayer.

Fact of the matter, and I am sorry you don't like to hear this, is that you won't find a serving line officer that will say anything negative about the aircraft unless it kills someone ( unlikely as SH is a safe aircraft ). Retired officers are another matter.

It's pretty sad that:

1. A snap decision was made with no consideration for other aircraft types. This means any hope of justice for the taxpayer was ignored by an all-knowing Defence leadership.

2.No consideration was made to existing weapons on hand.

3.No consideration was made on existing E/O pods in the works. ATFLIR is pretty much made for the Super Hornet. While it hasn't been tested yet, LITENING on SH would be doable but considering the problems that can crop up on that ( remember LITENING was selected for RAAF legacy Hornets before the USMC got done with their tests on putting LITENING on legacy Hornets, and then there were problems...). Putting existing inventory LITENING on Super Hornet may bring up another whole can of worms like the well known vibration of Super Hornet that actually lowers airframe life on weapons and pods meaning these devices have to be refirbed more.(source GAO) So I expect you will see a deal to by ATFLIR for Super Hornet as they are already tested and work on that jet. I don't know. This will be interesting how this is solved. Maybe someone that knows more about this has an answer. If ATFLIR is the E/O pod, this also is pretty said, getting yet another system to purchase for a "stop-gap" fighter. Or have the Legacys buddy-lase for the Super if that was needed. This of course could have been addressed in a fighter competition where part of the requirements for this temporary solution could have been written to use existing gear on hand.

4.The weak airframe performance of Super Hornet is known. What is funny is things in the IG's review of the program noted negative comments like -slow sustained turn speed and weak acceleration would be solved by "tactics". That will be something to look back on as a big SU force contempt of engages some Super Hornets. Having a lack of rapid battlespace mobility isn't the way to go to, in the words of Defence for part of the reason of the SH purchase... "maintain regional air superiorty". Parity is a bad thing. Less than parity is lethal. It is sad watching the taxpayer get gang raped over and over again by ill considered purchases getting hardware that is either faulty or in this case an aircraft that doesn't have any relevance for future threats. Worse if an aircraft like this ends up occupying all the combat aircraft slots if JSF fails to arrive.

 

[Todjaeger]

Hi AD,

The idea that yet another A2A missile has to be incorporated into the RAAF isn't too bright. Especially as the AIM-132 ability is pretty good. Putting AIM-132 into the JSF CTOL shouldn't be especially hard or significantly different than the STOVL. Getting a -"stop-gap"- jet that needs yet more things like additional types of A2A missiles isn't too good either. Then there is AGM-142... No indicator that this will be put on to the Super Hornet yet. If not, yet more money on that program thrown away. That will make the taxpayer happy. It is obvious that the snap decision to get Super Hornet didn't consider existing weapons in the inventory. More fleecing of the taxpayer.

Fact of the matter, and I am sorry you don't like to hear this, is that you won't find a serving line officer that will say anything negative about the aircraft unless it kills someone ( unlikely as SH is a safe aircraft ). Retired officers are another matter.

It's pretty sad that:

1. A snap decision was made with no consideration for other aircraft types. This means any hope of justice for the taxpayer was ignored by an all-knowing Defence leadership.

2.No consideration was made to existing weapons on hand.

3.No consideration was made on existing E/O pods in the works. ATFLIR is pretty much made for the Super Hornet. While it hasn't been tested yet, LITENING on SH would be doable but considering the problems that can crop up on that ( remember LITENING was selected for RAAF legacy Hornets before the USMC got done with their tests on putting LITENING on legacy Hornets, and then there were problems...). Putting existing inventory LITENING on Super Hornet may bring up another whole can of worms like the well known vibration of Super Hornet that actually lowers airframe life on weapons and pods meaning these devices have to be refirbed more.(source GAO) So I expect you will see a deal to by ATFLIR for Super Hornet as they are already tested and work on that jet. I don't know. This will be interesting how this is solved. Maybe someone that knows more about this has an answer. If ATFLIR is the E/O pod, this also is pretty said, getting yet another system to purchase for a "stop-gap" fighter. Or have the Legacys buddy-lase for the Super if that was needed. This of course could have been addressed in a fighter competition where part of the requirements for this temporary solution could have been written to use existing gear on hand.

4.The weak airframe performance of Super Hornet is known. What is funny is things in the IG's review of the program noted negative comments like -slow sustained turn speed and weak acceleration would be solved by "tactics". That will be something to look back on as a big SU force contempt of engages some Super Hornets. Having a lack of rapid battlespace mobility isn't the way to go to, in the words of Defence for part of the reason of the SH purchase... "maintain regional air superiorty". Parity is a bad thing. Less than parity is lethal. It is sad watching the taxpayer get gang raped over and over again by ill considered purchases getting hardware that is either faulty or in this case an aircraft that doesn't have any relevance for future threats. Worse if an aircraft like this ends up occupying all the combat aircraft slots if JSF fails to arrive.

I've asked this before and didn't get a good answer, so I'll ask this again. Aside from the Super Hornet, what other aircraft could the RAAF have selected for strike and/or multi-role operations, that would have been available within the timeframe and price given? I'm not aware of other contenders that could achieve the required timetable. I'm eager to hear what alternatives people think are/were available.

-Cheers

 

[ELP]

The "time frame" all by itself should be brought into question, as for the very point that is used to justify a purchase of one aircraft without a multi-vendor competition. The sudden need to get rid of the F-111 by 2010 isn't a valid need at all. At least at the end of the day if Super Hornet was selected in a competition between any number of other usual suspects of aircraft F-15 Strike Eagle, Eurofighter etc. the taxpayer gets some justice out of this. The only benefit of Super Hornet export sales is to help the U.S. Navy keep procurement costs down. This is going to look really silly if you end up with an all Super Hornet force. For a grand total of $22 billion, all Australia has to show for it, is a mediocrity of of new legacy aircraft and the hope that U.S. doesn't completely screw up the JSF program through budget delays. None of this falls into the category of good government procurement practice.

 

[Tasman]

The "time frame" all by itself should be brought into question, as for the very point that is used to justify a purchase of one aircraft without a multi-vendor competition. The sudden need to get rid of the F-111 by 2010 isn't a valid need at all. At least at the end of the day if Super Hornet was selected in a competition between any number of other usual suspects of aircraft F-15 Strike Eagle, Eurofighter etc. the taxpayer gets some justice out of this. The only benefit of Super Hornet export sales is to help the U.S. Navy keep procurement costs down. This is going to look really silly if you end up with an all Super Hornet force. For a grand total of $22 billion, all Australia has to show for it, is a mediocrity of of new legacy aircraft and the hope that U.S. doesn't completely screw up the JSF program through budget delays. None of this falls into the category of good government procurement practice.

I was disappointed when the original concept of a competition to select Australia's new fighter force was abandoned and the government jumped straight into the JSF program. A competition may well have selected the JSF, and in the absence of the F-22 being available I think it probably would have done. Had that been the case a lot of the present bickering would have been curtailed. I suspect that the government and the RAAF now wish they had gone down that path. However, I don’t think that a competition would have been justified for a bridging aircraft.

Debating the timeline and the need for a bridging force seems to me to be a pointless exercise because, IMHO, none of us has the knowledge of the RAAF re how long and at what cost the F111 could have been kept safely in service.

Having determined that it did need a bridging aircraft I think the government were correct to ask the RAAF to make the decision on what suited it best so that arrangements could be made quickly. Too much time, IMO, would be wasted having a competition for an aircraft needed as a temporary measure. The RAAF has maintained a constant watching brief re the available options ever since the JSF decision was originally announced,

The RAAF, the government and, based on its support for the F-22, the major opposition party, are all committed strongly to move to a fifth generation aircraft as soon as possible. The Defence Minister has stated:

A final decision will be made during the next decade to either maintain a mixed fleet or ‘on-sell’ the Super Hornets and acquire the 4th squadron of JSF. The clear preference is likely to be four squadrons on JSF.

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

and

We need (and can afford to acquire and maintain) 100 state-of-the-art aircraft.

http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/defencedirect/mar2007/march.htm

For that reason I can't see that it would accept a situation where it ended up with an all SH force. Delays in the JSF program could well see an additional squadron of SHs ordered, including, perhaps some EA-18Gs, and this could see the RAAF with a two tier force similar to that of the USN. Total failure of the JSF would open a whole new ball game which, IMO, would almost certainly result in large follow on orders for the F-22, the development of the FB-22, and a possible easing of export restrictions to countries like Australia which have signed up for the JSF. In that case I think the RAAF would supplement the FA-18F with the F-22 in place of the F-35A. I don't see an all FA-18F force as a likely outcome

BTW, where did you get $22bn for an all SH force? The $6bn for the present order includes many additional items to the base price for the 24 aircraft.

Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

Hi AD,

The idea that yet another A2A missile has to be incorporated into the RAAF isn't too bright. Especially as the AIM-132 ability is pretty good. Putting AIM-132 into the JSF CTOL shouldn't be especially hard or significantly different than the STOVL. Getting a -"stop-gap"- jet that needs yet more things like additional types of A2A missiles isn't too good either. Then there is AGM-142... No indicator that this will be put on to the Super Hornet yet. If not, yet more money on that program thrown away. That will make the taxpayer happy. It is obvious that the snap decision to get Super Hornet didn't consider existing weapons in the inventory. More fleecing of the taxpayer.

Fact of the matter, and I am sorry you don't like to hear this, is that you won't find a serving line officer that will say anything negative about the aircraft unless it kills someone ( unlikely as SH is a safe aircraft ). Retired officers are another matter.

It's pretty sad that:

1. A snap decision was made with no consideration for other aircraft types. This means any hope of justice for the taxpayer was ignored by an all-knowing Defence leadership.

2.No consideration was made to existing weapons on hand.

3.No consideration was made on existing E/O pods in the works. ATFLIR is pretty much made for the Super Hornet. While it hasn't been tested yet, LITENING on SH would be doable but considering the problems that can crop up on that ( remember LITENING was selected for RAAF legacy Hornets before the USMC got done with their tests on putting LITENING on legacy Hornets, and then there were problems...). Putting existing inventory LITENING on Super Hornet may bring up another whole can of worms like the well known vibration of Super Hornet that actually lowers airframe life on weapons and pods meaning these devices have to be refirbed more.(source GAO) So I expect you will see a deal to by ATFLIR for Super Hornet as they are already tested and work on that jet. I don't know. This will be interesting how this is solved. Maybe someone that knows more about this has an answer. If ATFLIR is the E/O pod, this also is pretty said, getting yet another system to purchase for a "stop-gap" fighter. Or have the Legacys buddy-lase for the Super if that was needed. This of course could have been addressed in a fighter competition where part of the requirements for this temporary solution could have been written to use existing gear on hand.

4.The weak airframe performance of Super Hornet is known. What is funny is things in the IG's review of the program noted negative comments like -slow sustained turn speed and weak acceleration would be solved by "tactics". That will be something to look back on as a big SU force contempt of engages some Super Hornets. Having a lack of rapid battlespace mobility isn't the way to go to, in the words of Defence for part of the reason of the SH purchase... "maintain regional air superiorty". Parity is a bad thing. Less than parity is lethal. It is sad watching the taxpayer get gang raped over and over again by ill considered purchases getting hardware that is either faulty or in this case an aircraft that doesn't have any relevance for future threats. Worse if an aircraft like this ends up occupying all the combat aircraft slots if JSF fails to arrive.

As for RAAF weapon stocks, the ASRAAM is the ONLY weapon currently employed by the Legacy Hornets that's isn't going to be used by SH. Considering most nations use multiple A2A missile types, I really don't see the huge problem here. It's only a funding issue and as Government is only to happy to fund it, where's the problem?

The F-111 for instance, still uses the AIM-9M Sidewinder. Once it's retired and the Hawk Mk 127 is upgraded, that missile will be retired entirely from service leaving us with ASRAAM, AIM-9X and AIM-120C7 or later AMRAAM variants. Same missile type numbers as now, but of a more advanced variety. Therefore I say again, where is the problem?

As to AGM-142, this weapon is only integrated onto the F-111. Hornets don't use it. They have eclipsed it's capability entirely with AGM-158 JASSM. AGM-154C JSOW however will equip the SH's AND legacy Hornets in due course and will more than make up for the lack of AGM-142. For an additional low cost standoff weapons option, it is likely the JDAM-ER will be procured. This being an indigenously designed fold-out wing kit extended the range of standard JDAM's into the 60-70k range and wholly manufactured in Australia.

The money on AGM-142 hasn't been "thrown away". It was bought specifically to arm F-111's and that's what it does. Nothing more. The difficulty experienced by ADF in integrating such a weapon is precisely what is driving this expanded weapons package. It's cheaper, simpler and eventually more capable (once our JSOW's are upgraded to -ER variants) to simply acquire "off the shelf" munitions.

ATFLIR WILL be acquired for Super Hornet, so your Litening analogy isn't overly relevant. Our Litening integration onto the legacy Hornet's is proceeding well apparently and I have a nice shot of a Hornet from Avalon fitted with the first "in-country" Litening pod I'm about to post into the gallery. It's also fitted with JASSM too with a nice display of BRU-55 "double carriage 'smart ejector' racks" positioned in front of the aircraft too, in an interesting insight into future RAAF capability...

The tax payer is hardly "getting raped" over this deal, unless you consider ANY defence acquisition the same. Does anyone even care that $1.5b out of the $6b budget comprises personnel costs for operating the capability during it's service life? Costs that would be present for ANY capability. On top of this, there is the previously mentioned weapons and sensor packages, critical to ensuring this capability fulfills it's mission.

As to the SH, it hardly has "weak" airframe performance. I and probably even RAAF and USN acknowledge it's slightly inferior to the best SU examples and certainly F-22 and probably Typhoon and F-15 variants. However there are so many variables in air combat it's strengths vastly outweigh it's negatives.

The fact that operators who actually have to employ the aircraft are more than happy to do so against any threat, is enough for me. So far it has not been found wanting. Quite the opposite in fact. It has been found to be superior to "legacy" Bugs in every aspect yet employed in combat and the legacy bugs are no slouches...

However if raw airframe performance is all that you consider to be important in air combat, than I'm afraid it's not much use discussing it, is there?

 

[ELP]

BTW, where did you get $22bn for an all SH force? The $6bn for the present order includes many additional items to the base price for the 24 aircraft.

Cheers

Grand total for the whole adventure. $6 billion or so for SH and $15-16 billion for JSF.

 

[Tasman]

Grand total for the whole adventure. $6 billion or so for SH and $15-16 billion for JSF.

Thanks for the clarification ELP. Bear in mind though that the FA-18F price includes much more than the aircraft. Much of it, as AD said in his last post, is required regardless of what platform is purchased.

Cheers

 

[Occum]

Costing of NACC and Related Activities

Grand total for the whole adventure. $6 billion or so for SH and $15-16 billion for JSF.

Actually, costs for the NACC and related activities under the current plans will be in exess of A$30,000 million with lots of risk - programmatic and technical. The really big risk with the SH buy is that, under the Boeing St Louis business development strategy (known as Project Archangel), there is the very real risk that the interim solution (which was predicted over 5 years ago, now) will become the final.

Neither are a nfloorl: matter, in anyone's language!

 

[ELP]

Well. The family model Super Hornet does look cool. Hope it has a sharp lookin paint job.

 

[Tasman]

Actually, costs for the NACC and related activities under the current plans will be in exess of A$30,000 million with lots of risk - programmatic and technical. The really big risk with the SH buy is that, under the Boeing St Louis business development strategy (known as Project Archangel), there is the very real risk that the interim solution (which was predicted over 5 years ago, now) will become the final.

Neither are a nfloorl: matter, in anyone's language!

I agree that that would be a very poor outcome for the RAAF. However, there appears to be no one in government, the opposition, the RAAF or interested groups (APA for example) who would support this occurring. As I suggested in my last post, in the event that the JSF 'falls over', I would expect the F-22 would most likely be made available and would be purchased as part of a two tier force with the FA-18F. If that were to happen I think it would receive practically everyone's support (well, the F-22 bit anyway ).

Occum, is the $30bn figure based on the same kind of associated costs as the SH deal? It seems a long way from the figures being mentioned by Defence.

Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

I agree that that would be a very poor outcome for the RAAF. However, there appears to be no one in government, the opposition, the RAAF or interested groups (APA for example) who would support this occurring. As I suggested in my last post, in the event that the JSF 'falls over', I would expect the F-22 would most likely be made available and would be purchased as part of a two tier force with the FA-18F. If that were to happen I think it would receive practically everyone's support (well, the F-22 bit anyway ).

Occum, is the $30bn figure based on the same kind of associated costs as the SH deal? It seems a long way from the figures being mentioned by Defence.

Cheers

It's APA's figure after adding up of all the air combat aircraft related costs, including the various phases of the Hornet upgrade, BACC acquisition and NACC acquisition.

The fact that a large part of it is personnel costs which will exist no matter WHICH aircraft we happen to choose, is of course "irrelevant" to those with a particular agenda...

 

[Aussie Digger]

The "time frame" all by itself should be brought into question, as for the very point that is used to justify a purchase of one aircraft without a multi-vendor competition. The sudden need to get rid of the F-111 by 2010 isn't a valid need at all. At least at the end of the day if Super Hornet was selected in a competition between any number of other usual suspects of aircraft F-15 Strike Eagle, Eurofighter etc. the taxpayer gets some justice out of this. The only benefit of Super Hornet export sales is to help the U.S. Navy keep procurement costs down. This is going to look really silly if you end up with an all Super Hornet force. For a grand total of $22 billion, all Australia has to show for it, is a mediocrity of of new legacy aircraft and the hope that U.S. doesn't completely screw up the JSF program through budget delays. None of this falls into the category of good government procurement practice.

It ain't a mediocre aircraft so stop pretending that it is. Here's a new article on funded upgrades for the F/A-18E/F.

Ultra Hornet
By Graham Warwick

Boeing and the US Navy are poised to expand and exploit the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet's capability for precision engagement and battle management now the upgraded platform is matched to the latest avionics
While debate rages over the hallmarks and advantages of fifth-generation fighters, Boeing is preparing to deliver the next generation of its long-running F/A-18. The F/A-18E/F Block II+ Super Hornet is the culmination of a fundamental upgrade of the multi-role fighter and the foundation for future capability expansion.

Next-generation Super Hornet deliveries to the US Navy will begin later this year when the first aircraft from production Lot 30 rolls off the St Louis, Missouri assembly line. "Lot 30 is the launch point for Block II+," says Kory Mathews, director of F/A-18 programme integration.

Today's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet was developed from the original F/A-18 Hornet in two stages: first an airframe and engine upgrade that scaled the fighter up by 25% to increase range, payload and growth capacity then a multi-phase avionics update that introduced advanced sensors.

Lot 30 is the first time the structural upgrade that produced the F/A-18E/F comes together with the full suite of advanced avionics, and is the jumping-off point for the Capability Flightplan - a roadmap of enhancements planned to be developed and fielded over the next decade.

Robust roadmap

"We have a robust, well-defined capability roadmap in four main areas: distributed targeting, net-centric operations/battlespace management, sensor integration and advanced weapons," says Mathews. The Flightplan covers fiscal years 2008-2014, and will be updated annually. "It is a living document," he says. "We can add, accelerate or eliminate capabilities."

The launching point for the Capability Flightplan is the avionics architecture implemented incrementally since deliveries of the Block II Super Hornet began in 2005 with production Lot 26, and fully realised beginning with Lot 30.

The architecture backbone is a fibre-optic data network and advanced mission computer (AMC). Block II+ uses the latest Type 3 AMC, produced by General Dynamics Information Systems, with two times the throughput and memory of the Type 2 computer in Block II Super Hornets.

Plugged into this architecture are the new APG-79 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar AAS-46 advanced tactical forward-looking infrared (ATFLIR) pod digital sold-state recorder (DSSR) accurate navigation (ANAV) system and Link 16 multifunctional information distribution system (MIDS).

"Beginning with Lot 30, every aircraft will have AESA," says Mathews. Until then, some F/A-18E/Fs are being delivered with the earlier mechanically scanned APG-73 radar. The US Navy plans to retrofit 135 APG-73-equipped Block II Super Hornets with APG-79, for an eventual total of 415 AESA-equipped aircraft.

The Raytheon AESA brings the capability for simultaneous air-to-air and air-to-ground operation and, starting with Lot 30, two-seat F/A-18Fs will have the advanced crew station, which decouples the front and rear pits. "The front-seater can sanitise the airspace while the rear-seater conducts an air-to-ground campaign," says Mathews. Both crew members will have the joint helmet-mounted cueing system.

Lot 30 also introduces the ANAV box, which replaces the F/A-18's CAINS inertial navigator and MAGR GPS receiver with a tightly integrated system that addresses obsolescence and provides "unprecedented air-to-ground accuracy", says Mathews.

Another step in expanding the Super Hornet's precision attack capability has already been taken with fielding of the digital sold-state recorder. Replacing an analogue pit video recorder, the DSSR brings the capability to grab and store sensor images, and send them over existing communications links - either Link 16 or the ARC-210 digital radio.

"On ingress, the crew can see ATFLIR streaming video in the pit, frame-grab a still image of the target and datalink it to the forward air controller, who looks at the image, annotates it with Blue Force positions and datalinks it back," Mathews says, cutting the time needed to "talk" the aircraft to the target to "low-digit minutes".

With the Lot 30 aircraft as a starting point, the Flightplan lays out a roadmap for expanding the F/A-18E/F's precision-engagement and battle-management capabilities. Much of the focus is on air-to-ground operations, but the Super Hornet is to get an infrared search and track (IRST) sensor to increase air-to-air capability.

Development of the IRST is funded beginning in FY2008, leading to fielding in 2012-13, says Mathews. A targeting, not imaging sensor, the IRST will be integrated with the radar to provide spectral diversity and the ability to engage passively air-to-air. Although it could be mounted internally, a podded sensor is more likely, he says.

Under the Flightplan, the distributed targeting area involves the addition of an image exploitation processor and mass storage unit to allow sensor information such as synthetic-aperture radar (SAR) imagery to be manipulated rapidly. The first increment will build on the AESA and ATFLIR targeting capability by georegistering imagery to an onboard database to generate precise target co-ordinates.

"This will bring precision targeting for weapons on board the aircraft and provide nearly range-independent, pixel-level accuracy in the pit," says Mathews. The next step will extend the capability to multiple and moving targets. A mode will be added to the AESA enabling interleaved SAR and ground moving-target indication, allowing the system to georegister moving targets and update their positions.

"Combine that with a weapon datalink and you will be able to release a weapon on the initial co-ordinates and update it in flight as the target moves. We will be able to engage multiple movers, stand off, in all weathers," Mathews says, adding that the final part of the distributed targeting roadmap will add features such as automatic target cueing and aided target recognition to reduce crew workload.

The net-centric operations area of the Flightplan focuses on augmenting the communications links on the aircraft. "More and more they will use the aircraft for non-traditional ISR [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] because of its state-of-the-art sensors, and it needs to communicate with anyone inside or outside the theatre," says Mathews.

Wideband links

Two new links are to be added to the aircraft. A wideband IP (internet protocol) link will provide a "bigger pipe" for streaming video and voice-over-IP using ad hoc networks, compared with the narrowband, pre-established Link 16 networks. The second link will be beyond-line-of-sight satellite communications.

Development of the wideband IP link is scheduled to begin in FY2010, followed in FY2012 by the satcom system. The EA-18G Growler electronic-attack variant of the Super Hornet has receive-only satcom, but the new system will transmit and receive voice and data, says Mathews.

The third area of the Flightplan, multi-sensor integration, will exploit capabilities inherent in the Block II+ Super Hornet by rolling out software upgrades that tie onboard sensors more tightly together and with offboard sensors. As well as the AESA and ATFLIR, onboard systems include the ALR-67(V)3 radar warning receiver, also made by Raytheon, and the BAE Systems ALQ-214 integrated defensive electronic countermeasures system (IDECM).

The ALR-67(V) is a digital cued receiver, and under the Flightplan its capability will be enhanced to allow single-ship geolocation of emitters with enough accuracy to cue the radar for targeting, says Mathews. The capability for multi-ship geolocation using three F/A-18E/Fs, accurate enough for passive targeting, will also be introduced.

Some of most powerful sensor-integration capabilities planned involve the AESA and exploit its ability to act as more than a radar. The first of these is planned to be electronic attack, which will involve using the nose-mounted array of solid-state transmit/receive modules as both a highly sensitive passive emitter locator and enormously powerful directional jammer.

Mathews cautions that the AESA is limited to in-band electronic attack, and in its field of view and field of regard as both a receiver and jammer, but the system promises to be a powerful weapon against other X-band radars in aircraft and missiles. Multi-sensor integration will tie the AESA together with the ALR-67(V) receiver for cueing and the IDECM for jamming techniques generation.

The final area of the Capability Flightplan covers expansion of the weapon types cleared for carriage on the Super Hornet. This begins in FY2008 with Boeing's SLAM-ER stand-off land-attack and Harpoon Block III anti-ship missiles. A later spiral will add the Small Diameter Bomb - probably the seeker-equipped Increment II version designed to attack moving targets, says Mathews.

Although the capabilities outlined in the Flightplan will be developed and fielded over a decade or so, the US Navy plans to upgrade all of its Block II Super Hornets to the Block II+ standard. Block I aircraft will also receive upgrades, but will not be retrofitted to the same standard because they lack the new forward fuselage introduced with Block II and cannot accommodate the APG-79 AESA.

The US Navy, meanwhile, is looking at increasing procurement of F/A-18E/Fs beyond its planned 460 aircraft to offset the delay in Joint Strike Fighter initial operational capability to 2015. The Flightplan is designed to ensure, whatever its generation, that the Super Hornet stays at the leading edge of operational capability.

Courtesy: www.flightglobal.com

For starters let's ignore the fact that defence completed it's aircraft studies under AIR-6000 to about 70% of it's usual studies. Let's ignore the fact that it has maintained watching briefs on all of the possible contenders ever since that time shall we?

Perhaps if you disregard these efforts than your post makes some sense.

As outlined above, Super Hornet features capabilities NOW that no other operational aircraft can boast. It has a defined and well funded upgrade plan, that will continue to enhance it's air combat capability.

The ADF is known and well respected internationally, for being a discerning military capability purchaser.

The idea that it has suddenly "dropped the ball" so significantly is ridiculous in the extreme.

Whilst there are issues with ADF management, operational performance is the single biggest issue at stake. Would you care to challenge ADF's operational performance to date?

 

[ELP]

"Ultra Hornet" will still be ultra slow. Great avionics only makes half of a fighter that Defence says is to ".... maintain air superiority" what you have is a very nice strike aircraft. There isn't even parity in the performance envelop vs. other aircraft it claims to be in the same peer group with. Most all of them can contempt of engage it.

The other part of that which is ignored is how it was bought on a whim as opposed to having a selection process. That kind of arrogance in government purchasing is pretty stunning.

It will be interesting to see how Defence pays for all of these obligations where only one party has signed on to this adventure. That is another good thing a selection process helps to do, is to cut off any political whining between parties.

Here is an interesting read of what has to be paid for in the future.

If JSF fails and there isn't any money available to pick up that mistake, then the SH will be your universal fighter. I am sure the USN appreciates helping lower production cost for them, but that shouldn't be the prime goal of the taxpayer funding the RAAF.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21476078-31477,00.html

 

[Grand Danois]

If JSF fails...

There is nothing that suggests that it will.

...and there isn't any money available to pick up that mistake, then the SH will be your universal fighter. I am sure the USN appreciates helping lower production cost for them, but that shouldn't be the prime goal of the taxpayer funding the RAAF.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21476078-31477,00.html

That is a non sequitor.

 

[Todjaeger]

"Ultra Hornet" will still be ultra slow. Great avionics only makes half of a fighter that Defence says is to ".... maintain air superiority" what you have is a very nice strike aircraft. There isn't even parity in the performance envelop vs. other aircraft it claims to be in the same peer group with. Most all of them can contempt of engage it.

The other part of that which is ignored is how it was bought on a whim as opposed to having a selection process. That kind of arrogance in government purchasing is pretty stunning.

It will be interesting to see how Defence pays for all of these obligations where only one party has signed on to this adventure. That is another good thing a selection process helps to do, is to cut off any political whining between parties.

Here is an interesting read of what has to be paid for in the future.

If JSF fails and there isn't any money available to pick up that mistake, then the SH will be your universal fighter. I am sure the USN appreciates helping lower production cost for them, but that shouldn't be the prime goal of the taxpayer funding the RAAF.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21476078-31477,00.html

One seems to forget that the SH was purchased to cover the retirement of the F-111 force in strike roles. Basically replacing a long-range strike asset carrying short-range precision weapons, with a short to mid-range strike asset able to employ long-range precision weapons. The fact that the SH can also engage in air combat (something the F-111 can't realistically do) is a plus. Also, the SH is expected to serve for approximately 10 years under the current BACC, then it will be reviewed, upon review completion it might be kept in service or sold/retired with replacement by another aircraft.

It keeps being bandied about that the SH was purchased "on a whim" yet none have offered reasonable alternatives when doing so, despite requests to do just that.

-Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

"Ultra Hornet" will still be ultra slow. Great avionics only makes half of a fighter that Defence says is to ".... maintain air superiority" what you have is a very nice strike aircraft. There isn't even parity in the performance envelop vs. other aircraft it claims to be in the same peer group with. Most all of them can contempt of engage it.

The other part of that which is ignored is how it was bought on a whim as opposed to having a selection process. That kind of arrogance in government purchasing is pretty stunning.

It will be interesting to see how Defence pays for all of these obligations where only one party has signed on to this adventure. That is another good thing a selection process helps to do, is to cut off any political whining between parties.

Here is an interesting read of what has to be paid for in the future.

If JSF fails and there isn't any money available to pick up that mistake, then the SH will be your universal fighter. I am sure the USN appreciates helping lower production cost for them, but that shouldn't be the prime goal of the taxpayer funding the RAAF.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21476078-31477,00.html

I'm sure the USN and Boeing ARE happy that Australia has decided to purchase the SH. Just as RAAF is as well.

Why do you keep mentioning the costs of these acquisitions? Everyone's aware of them, most importantly our current Government who has agreed to pay for it. These contracts are signed. No doubt we'll suffer heavily if a change of Government cancels the deal, both operationally and financially, so I doubt very much that will happen.

Once again with top speed. You seem rather obsessed by it. At the transonic speeds EVERY fighter operates at bar F-22 for the majority of missions, it is every bit as quick as the SU or any other fighter.

In addition, do you think the additional 8000lbs of thrust the SH is about to get thanks to the F-414 engine upgrade will make any difference to it's performance?

I have a feeling it may just improve things somewhat...