RAAF may acquire 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets
-
They have their own version of the M113. Currently under-going upgrade...Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Aussie procurement is kinda messed up. Whereas they have MBTs, they don't have tracked IFVs but wheeled IFVs instead, and they don't have SP artillery.
Then the Collins submarine was a real embarrassment. Lots of problems initially because of lack of program oversight. -
2.but after 10 years still in the plant!!Originally posted by spencer99:They have their own version of the M113. Currently under-going upgrade...
Aussie M113 upgrade hits a brake
SG already marketing upgraded M113 in internationally!!
SG M113,upgraded. -
http://www.f-16.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=7442
UPDATE 1-Australia may buy $3.1 bln of F-18 Super Hornets
Wednesday February 7, 2007, 6:44 am
WASHINGTON, Feb 6 (Reuters) - The U.S. Defense Department told Congress on Tuesday it was proposing to sell Australia 24 Super Hornet fighter jets, made by Boeing Co. BA.N, and related services in a deal worth $3.1 billion.
The Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency said Australia wants to buy the F/A-18E/F aircraft, 48 installed engines and 6 spare engines. It said Australia was also interested in buying the following as part of the deal:
24 AN/APG-79 radar systems
24 AN/USQ-140 Multifunctional Informational Distribution System Low Volume Terminals
30 AN/ALR-67(V)3 Electric Warfare Countermeasures Receiving Sets
145 LAU-127 Guided Missile Launchers
30 AN/PVS-9 night vision goggles
Integration of the AN/ALE-47 Electronic Warfare Countermeasures Systems
12 Joint Mission Planning Systems
AN/ALE-55 Fiber Optic Towed Decoys.
"Also included are system integration and testing, software development/integration, test sets and support equipment, spare and repair parts, maintenance and pilot training, software support, publications and technical documents," the agency said.
The Defense Security Cooperation Agency is required to notify Congress of possible foreign military sales.
In addition to Boeing, defense contractors involved in the possible sale would include Northrop Grumman NOC.N, Raytheon RTN.N, BAE Systems BA.L, General Electric GE.N, Data Link Solutions, and Visions Systems International.
Australia is a partner with the United States and seven other countries in developing the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jet, which made its first test flight in December. -
Any more information whether the Aussies would be acquiring AN/ALQ-214s together with their AN/ALE-55s?
-
Aussie make this A$6 billion deal so rush.....
The old plane is 35 years old.Why did Aussie change it earlier?
2.They make the decision when the old F18 so fragile!!
THE Government will spend $6 billion buying 24 US Super Hornet jet fighters to ensure the RAAF can deal with any regional air threat while it waits for its revolutionary Joint Strike Fighters......
Opposition defence spokesman Joel Fitzgibbon said the decision to buy the Super Hornets was made on the run.
Mr Fitzgibbon said it would still leave a gap in Australia's air defences for at least eight years.
"The very key to Australia's defence is our air superiority and this on-the-run decision has the potential to severely undermine that air superiority," he said.
"This is a patch-up. It's time the Government learnt from its mistakes and went through the proper processes before making these big decisions on our defences.""We are determined that under no circumstances will we take the risk of an aircraft having an engineering failure at mach 1.15 at a very low level," he said.
Also, a wing crack could ground the whole fleet,(Defence Minister Brendan )Dr Nelson said. If that happened, there would not be enough of the RAAF's smaller F/A-18 Hornets to fill the need for both combat and strike aircraft.
"That is not a risk I am prepared to take," he said. -
But the $6 billion deal has perplexed defence experts, leaving them pondering Nelson's decision-making style and questioning the strategic wisdom of the Super Hornet buy.
The decision of purchaseing Super Hornet is rush and clouded with secrecy.
"This is pure Nelson, no one else. It was him and him alone," observed one senior government source yesterday.
"It's a needless and expensive decision. It makes no operational sense and it makes no sense in terms of value for money," commented another senior defence source.
Suddenly,Aussie Defence Minister decided it is dangerous to fly 35
years old F111 beyong 2010 and worry about delivery of F35.
A$6 billion is not cut from defense budget.So generous Aussie tax payers!!
1.Four months ago the $6 billion acquisition of 24 F/A 18F Super Hornets was not on defence's radar other than as a fall-back option should serious problems arise with the RAAF's planned purchase of the F-35 joint strike fighter.
Air force chief Geoff Shepherd told a parliamentary committee in early November that there were no indications the joint strike fighter program was blowing out. "The Government has announced that, if the JSF were to slide substantially - and once again, I stress we are seeing no indications of that - the purchase of a bridging fighter would be a last resort," he said. -
Aussie make this A$6 billion deal so rush.....
The old plane is 35 years old.Why did Aussie change it earlier?
Because they were hoping to be able to have an all F-35 air force and because of delays this was seen as the best short/medium term fix to absorb any delays.
They make the decision when the old F18 so fragile!!
quote:"We are determined that under no circumstances will we take the risk of an aircraft having an engineering failure at mach 1.15 at a very low level," he said.
Also, a wing crack could ground the whole fleet,(Defence Minister Brendan )Dr Nelson said. If that happened, there would not be enough of the RAAF's smaller F/A-18 Hornets to fill the need for both combat and strike aircraft.
"That is not a risk I am prepared to take," he said.
Nelson is talking about the F-111"s not F/A18's and like most politicians is talking in extremes to make a point.
Lionnoisy I'm guessing that your a school kid who goes trawling through the net for anti-australian stuff,and that's fine, but boring.
You are a complete novice that is obvious, and it would be well worth your time to do some research on defence matters instead of the ill informed,unbalanced rants that have become the norm for you.Picking up on opposition statements about anything doesn't make them fact.
"Any more information whether the Aussies would be acquiring AN/ALQ-214s together with their AN/ALE-55s?"
@Shotgun, yes they will be: (IDECM Block 2) system which comprises theALR-67(v)3 RWR, ALQ-214(v)2 jammer and ALE-50 towed decoy systems.
See Lionnoisy asking an informed question isn't that hard. -
A$6,000,000,000 or 6 billions for
best short/medium term fix to absorb any delays.
2.How much Aussie have to pay for a long term air defense??
3.A new plane cost at most US$100 million x 24 plus supports.
Pl tell me how come is A$6 billions??
4.Why did Nelson not worry wing crack few years ago?
It take few months from mentioning new purshase to
sign contracts.Is it too fast for 6 billion deal?
Are there any options:
Lease old /new planes for the gap of F111 retirements
to F35 delivery?
I think there are plenty old F111 or F18 in US.
How about SG up graded but retired A4?
5.6 billion for the gap? -
What is your point for raising all this, except to be rabidly anti-aussie?
Also most of the stuff you are posting belong better in politics, so please scurry there and do your anti-aussie routine instead of here. To be frank, this thread is really an eyesore. Here we are not really interested in what the politicians think, but what the grunts do.
How would you like it if some aussie guy took every little fault (or even apparent fault) of MINDEF and blew it up as if we were totally incompetent.
For a guy who can't tell a P90 from an GL... what can we expect?
On my part, I would rather fight alongside the aussies then see them as a potential threat or competition to Singapore just because some here decide to leave our nation due to some rather unfair policies on our part. Each country has their own faults, playing up the downsides of down under hardly reduces the fact that a lot of Singaporeans would prefer these downsides to the ones we are currently having.
The australians are our allies, not our foe. -
Why no open tender? why only Hornets? Not F15's or something like that?
edit:i mean seriously they did this really really fast..... -
i dunt care fren or foe.I dunt care who said or done.
i jus point out some things is wrong some where.
never mind my knowledge on small or big arms.
canT u see What the Aussie done do not follow international accetpable
procedure of procurement.This is none of my biz.
But we tiny red dot ,from new recruit to COD,can learn
a expensive lesson,paid by AUSSIE.
2.will u laugh :
$6 Billion to MAINTAIN AUSTRALIAÂ’S
REGIONAL AIR SUPERIORITY....“Supporters of the design say it will give the Block II (Super Hornets)Boeing built Navy aircraft a fifth-generation capability similar to that of the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The Hornet’s electronic attack capabilities could become even more sophisticated with additional modifications.” – Aviation Week 26 February, 2007...
Who is the fool?Developers of F 22 and F35 who spent billions of $$ when
Block II (Super Hornets) can do the jobs?or the Aussie who believe the claim?
2.Cool down ,all the 6 billion are not SG money.
SG is considered smart customer---reference customer --in international
market,but not Aussie. -
The Aussies likely have to be worried about maintaining regional air superiority.
If the Super Bug will do the trick for them in the meantime is another question, but they are certainly moving to check the Indonesian Flankers that's for sure. The yanks are not going to part with Raptor technology anytime soon (unlikely sell) and the only thing that's going to be doing dogfighting in the Aussie air force in the future would be the JSF...
Hence getting the Super Bug to supplement their air fighting capabilities is not a totally bad idea.
As with everything in their armed forces, getting anything is highly political. Singapore has recently spurged a lot on upgrading to higher block F-16s and F-15SGs... when there is a high chance we are getting the JSF soon in the future as well. I don't think the Aussies are alone in having the idea that waiting for the JSF egg to hatch is the best thing to do for your air force.
So why so harsh on them unless you want to join one of their politial parties and lobby for their cause? Personally I think it benefits us Singaporeans that the Aussies are flying Super Bugs in the meantime to balance out any muscle flexing the touchy Indo govt. might try with their Flankers.
Waiting till the JSF comes? That might be too long from now... and the Raptor might never be sold until the Yanks come up with something better... and that's going to be a while. -
Pl tell me why the cost jump 100 % fr A$3 b to 6 b?
pl read my post 20.12.2006 and 30.12.2006.While slightly larger than Australia's Hornets, the Super Hornet's agility, supersonic speed and acceleration performance, critical in air combat, are no better than the earlier model, due to a Congressional mandate during development. With unique engines, radar, airframe and electronic warfare systems, the Super Hornet shares little real commonality with its predecessor, driving up support costs. All it offers is a better radar, improved avionics and 36 per cent more internal fuel, at a price tag estimated at $2.5 billion.
fr Aussie media. -
Oh 1 question though,when they say Strike do they mean mainly maritime strikes or ground pounding? Because i hardly think the Super Bugs have the range for that as compared to the F-111s.If its naval strikes then fine i understand.After all the Aussies are on an "island" on their own so that does make sense.
-
Their money mah, why we care so much? If they spend it wisely is another thing, but the need is certainly there and they have the wit to see it.
It is the those very things different about the Super Bug that make it far deadiler in air to air combat, given most engagements in air to air now take place BVR in an EW environment. The orginal Hornet was designed to survive in a very different environment, and is getting long in the tooth. There's only so much you can upgrade.
The radar, EW suit and engines of the Super Bug go a long way towards modern survivability and air superiority... any way you look at it, the aussies either have the option to stick with their older Hornet airframes (which is hardly ideal) or switch to something newer.
If anything, getting the Super Bug is probably the least costly of all their upgrading options as opposed to taking no action. Unless they want to stick with their old Hornets and wait for the JSF egg to hatch (anyway the JSF was not intended to be a serious dogfighter), or hope the Yanks one day decide to sell the F-22 (which is very unlikely given the DOD has clamped down on it)... they are stuck with their aging Hornets in an age where regional powers are getting more modern planes. Switching to another type of airframe altogether will be a total loss.
This is not to mention that they have plans for the Super Bug to step into the F-111 shoes as well... so how exactly are they being silly about the way they spend their cash on the Bug? A lot of the talk is politics that you unfortunately latched onto without proper thought.
So how different is their situtation from us? Except that there are politicans around to make noise when money is spent. We had aircraft getting long in the tooth and sought to replace or improve them as well... the Aussies have the same thing to consider.
Case in point, our most advanced Falcons don't offer that much improvement in air to air combat manuvering over the first few models we have, HOWEVER... it would be fool hardly to say that in overall air to air combat there is no difference... our current Falcons are a lot deadiler then the first variants.
The only this is that the Aussies were sway that they got an aircraft type that was shared less commonality within the improved variants, while our Falcons were easy to switch between. But their only fault was that they were not psychic. Also the Aussies lack the know how to readily upgrade their airframes the way we do, so that option is more of less closed to them.
The current haggle there is not over if costs are jumping or not (costs will jump or fall when it comes to defence spending like this)... it's if they should be spending the cash to begin with.
And rightly, we have no say in this matter. To state a point they are debating (cost increase) as a demostration of defective aussie management is absurb... I don't think we can do any better given the same situtation. -
Ah, but the problem was that the F-111 airframes were approaching the end of their useful life.Originally posted by |-|05|:Oh 1 question though,when they say Strike do they mean mainly maritime strikes or ground pounding? Because i hardly think the Super Bugs have the range for that as compared to the F-111s.If its naval strikes then fine i understand.After all the Aussies are on an "island" on their own so that does make sense.
Unfortunately a proper fit to their solutions no longer exist... we don't really hear of any recent long range strike birds like the F-111 anymore... except maybe the Strike Eagle... given their F-18s were getting old as well, it seems that the Super Bug looked to them as an inperfect, but cheapest best fit to fill those two pairs of shoes.
I don't know why they named F-22 as a possible procurement option in the anti Bug rant that lionnoisy latched onto... the Yanks have long expressed their unwillingness to export this piece of equipment. -
Yea it's sad that with the end of the cold war they stopped making gd strike planes.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Ah, but the problem was that the F-111 airframes were approaching the end of their useful life.
Unfortunately a proper fit to their solutions no longer exist... we don't really hear of any recent long range strike birds like the F-111 anymore... except maybe the Strike Eagle... given their F-18s were getting old as well, it seems that the Super Bug looked to them as an inperfect, but cheapest best fit to fill those two pairs of shoes.
I don't know why they named F-22 as a possible procurement option in the anti Bug rant that lionnoisy latched onto... the Yanks have long expressed their unwillingness to export this piece of equipment.
But really F-15E's would be better suited considering that they not only can handle the flankers(or we wont have choosen them right?) and it was designed for the strike role.
Sure u cld say the Super bugs are just them continuing with the F18 series but really the Super bugs are so different they could be considered a different aircraft.
Oh well their choice. -
Exactly, it's hard to tell. Also you have to account for politics while flitering out what you want to hear. Basically it is an issue of to get new planes or not and not really if this or that costs 6 billion or what have you not which lionnoisy should really pack his bags and take his crusade elsewhere.Originally posted by |-|05|:Yea it's sad that with the end of the cold war they stopped making gd strike planes.
But really F-15E's would be better suited considering that they not only can handle the flankers(or we wont have choosen them right?) and it was designed for the strike role.
Sure u cld say the Super bugs are just them continuing with the F18 series but really the Super bugs are so different they could be considered a different aircraft.
Oh well their choice.
I suppose the advantage the Super Bug has is that it is a relatively new airframe compared to the Strike Eagle, which has been around for a while. Even our Eagles will undergo extensive internal modification before we finally get around to using them.
But all in all if they want to get a new plane, the Super Bug is a good option. The JSF is not exactly your ideal aircraft for dogfighting (but it's stealth is a good feature) and is still some time off, while the Yanks are not going to sell the Raptor until they have something better. -
Hornet has a sting in the tail(!?), * Joseph Kerr, * March 09, 2007THE acquisition of Super Hornet jet fighters in a $6 billion deal will bring powerful new radar capabilities to the Australian airforce, according to a strategic policy analyst.
The Government has announced plans to buy 24 F/A18 Super Hornets as part of its strategy for dealing with an ageing jet fleet.
The Boeing-built Super Hornet, now in use by the US Navy, will have electronically controlled rather than mechanically controlled radar, to make it far more agile and capable of covering a greater volume more quickly, the analysts say.
It would have stealth capabilities not available to the classic Hornet, said Andrew Davies, director of the operations and capability program at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.
"It's actually very nice work. What they've done is redesign the front of the aircraft to make it less visible to enemy radars," he said.
The Super Hornet also enjoys updated networking capabilities, meaning it can work better with other planes because of good data streams into the cockpit.
Boeing claims the Super Hornet can handle a full complement of smart weapons, including laser-guided bombs. But Dr Davies said this was limited to only the full range of US Navy smart weapons, not all smart weapons.
Crucially, it cannot handle one of the new long-range weapons being integrated into the classic Hornets.
The Super Hornet is powered by two GE F414-400 engines and has 11 weapon stations.
Defence Minister Brendan Nelson has said the 24 Super Hornets will give the RAAF more operational flexibility.
Dr Davies said there were only limited common features between the Hornet and the Super Hornet, and this limited the advantages the defence force might normally expect from introducing a similar aircraft.
One of the biggest advantages was that it was relatively easy for a pilot to switch from the Hornet to the Super Hornet.
But there were fewer advantages for maintenance and support staff, because the spare parts used were not interchangeable.
Dr Davies also said it had disadvantages stemming from its design to operate from aircraft carriers, for the Super Hornet had a stronger undercarriage, making it heavier.
And its wing design was really made for lower rather than high speeds.
"It is therefore behind the performance curve from the beginning when compared to land-based aircraft," he said in a recent report.
The Super Hornet also had poorer acceleration and a lower maximum altitude, he said.
It did enjoy a 25 per cent better range than the Hornet, which could travel about 750km before refuelling. The Super Hornet could travel about 950km in a stretch.
While they looked superficially similar, the Super Hornets were about 25 per cent bigger than their predecessors.Asked why other countries had not rushed out to buy the Super Hornets, he said: "There are a number of reasons. It doesn't offer the air-to-air capability of some other aircraft."
But, he said, Australia had been offered an improved product.
"Australia is being offered improved networking and radar capabilities compared with other countries," he said. -
What's you point?
Are you going to keep on saying things that everyone in here already know?
Australia is debating about if to get a new aircraft type or not, and all the articles you are mostly about the Bug are mostly irrelevant, given they are about if the Bug is the best aircraft for the job. The Aussies are still going to spend the 6 B no matter what.
And is the limited sales of the Super Bug surprising consider there is a huge gap between introducing the different variants of the Hornet, the lesser sales of the Hornet versus others like the Falcon?
If the Super Bug is really defective is another question altogether, which I believe it is not. What you are helping to do is to make a mountain out of a molehill.
Prehaps you could wisely suggest what the Aussies could do instead of cut and pasting? Believe me, carry this on and your next few paste jobs will be ignored as if they were never posted, for it is apparent a person of your caliber requires no consideration in here.
Is it so hard to spoof your style?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_trollIntent
Trolls can be existing members of a community that rarely post and often contribute no useful information to the thread, but instead make argumentative posts in an attempt to discredit another person, more often than not based on what they thought was said rather than what was actually said by the other person, concentrating almost exclusively on facts irrelevant to the point of the conversation, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others. The key element under attack by a troll is the forum or group's hegemony. Hegemony refers to the recognized and agreed upon power structure of the said group or community. To this extent, a troll does not necessarily have to make malicious or incorrect comments. For example, a person with political point of view A who approaches a forum frequented by people with political point of view B, may be considered a troll, even if no lies or attacks are made.
A person who retaliates (using whatever means) as a result of a misunderstanding (or as a way of rebelling against the overzealous application of rules) is not a troll. A troll is a person who approaches a board with the specific intention of stirring things up, either with no particular motive or provocation in mind, other than to be purely destructive or if the motive or provocation is against the ethos of the board. For example, a neo-nazi approaching a Jewish forum with the intention of attacking the members, purely because the neo-nazi knows the forum to contain Jewish members, may be considered a troll. -
Considered what Aussies have had to pay for their 24 super bugs, I think that SG paid 1 billion for 12 F15SG is a better deal.
-
Btw, the 1.2 billion is in USD. And we don't know what hidden costs there are yet! Nor do we know what kinda training package, weapons etc the aussies are receiving.
Logically, the Super Hornet was the natural interim for their ageing hornets. But NOT for the F-111's. The F-111s are long range deep-penetration strikers. A role which the Super Hornet does not excel at.
The Super Bugs, IMO are good high endurance MULTIROLE fighters with maritime strike capability. With buddy tanks, they can extend their endurance even more. Considering Australia's size and relatively small air force, being able to stay up in the air longer is quite an advantage I think.
In terms of avionics, electronics, its a good 4.5th gen aircraft that reduces the pilot load. Its stability and good performance at low speeds I would think reduces pilot fatigue significantly.
But the honest question is. With an inventory consisting of largely American aircraft, ( like us ), what other reliable options were there? The Strike Eagle? Maybe not to their requirements. Besides, transitioning to the Super Bugs ain't that hard for existing hornet fliers, since their performance envelopes would be largely similar. -
This paper,plus the comments and feedback from the author, are
a must read for fighters frens...
U will finish them all before u sleep tonite,i gurantee...
The generation gap: Australia and the Super Hornet by Andrew Davies
Tuesday, 13 February 2007
This paper takes a critical look at Australia's future combat aircraft plans and questions the wisdom of a rushed acquisition of the Super Hornet. It is written by Andrew Davies, ASPI's Operations and Capability Program Director....The rationale for the JSF decision was the need to move to a fifth generation aircraft in order to have a superior capability to the high-end fourth generation threats we were likely to encounter from 2015 on. But the Super Hornet is not even the best fourth generation option.
--
Other than the US Navy (who had the aircraft designed specifically to operate off aircraft carriers), no one has opted to buy it so far, despite serious marketing efforts. Plusses include a powerful radar, good networking abilities and stealth design features not available when the classic Hornet was designed (though the latter will be of little benefit when non-stealthy external strike weapons are carried).
On the downside, its design for operations from aircraft carriers means that it has structural strengthening in the undercarriage and other parts that lead to extra weight, and a wing design optimised for low rather than high speeds. It is therefore behind the performance curve from the beginning when compared to land-based aircraft.
Other nations shopping for Western fourth generation aircraft have selected designs like the European Typhoon or the American F-15. Buyers of the latter include South Korea, Singapore and Israel - all canny purchasers of military hardware.
Many nations around the Indian and Pacific Ocean rims have opted for Russian designs like the formidable Sukhoi Su-27/30 Flanker family of fighter aircraft. Large, agile, fitted with a powerful radar and heavily armed, these aircraft present a significant challenge to Western fourth generation fighters.
By far the best placed fourth-generation aircraft to counter them is the F-15. Critically, the performance of the Super Hornet means that it cannot realistically be expected to defeat well-flown Flankers in combat.....
http://www.aspi.org.au/publications/publication_details.aspx?ContentID=115
2.Very interesting comments/feedback on the link above:
Andrew Davies Thursday, 8 March 2007 1:41 PM
Response to AGRAYour comment about Korea and Singapore is extraordinary. Both have very robust selection processes for their military equipment. To suggest that they were convinced to buy an aircraft (F15)that was second best in order to boost BoeingÂ’s bottom line is to do them a great disservice. Before Singapore made its decision many commentators saw it as a good litmus test of the world market.
As you say, range and payload considerations are indeed critical for strike missions, but survivability must play a major role as well. The kinematic performance of the F-15 is better than the Super Hornet in all important parameters, giving it a clear edge in air to air encounters with members of the Flanker family. I had discussions with current fighter pilots who confirmed this assessment which, together with consideration of the capability of the long-burn Russian BVR missiles, provided the basis for my statement that the Super Hornet ‘cannot be expected to defeat a well-flown Flanker’.
The sensor and networking fit of the Super Hornet is very good, as you suggest. I have said as much in media interviews and, indeed, wrote:
“Plusses include a powerful radar, good networking abilities and stealth design features not available when the classic Hornet was designed (though the latter will be of little benefit when non-stealthy external strike weapons are carried)”.
The range issues you raise are true enough, especially in the context of coalition operations. However, they carry much less weight in defence of Australia roles. Draw some circles on maps and it becomes clear that any forward positioning of our strike aircraft would bring air to air refuelling aircraft uncomfortably close to the range of Flanker family adversaries.
As a general comment, there seems to have been a covert effort on both sides of the Super Hornet versus F-22 debate to tacitly argue about mission profiles that suit the aircraft being discussed. The Super Hornet corner is thinking in terms of strike packages in a coalition context, where it is well-suited. The ‘must have the F-22 at all costs’ crowd (of which I am not one) frame their arguments in terms of air to air. In fact, I think we need both capabilities in some measure. That is why, incidentally, commentators like Stratfor came down on the side of the F-15. -
Well e SU-34 can match e F-111 in range & is capable of BVR egagement but Russia not selling, they r only selling e SU-32 which dun have BVR capability
