RAAF may acquire 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets
-
@coolant Your posts are so wrong that it would be pointless to ask you to back up the majority of your claims,talk is cheap.
"Speed is the single most important factor involved in the BVR battle provided both sides Radar and BVR AAMs are similar."
So what you are saying here is that after radar and weapons speed is the next most important thing ?(pilot,training,stealth etc?)
Anyway if what you are saying is right the S/H BL2 is certainly the winner against F14/Flanker and probably against the F15.
You might also try and google or track down just how many air to air kills have been achieved at transonic speeds.
Next, visit some other sites that are more tech savvy (no offence) and try to understand what you are saying.
There has been an independant study done as to why Aus chose the S/H and it also touches on why Korea and Sing chose the F15 and does some comparisons.
I am not sure if I am allowed to post it here though, I will find out. -
Originally posted by digger:
Hey, IÂ’m not disturbed as you make strong comments with empty content.
@coolant Your posts are so wrong that it would be pointless to ask you to back up the majority of your claims,talk is cheap.
Talk is cheap why you come to this forum?
DonÂ’t involve human factor, itÂ’s beyond talkable and always lead to flaming.
So what you are saying here is that after radar and weapons speed is the next most important thing ?(pilot,training,stealth etc?)
So what Stealth u r talking about? Does any of the fighters we r talking got stealth feature?
Anyway if what you are saying is right the S/H BL2 is certainly the winner against F14/Flanker and probably against the F15.
Ya, already understand your style from u previous comment, if you think u r oracle, I have no words for u.You might also try and google or track down just how many air to air kills have been achieved at transonic speeds.
IÂ’m not statistician, And your kills are refer to WVR or BVR? What IÂ’m talking is BVR If you really understand what's going onNext, visit some other sites that are more tech savvy (no offence) and try to understand what you are saying.
OH, Tech Savvy? Mind to explain to us how the BVR AAMÂ’s range is defined?
-
What you say is true, that AMRAAMs have better loft range when launched at higher altitude and speeds. And air superiority fighters like the F-22 and F-15 capitalize on that.
BUT, nobody ever said the Super Bugs were air superiority fighters, NEITHER did the RAAF specify that they wanted an air superiority fighter as their interim solution. So why are vehemently shooting down the Super Bug as a bad air superiority option when it wasn't meant to be one?
You think the RAAF doesn't know the the Super Bug is not the best air dominance platform available?
Do you think the Australian mindef doesn't know the the F-15s are better A2A fighters?
How dumb do you think they are?
Start looking at the Super Bug at a wider perspective, as a complete package and you'd see there is some beauty in it. -
Precisely.Originally posted by Shotgun:What you say is true, that AMRAAMs have better loft range when launched at higher altitude and speeds. And air superiority fighters like the F-22 and F-15 capitalize on that.
BUT, nobody ever said the Super Bugs were air superiority fighters, NEITHER did the RAAF specify that they wanted an air superiority fighter as their interim solution. So why are vehemently shooting down the Super Bug as a bad air superiority option when it wasn't meant to be one?
You think the RAAF doesn't know the the Super Bug is not the best air dominance platform available?
Do you think the Australian mindef doesn't know the the F-15s are better A2A fighters?
How dumb do you think they are?
Start looking at the Super Bug at a wider perspective, as a complete package and you'd see there is some beauty in it.
Different countries have different needs. The Superbug is geared towards CAS and naval strike, instead of air superiority missions.
I'm pretty sure the Aussie MOD knows what realistic threatcon they operate in, and what sort of equipment they need to face that threat. Look at it this way, the F-35 is no air superiority fighter, rather, it's a multi-role fighter like the Typhoon or F-16, except that it employs awareness and network fusion as it's killer app. -
Only because todayÂ’s air fighting is more and more in BVR range but I do agree Superbug got some incredible maneuver in close in dog fight.
Good read, a testimony from US Marine pilot.Norfolk Virginian-Pilot
Virginian-Pilot, The (Norfolk, VA)
December 15, 1999
THE NAVY'S SUPER FIGHTER IS A SUPER FAILURE
Author: JAY A. STOUT
Index Terms:
OPINION
I am a fighter pilot. I love fighter aircraft. But even though my service - I am a Marine - doesn't have a dog in the fight, it is difficult to watch the grotesquerie that is the procurement of the Navy's new strike-fighter, the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet.
Billed as the Navy's strike-fighter of the future, the F/A-18 E/F is instead an expensive failure - a travesty of subterfuge and poor leadership. Intended to overcome any potential adversaries during the next 20 years, the aircraft is instead outperformed by a number of already operational aircraft - including the fighter it is scheduled to replace, the original F/A-18 Hornet.
The Super Hornet concept was spawned in 1992, in part, as a replacement for the 30 year-old A-6 Intruder medium bomber. Though it had provided yeoman service since the early 1960s, the A-6 was aging and on its way to retirement by the end of the Gulf War in 1991. The Navy earlier tried to develop a replacement during the 1980s - the A-12 - but bungled the project so badly that the whole mess was scrapped in 1991. The A-12 fiasco cost the taxpayers $5 billion and cost the Navy what little reputation it had as a service that could wisely spend taxpayer dollars.
Nevertheless, the requirement for an A-6 replacement remains. Without an aircraft with a longer range and greater payload than the current F/A-18, the Navy lost much of its offensive punch. Consequently it turned to the original F/A-18 - a combat-proven performer, but a short-ranged light bomber when compared to the A-6. Still stinging from the A-12 debacle, the Navy tried to ``put one over'' on Congress by passing off a completely redesigned aircraft - the Super Hornet - as simply a modification of the original Hornet.
The obfuscation worked. Many in Congress were fooled into believing that the new aircraft was just what the Navy told them it was - a modified Hornet. In fact, the new airplane is much larger - built that way to carry more fuel and bombs - is much different aerodynamically, has new engines and engine intakes and a completely reworked internal structure. In short, the Super Hornet and the original Hornet are two completely different aircraft despite their similar appearance.
Though the deception worked, the new aircraft - the Super Hornet - does not. Because it was never prototyped - at the Navy's insistence - its faults were not evident until production aircraft rolled out of the factory. Among the problems the aircraft experienced was the publicized phenomenon of ``wing drop'' - a spurious, uncommanded roll, which occurred in the heart of the aircraft's performance envelope. After a great deal of negative press, the Super Hornet team devised a ``band-aid'' fix that mitigated the problem at the expense of performance tradeoffs in other regimes of flight. Regardless, the redesigned wing is a mish-mash of aerodynamic compromises which does nothing well. -
Continued
And the Super Hornet's wing drop problem is minor compared to other shortfalls. First, the aircraft is slow - slower than most fighters fielded since the early 1960s. In that one of the most oft-uttered maxims of the fighter pilot fraternity is that ``Speed is Life,'' this deficiency is alarming.
But the Super Hornet'w wheezing performance against the speed clock isn't its only flaw. If speed is indeed life, than maneuverability is the reason that life is worth living for the fighter pilot. In a dogfight, superior maneuverability allows a pilot to bring his weapons to bear against the enemy. With its heavy, aerodynamically compromised airframe, and inadequate engines, the Super Hornet won't win many dogfights. Indeed, it can be outmaneuvered by nearly every front-line fighter fielded today.
``But the Super Hornet isn't just a fighter,'' its proponents will counter, ``It is a bomber as well.'' True, the new aircraft carries more bombs than the current F/A-18 - but not dramatically more, or dramatically further. The engineering can be studied, but the laws of physics don't change for anyone - certainly not the Navy. From the beginning, the aircraft was incapable of doing what the Navy wanted. And they knew it.
The Navy doesn't appear to be worried about the performance shortfalls of the Super Hornet. The aircraft is supposed to be so full of technological wizardry that the enemy will be overwhelmed by its superior weapons. That is the same argument that was used prior to the Vietnam War. This logic fell flat when our large, expensive fighters - the most sophisticated in the world - started falling to peasants flying simple aircraft designed during the Korean conflict.
Further drawing into question the Navy's position that flight performance is secondary to the technological sophistication of the aircraft, are the Air Forces' specifications for its new - albeit expensive - fighter, the F-22. The Air Force has ensured that the F-22 has top-notch flight performance, as well as a weapons suite second to none. It truly has no rivals in the foreseeable future.
The Super Hornet's shortcomings have been borne out anecdotally. There are numerous stories, but one episode sums it up nicely. Said one crew member who flew a standard Hornet alongside new Super Hornets: ``We outran them, we out-flew them, and we ran them out of gas. I was embarrassed for those pilots.'' These shortcomings are tacitly acknowledged around the fleet where the aircraft is referred to as the ``Super-Slow Hornet.''
What about the rank-and-file Navy fliers? What are they told when they question the Super Hornet's shortcomings? The standard reply is, ``Climb aboard, sit down, and shut up. This is our fighter, and you're going to make it work.'' Can there be any wondering at the widespread disgust with the Navy's leadership and the hemorrhaging exodus of its fliers?
Unfortunately, much of the damage has been done. Billions of dollars have been spent on the Super Hornet that could have been spent on maintaining or upgrading the Navy's current fleet of aircraft. Instead, unacceptable numbers or aircraft are sidelined for want of money to buy spare parts. Paradoxically, much of what the Navy wanted in the Super Hornet could have been obtained, at a fraction of the cost, by upgrading the current aircraft - what the Navy said it was going to do at the beginning of this mess.
Our military's aircraft acquisition program cannot afford all the proposed acquisitions. Some hard decisions will have to be made. The Super Hornet decision, at a savings of man billions of dollars, should be an easy one.
Memo:
Lt. Col. Jay Stout is a Marine fighter pilot, combat veteran, and the author of Hornets Over Kuwait. These views are his own opinions and do not represent the views of the Department of the Navy, the Marine Corps, or the United States government.
Copyright (c) 1999 The Virginian-Pilot
Record Number: 9912150005 -
C'mon...you know every country needs QRA a/c.....this needs something seriouslyOriginally posted by LazerLordz:Precisely.
Different countries have different needs. The Superbug is geared towards CAS and naval strike, instead of air superiority missions.
I'm pretty sure the Aussie MOD knows what realistic threatcon they operate in, and what sort of equipment they need to face that threat. Look at it this way, the F-35 is no air superiority fighter, rather, it's a multi-role fighter like the Typhoon or F-16, except that it employs awareness and network fusion as it's killer app.
speed and communications. -
Well it seems that we have conflicting articles on the Super Hornet. But how's this?
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/990414-ART-Super-Hornet.htm
CDR Robert Niewoehner has flown almost 300 missions in the Super Hornet and clocked almost 450 hrs in it. He is also a PhD holder who has written books on Aerospace engineering.
And then we have Lt Col Jay Stout, a jarhead flier, who has spent NO time in the Super Hornet, and only hear stories about the Super Hornet and supplied no personal encounters with it. He writes books based on his combat encounters.
We have to examine the credibility of the authors. Who is in a better position to provide an authoritative view on the Super Hornet? -
It's their budget and they're their planes. I should think the Australian MoD knew what it wanted and got what it wanted when they embarked on this project to bridge the gap between the time the F-111s are finally rested and the inception of the F-35 into service.
That stated, I am of the confidence that the Australian MoD procurement policies and infrastructure are as good as, if not better than those of the SAF. -
Some articles are written for internal circle while some are written for the mass. Robert Niewoehner didnÂ’t provide any new facts in his article except piled up praise which is generally suitable for any frontline US fighters, say, you can change F-18 to any names like F-15. what lacks in his article is he dares to compare superbug to any 4th gen fighter other than Bug? Lt Col Jay Stout dared to and Niewoehner failed to answer. Another thing is, many NiewoehnerÂ’s praise is Superbug really good for A/C Carrier which Aussies donÂ’t have. So, a good part of NiewoehnerÂ’s praise then can be skipped.
Here comes retired RAAF air vice-marshal, former air commander of Australia and one of Australia's most experienced fighter/strike pilots.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/there-is-nothing-super-about-this-hornet/2007/03/14/1173722557984.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1The recent announcement by the Defence Minister, Brendan Nelson, that Australia will spend $6 billion to buy 24 Block II Super Hornets to fill a perceived, or self-generated, capability gap raises more questions than it answers.
How was such a decision reached when the Department of Defence is adamant that it did not ask for, or recommend, the aircraft? If the department did not provide the critical operational and engineering evaluations to underpin and justify such a significant impulsive buy, who did? Moreover, will the Super Hornet be capable of filling the role of the aircraft it replaces? And the final question is: at what cost, in human resources and national engineering capability terms, does this "interim, gap-filling" aircraft come?
While some of those questions can be answered fully only by the minister and his closest civilian advisers, others can be answered using unclassified information. One need go no further than a statement made by Philip Coyle, the former director of operational test and evaluation at the Pentagon, when giving evidence before a subcommittee of the US Senate Armed Services Committee on March 22, 2000.
The report is damning of the Super Hornet in areas critical to Australia's operational requirements, while praising it for its improved aircraft carrier capabilities when compared to the original Hornet - something not high on our list of essential criteria.
Three sentences on page eight of the report say it all: "The consequences of low specific excess power in comparison to the threat are poor climb rates, poor sustained turn capability, and a low maximum speed. Of greatest tactical significance is the lower maximum speed of the F/A-18E/F since this precludes the ability to avoid or disengage from aerial combat. In this regard, the F/A-18E/F is only marginally inferior to the F/A-18C/D, whose specific excess power is also considerably inferior to that of the primary threat, the MiG-29."
Forget about the new Sukhoi Su-30 Flanker family of Russian fighters proliferating across the region: all Hornet variants are acknowledged in the report as being no match for even the older MiG-29s. Space precludes quoting the report's comments on the multitude of other areas where the Super Hornet is inferior to the 1970s-designed and 1980s-built original F/A-18 aircraft. Admittedly the Block II Super Hornet has a new radar and some electronic components not in the version Coyle gave evidence on, but the fundamental airframe and performance remain unaltered: it is heavier, slower, larger and uglier (its radar signature did not measure up to expectations) than the normal Hornet.
There is nothing super about this Hornet; perhaps "Super Bug" is a better descriptor
. Evidently the underwing aero-acoustic environment and resulting vibrations are so violent that some weapons are being damaged in transit to the target on a single flight - dumb bombs are fine in that environment but not long-range missiles containing sophisticated and relatively delicate components.
As for its gap-filling ability, the first question is whether there is a gap at all. The high-speed, low-level catastrophic failure that Nelson predicts the F-111 is going to suffer in the near future is laudable only if true.
Perhaps the minister or one of his minders can explain why the F-111 wing being tested at the Defence Science and Technology Organisation has passed 30,000 hours of fatigue testing without failure. The F-111 fleet averages about 6500 hours after some 33 years in service. Is this "justification spin" more about being "worried about what it is that we do not know", as a parliamentary committee was told recently by a senior air force officer, rather than sound reasoning based on professional engineering advice from experienced structural specialists?
My fear is the former. Certainly, with the Super Hornet carrying half of some of the weapons, half the distance, at half the speed of the aircraft it is replacing, one has to hope and pray that the minister has not been misled. Worse still, we must wonder whether he has gone off prematurely without ensuring the rigorous engineering and operational evaluation process that is so essential to justifying spending $6 billion has been scrupulously followed and all options carefully and fairly evaluated.
The old saying that a person who shoots from the hip is bound to blow off some toes rings in my ears. Presumably ministerial staff have procured a wheelchair as a part of their contingency planning - purely for "gap-filling" reasons, of course.
Peter Criss is a retired RAAF air vice-marshal, former air commander of Australia and one of Australia's most experienced fighter/strike pilots. -
Since neither Lt Col Stout nor CDR Robert Niewoehner is willing to bring up any actual numbers, credibility still goes to the Navy flier for actually HAVING experience in the Super Bug's pit.
Yes yes, lower maximum airspeed and acceleration means inferior aircraft in air to air roles under conventional fighting conditions. Point taken, so move on with it already. The Super Bug was not built to be an air superiority fighter, and there was no RAAF specification that the gap filler had to be one. Is this the only point worth dwelling on?
Its almost like saying the P-47s are inferior compared to the P-51s cos they couldn't out dog an Fw-190 or Me-109s due to slower maximum speed etc etc.
The future BVR dominated arena is not gonna be fought like today. Today's BVR battles are still very platform dependent. But with newer AESA radars and network centric technology becoming available, the future BVR fights are gonna be more complicating and deadly.
We know about the 2-way datalinks that the AMRAAM-Ds are gonna have, as well as how the Elmendorf eagles tactics that allow a single aircraft to guide missiles launched by other fighters. There is no reason why the RAAF Super Bugs won't be part of such developments in advanced air to air tactics. Again, this is not saying that the Super Bugs will be able to duplicate the abilities of an air superiority fighter, just that with proper training and coordination, the bugs won't be such pushovers as most people believe they would be. Perhaps this is what the FORMER RAAF air commander failed to consider as well?
Finally, there are of course other hidden agendas. If the RAAF decided to go with modernized F-15s over the Super Bugs, they may not be able to justify a huge spending to buy new 5th Air Superiority fighters like the Raptor should they become available. Nor justify the JSF, since the F-15E/SG/Ks would be able to support the deep strike mission. And I am pretty sure the envisioned RAAF modernization is deeply fixed on these powerful 5th gen machines.
Always leave yourself a way to buy better stuff and more stuff in future.
Hence as Gap fillers, the Super Hornets still more than capable of defending Australia against a non existent threat. The so called proliferation of Sukhoi -30s isn't happening fast enough to cause the RAAF discomfort. Besides, ol Uncle Sam is always around the neighbourhood. -
well .. my 2 cents, but .. perhaps the aussies might want to consider this one if it ever comes up ..
http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/su-34_fullback.pl -
AIM-120D is a fancy weapon but the bottomline is most likely it wonÂ’t come with F-18F BLKII. I would speculate the AIM-120D will only come with JSF, sadly F-18E as Gap filler, wouldnÂ’t enjoy this prestige.
Since the AIM -120D currently is still under intensive development, what hardware requirement the missile needed is therefore undetermined. I would say Aussies ordered hardware to be delivered in foreseeable future are all not AIM-120D ready. In order to incorporate this mighty AAM, itÂ’ll prompt another big round of money for Aussies. -
Frankly I don't know know what your problem with the Super Bug is, except that prehaps we like to think the worst of everything. We won't know until the Super Bug is tested in serious battle (beyond plinking insurgents in Iraq and Afganistan). As it stands the pilots are giving conflicting testimonies on the aircraft, and unless the makers of the Super Bug are lying through their teeth on the numbers (not impossible though) I tend to take a lot of the screaming about not being about to outfly or outrun the normal Hornet with a large pinch of salt.
The Stryker was submitted to similar grilling by a lot of people, but it turned out that it was a competent AFV that could get the job done. Same thing with the Abrams when it first came out, it was said to be a lemon of a tank no match for any soviet tank. Well then.
On AIM120Ds and other stuff... Do you think the jump to 6 billion wasn't because of certain candies the Aussies are reluctant to talk about? We can only speculate. -
And you can such things about the AIM-120D being not available to the Super Hornet Blk2 because...? The USN still as a large fleet of Super Hornets to equip with 120Ds as well...Originally posted by coolant:AIM-120D is a fancy weapon but the bottomline is most likely it wonÂ’t come with F-18F BLKII. I would speculate the AIM-120D will only come with JSF, sadly F-18E as Gap filler, wouldnÂ’t enjoy this prestige.
Since the AIM -120D currently is still under intensive development, what hardware requirement the missile needed is therefore undetermined. I would say Aussies ordered hardware to be delivered in foreseeable future are all not AIM-120D ready. In order to incorporate this mighty AAM, itÂ’ll prompt another big round of money for Aussies.
Remember that as a gap filler, the Super Hornet may not be just bridging the gap in terms of aircraft platform, ie Hornet/F-111 to JSF/Raptor. IMO, it acts more like a technological gap filler, orientating firstly pilots of 3.5th / 4th gen aircraft to 5th gen. It prepares them to handle the kinda upcoming technology that is to come.
2ndly, it may also allow some interesting tech transfers to come with the JSF or Raptors by first acquiring similar technologies through the purchase or upgrade of the Super Hornets.
Of course, these are pure speculation on my part. -
Coolent cool off, if the Brass USN selected the super bug to replace 2 platforms of plane, then super bug should not as bad as described in some of the reviews.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Frankly I don't know know what your problem with the Super Bug is, except that prehaps we like to think the worst of everything. We won't know until the Super Bug is tested in serious battle (beyond plinking insurgents in Iraq and Afganistan). As it stands the pilots are giving conflicting testimonies on the aircraft, and unless the makers of the Super Bug are lying through their teeth on the numbers (not impossible though) I tend to take a lot of the screaming about not being about to outfly or outrun the normal Hornet with a large pinch of salt.
The Stryker was submitted to similar grilling by a lot of people, but it turned out that it was a competent AFV that could get the job done. Same thing with the Abrams when it first came out, it was said to be a lemon of a tank no match for any soviet tank. Well then.
On AIM120Ds and other stuff... Do you think the jump to 6 billion wasn't because of certain candies the Aussies are reluctant to talk about? We can only speculate.
Personally i am a tomcat supporter, and is sad to see such a fantastic plane leaving the service. But it will always be the fact that new planes will always replace the old. Just as the A4s, F4s and in time the 15 and 16 will go.
Maybe this is a conspiracy stirred up by the USAF to limits the strike range of USN.... -
hhmm..this is interesting..
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s1873007.htm
TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT
Broadcast: 15/03/2007
Nelson stands by fighter jet decision
Reporter: Mark Bannerman
KERRY O'BRIEN: Welcome to the program. When the Government announced it would be spending $6 billion to buy 24 new fighter bombers last week, the defence establishment might have been expected to applaud. But, if there was applause, it was seriously muted. The criticism wasn't. The Defence Minister, Brendan Nelson, has come under sustained fire from a wide range of experts, including two former senior Air Force officers, who say the billions will be wasted on a poorly performed plane to fill a capability gap that isn't there. Now Mr Nelson is fighting back, saying it's a sound decision, for which he takes full responsibility. Mark Bannerman reports.
MARK BANNERMAN: It's sleek, it's fast. It's called the Super Hornet. And, if you believe the Government, it's the answer to our immediate strategic air needs.
BRENDAN NELSON, DEFENCE MINISTER: The Super Hornet, the Block 2, the most advanced version of it, is a very capable, very stealthy aircraft.
RICK MCCRARY, INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM DIRECTOR, BOEING: The Super Hornet Block 2 is a breakthrough aeroplane. Rugged long-life air frame, with great handling characteristics. It's been truly enhanced. It really makes it a next generation strike fighter.
MARK BANNERMAN: But it seems not everyone loves a Hornet.
AIR VICE-MARSHAL PETER CRISS (RET.): I am absolutely astounded that we're going to spend $6 billion of the taxpayers' money on an interim aircraft.
JOEL FITZGIBBON, OPPOSITION DEFENCE SPOKESMAN: The Super Hornet purchase is a $6 billion taxpayer funded election year fix. It's a patchup job.
MARK BANNERMAN: And it's not just the price that's stunned politicians and aviation experts, it is the plane itself.
PETER CRISS: I have trouble with the word 'super' and 'hornet', perhaps I would call it superdog or superbug, but certainly not a Super Hornet. The sting in the tail is not there.
MARK BANNERMAN: Peter Criss knows a thing or two about fighter planes and aircraft. He flew F 111s for longer than he cares to remember, and by the time he finished in the Air Force he was Air Commander Australia.
PETER CRISS: This thing will not survive in a fight now in our region - now, right now. Not another five years down the track, 10 years down the track. It is a dog.
MARK BANNERMAN: The question is, why is Australia prepared to spend $6 billion to fill a gap in our Air Force capability with a plane that arouses such controversy? Well, the answer can be found in this plane, the F 111. Controversial itself in its early years, the F 111 has been a remarkable aircraft.
AIR COMMODORE TED BUSHELL (RET.): The F 111 was quite capable of going out to 2020 and beyond and still retaining a very real deterrent and strategic strike capability throughout our region.
MARK BANNERMAN: Of course, all good things come to an end and, while the F 111 remains in the air, a replacement has to be found. Five years ago, the Government decided this plane would be their choice for the future. Known as the Joint Strike Fighter or JSF, the F 35 is an impressive bit of machinery.
BRENDAN NELSON: It was quite clear that what the Joint Strike Fighter then offered to Australia in terms of our future air combat capability is precisely the kind of outstanding all round capability in terms of bombing and air to air combat that Australia needs.
MARK BANNERMAN: As late as last year, the Air Force brass were telling anyone who wanted to listen the plan was on schedule.
AIR VICE-MARSHAL JOHN BLACKBURN: We're confident with the program as is currently progressing we shouldn't need an interim solution. However, as with most things in Defence, we're looking at contingency plans.
MARK BANNERMAN: But all that changed just a week ago.
BRENDAN NELSON: The Government will acquire 24 F 18 F Super Hornets.
MARK BANNERMAN: With those few words, Brendan Nelson effectively overturned five years of Air Force planning. The F 111 was out. The Joint Strike Fighter would come in its own good time, and Australia would pay $6 billion to buy a plane that, four months ago, his own top brass said was not needed.
PETER CRISS: I'm very concerned, because from close sources inside the department, I'm being assured that the request for the Super Hornet did not come from the department. So, if it didn't come from the department, where did it come from? Or what's driving the agenda?
MARK BANNERMAN: There is an easy answer to that and, today, when the 7.30 Report spoke to Brendan Nelson, he had this to say.
MARK BANNERMAN: I mean, basically all through last year the Air Force was telling the public that there was no need for an interim fighter. What changed?
BRENDAN NELSON: Well, I'm the minister and the Royal Australian Air Force and Defence officials were arguing quite rightly that there is not any gap and, whilst currently there is not any gap, my great concern is that with the ageing of the F 111s, that there will be uncertainty in the political process in the United States and with other partner countries that could potentially delay the delivery of the Joint Strike Fighter.
MARK BANNERMAN: It's significant the minister was not prepared to accept assurances from the Air Force that F 111s were safe to fly beyond 2010.
BRENDAN NELSON: What would happen if Australia did not acquire this squadron of Super Hornets and we had a wing failure or an engineering failure at 1.5 times the speed of sound at 100 feet above the ground in an F 111 in the year 2011?
MARK BANNERMAN: But if fear is the motivating factor for the minister, there are experts who now believe fear is no substitute for facts. Indeed, they claim the Super Hornet is simply the wrong plane to fill any perceived gap.
TED BUSHELL: It can't effectively perform the role that the Minister and the Department of Defence has given it.
MARK BANNERMAN: Ted Bushell is a retired Air Commodore with 25 years experience in the RAAF. He's been in engineering, maintenance and technical planning, and he simply does not believe the claims made about the Super Hornet.
TED BUSHELL: They've said the Super Hornet will maintain our air superiority in our region for the next decade. Not a hopping hope in hell of doing that. If it wasn't so serious, you'd have to laugh at it.
MARK BANNERMAN: The plane's critics are not confined to Australia. Reputable aviation experts in the United States tested the Super Hornet and had this to say.
REPORT TO THE US SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: "Testing has identified a number of deficiencies, perhaps 100 items of which I believe about 25 to 30 are appropriately considered major deficiencies."
BRENDAN NELSON: I have absolute confidence that our country will be well and truly protected by our upgraded FA 18s, a squadron of Super Hornets, and that they will also be able to ensure the safety and security of the men and women who will fly it.
MARK BANNERMAN: There the issue might rest. It doesn't. With the Government committing an extra $6 billion, the critics are now saying, let's rethink the whole strategy about buying new planes. Ditch the Super Hornet and the Joint Strike Force fighter and buy the top plane available the F-22 Raptor. There is just one problem the minister will hear none of it.
BRENDAN NELSON: The F-22, whilst it is a brilliant air to air combat capability is not the correct aircraft for Australia, would lose stealth capability once we put bombs on it.
TED BUSHELL: I sat down and I thought, "I can't be hearing properly". He's talking about the F-22, which some of the leading USAF generals have said is the best bomber we've seen for years.
MARK BANNERMAN: If the Minister for Defence thought he was clearing the decks in an election year by buying a new jet, he finds he's wrong. Indeed, it now seems he has a major dogfight on his hands.
NB: This transcript has been edited for accuracy. -
Long interview slamming the Super Hornets. Unfortunately, they didn't discuss about the advantage the new AESA radars and network centric combat capabilities the new Super Hornets will have. How fast these radars can create an SAR map and relay it to other networked aircraft.
All these battle crucial information relayed faster than the regional flankers can even search the airspace. -
I'm just wondering ... we paid $1 billion for 12 strike eagles .... they are paying $6 billion for twice the number of super hornets ....
is it the exchange rate ? ... or they factor in total life cycle costs in as well ? ....
-
sg 15s is excellence
battle tested design, new frames, new avionic couple with latest 120Ds v5. It will be more then sufficient for this region.
not to forget, the weapon package that come along with it...
-
if you think about it. we are getting F-15s that are at the tail end of their production run...Originally posted by Fatum:I'm just wondering ... we paid $1 billion for 12 strike eagles .... they are paying $6 billion for twice the number of super hornets ....
is it the exchange rate ? ... or they factor in total life cycle costs in as well ? ....
whereas the Super Hornet is just coming into operational service and is considered a "new aircraft". -
Actually, i am wondering whether they should have a "land-based" version of the Super Hornet. Kind of like the F18L concept in the past.Originally posted by Shotgun:I didn't say the performance of the aircraft was improved. The clean F/A-18C is still more agile than the F/A-18E IIRC. Maybe i implied so, sorry about that. I didnt' mean it.
The bigger E/F may lose out to the C/D in a race to break the sound barrier, but the E/F will still be able to perform better than the C/D in subsonic speeds. The bigger E/F will have increased range, weapons and endurance over the C/D.
Logistically, though the E/F has little parts in common with the C/D or A/B, the E/F has 42% LESS parts than the hornet. Isn't that better than having parts in common in some cases?
6B may be a rather steep initial cost, but I think it'll pay off at the end of the day.
This version will NOT have folding wings and its associated weight penalties, and can have a larger fuel tank on the wings.
Can also have a lighter landing gear and arrestor hook again without the weight penalties....
if they really want to go into extreme, remove the "sea water resistant" part of the design and also have lighter air frame since it doesn't need to do carrier landing...
will probably have superior performance at a much lower cost.... -
I think they want to do the Super Hornets with as little redesign as possible. Chances of rebuilding a modified Super Hornet is quite low I would think.
Lets just wait and see what other details to their package turns up on Open Source. -
A cartoon illustrates well how stubborn a minister can be even when general Aussies become more & more aware of the previous unknown matters associated with modern fighters.
-
Politics can be ugly, so I doubt posting an obviously political cartoon really makes any sort of a impression in here.
Actually, why don't you just pop by Strategypage and see what the average military-interested Aussie actually thinks of the whole Superbug deal?