Confirmation: RAAF Super Hornets

[Camoman]

Hey to those interested by the discussions that have been held in past weeks on this topic. The option that a few people thought was going to be made has been decided upon and confirmed.. :pilotfly:

 

 

 

Minister for Defence Media Mail List

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Tuesday, 6 March, 2007

MINDEF 017/2007

 

$6 BILLION TO MAINTAIN AUSTRALIA’S

REGIONAL AIR SUPERIORITY

 

Australia is assured of maintaining its air combat capability edge with the

Government’s decision to acquire 24 F/A-18F Block II Super Hornet multi role

aircraft. At a cost of approximately $6 billion over 10 years, the acquisition

of the Super Hornet will ensure the transition to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

over the next decade.

 

The acquisition will include 24 aircraft, initial support and upfront training

for aircrew and maintenance personnel.

 

The Howard Government has delivered solid economic management and Budget

surpluses over a decade. We are now in a position to deliver this for

Australia. The acquisition of the Super Hornets will be fully supplemented as

part of the 2007/08 Budget process.

 

The JSF is the most suitable aircraft for Australia’s future combat and strike

needs. Australia remains fully committed to the JSF. But the Government is not

prepared to accept any risk to air combat and strike capability during the

transition to the JSF.

 

The F/A-18F Super Hornet is a highly capable, battle proven, multi role aircraft

that is currently in service with the US Navy through to 2030. The next

generation Block II Super Hornets will provide a more flexible operational

capability than currently exists with the F-111.

 

Only last week Aviation Week reported

“Supporters of the design say it will give the Block II 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

 

It is anticipated that Australian personnel will begin Super Hornet training in

the United States in 2009.

 

The selection of the Super Hornet builds on the Royal Australian Air Force’s

deep understanding of the current F/A-18 fleet. The Block II Super Hornet will

provide Air Force with the flexibility to assign all air combat crew and

technical personnel across a relatively common fleet during the transition to

the JSF.

 

The Super Hornet will be based at RAAF Base Amberley. Negotiations for

commercial support arrangements will commence immediately. Defence is already

engaged with Boeing and the United States Navy to ensure that the maximum

potential of Australian Industry Involvement is achieved. Local Industry

participation will be a key factor in developing the through life support

concepts for the Super Hornets.

 

The Australian Super Hornet program plans to contain local contractor owned and

operated intermediate maintenance and training for aircrew and support

personnel. Additionally, the supply chain infrastructure, warehousing and

operation will be manned locally in support of both Australian and US Navy Super

Hornets in the region.

 

The selection of a next generation fighter allows for upskilling of the

workforce. The Super Hornet brings a significant growth of capability within the

support and supply chain, low observable materials (stealth), advanced sensors

and IT. This will ensure that Australian industry is trained, qualified and has

access to both USN and then JSF markets as they share common technologies.

 

This in no way diminishes our commitment to the JSF Program subject to final

Government approval in 2008. Current planning is for Australia to acquire its

first JSF in 2013.

There is no gap in Australia’s air combat capability and the Government is

taking all necessary steps to ensure a gap does not emerge.

 

Air combat capability is vital to defend the approaches to Australia and enables

us to operate air power on deployment overseas. Our air combat forces are a key

part of enhancing our land and maritime forces. This was most ably displayed by

the combat performance of our F/A-18 squadron in Iraq in 2003.

 

The Australian Government is committed to retaining the leading edge in air

combat and the Block II Super Hornet will enable this through the next decade.

 

The F-111 has been a stalwart aircraft at the centre of Australia's strike

capability for over three decades. The Chief of Air Force, Air Marshal Geoff

Shepherd, a pilot with around 2500 hours flying F-111’s, said it is important

for Australia to retire the F-111 at a time of our choosing. This ensures that

the men and women who operate them are not endangered through the risks of an

aging platform.

 

The withdrawal of the F-111 is expected in 2010 with the F/A-18F Super Hornets

to be operational that same year.

 

Many generations of Air Force personnel and Defence civilians will be sad to see

the F-111 withdrawn from service in 2010. The Government acknowledges the

tireless efforts and professionalism of personnel at Amberley who have

maintained this vital element of Australia's Defence. The immense experience

base from decades of F-111 service will boost the new air combat capability in

the coming decade.

 

Our nation is grateful to those who gave Australia this magnificent aircraft,

those who have flown and maintained it and who will do so for a further three

years.

 

With the C-17 and KC-30B tanker refuelling aircraft also to be based out of

Amberley, as well as the Wedgetail AEW&C support centre, the region is well

placed to capitalise on these significant aerospace industry involvement

opportunities.

 

The Super Hornet provides Australia with the greatest capability enhancement and

least risk option to ensure Australia’s capability edge.

Broadcast quality vision of the F/A-18 Super Hornet will be sent to television

networks at Parliament House.

 

Further information and still imagery is available at

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2007/Mar/20070306/

 

 

For a free subscription to Defence Direct, the Minister for Defence's monthly

e-newsletter, please follow this link:

http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/defencedirect/spt/subscribe.html

 

 

________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for subscribing to the Ministerial media list

If you wish to unsubscribe go to http://152.91.28.130/unsubscribe.cfm

Enter your E-mail address, click the Submit button"

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Pilotasso]

The only problem with superbuggs for australia is that they are less likely to slip past defenses unseen, and have not even half the range of Advaarks.

[britgliderpilot]

The only problem with superbuggs for australia is that they are less likely to slip past defenses unseen, and have not even half the range of Advaarks.

 

Not a permanent decision, it's just a transition aircraft for the JSF :)

 

 

And to be fair . . . . nothing's got the same capabilities as the F-111, certainly not in the low-observable market. Shame, but there it is.

[Maverick-90]

nothing's got the same capabilities as the F-111, certainly not in the low-observable market. Shame, but there it is.

well the Tornado IDS ;)

[MBot]

And Su-24 ;)

[Anytime]

What radar will it have, anyone know for sure?

 

http://www.ausairpower.net/SuperBug.html

 

And it will also give the RAAF a capability that will remain unmatched in the region as well as commonality with the US Navy and access to its logistical support. Not bad.

 

Arrrr, which region are you talking about the Tasman sea?? hehe

[britgliderpilot]

well the Tornado IDS ;)

 

 

I couldn't bring the figures to mind immediately, so quick Googling says . . . .

 

 

F-111 combat radius is 1160nm, with 14,000kg of ordnance attached.

 

Tornado combat radius is 750nm, with 9,000kg of ordnance attached.

 

 

I'd take the Aardvark ;)

[Anytime]

Ta, looks like it is suppose to enter service this year.

 

The APG-79 AESA radar:for no other reason than there is no other available, even if the RAAF wanted to downgrade and get the APG-73, they would have to pay more for it - as it is out of production.

[ViperEagle]

The AESA radar on Super Hornets is already fielded. VFA-213's Block 2's carry them, infact it's all over the aviation news. Finally the SH is starting to grow into it's potential.

[Pilotasso]

Not that it was hampered with the APG-73 anyway. :)

[Starlight]

I couldn't bring the figures to mind immediately, so quick Googling says . . . .

 

 

F-111 combat radius is 1160nm, with 14,000kg of ordnance attached.

 

Tornado combat radius is 750nm, with 9,000kg of ordnance attached.

 

 

I'd take the Aardvark ;)

 

 

TFR and overall navigation/attack system looked better in the Tornado, AFAIK.

 

operational service proved a bit of this too. during operation El Dorado Canyon, many F-111 turned back just because of system malfunctions. The Varks that made it to Lybia didn't have an exceptional performance record (even if the tactical situation was very critical) and many bombs missed their intended targets.

[britgliderpilot]

TFR and overall navigation/attack system looked better in the Tornado, AFAIK.

 

operational service proved a bit of this too. during operation El Dorado Canyon, many F-111 turned back just because of system malfunctions. The Varks that made it to Lybia didn't have an exceptional performance record (even if the tactical situation was very critical) and many bombs missed their intended targets.

 

Perhaps true, but:

 

Australian F-111C aircraft have been equipped to carry Pave Tack FLIR/laser pods, and later underwent an extensive Avionics Upgrade Program, with AN/APQ-169 attack radar replacing the elderly AN/APQ-113, Texas Instruments AN/APQ-171 terrain-following radar, twin Honeywell H423 ring-laser gyro INS, GPS receiver, modern digital databus, mission computer, and stores-management system, and cockpit multi-function displays (MFDs). Their engines were updated to TF30-P-108/109RA standard, with 21,000 lbf (93 kN) thrust. Four ex-USAF F-111As were refitted to F-111C standard and delivered to Australia as attrition replacements.

 

That aside . . . . the general impression of the reports I've heard is that the Aussies have got the thing working as it should have done all along :)

[Camoman]

TFR and overall navigation/attack system looked better in the Tornado, AFAIK.

 

operational service proved a bit of this too. during operation El Dorado Canyon, many F-111 turned back just because of system malfunctions. The Varks that made it to Lybia didn't have an exceptional performance record (even if the tactical situation was very critical) and many bombs missed their intended targets.

 

That aside . . . . the general impression of the reports I've heard is that the Aussies have got the thing working as it should have done all along

 

Well a report from 2002 red flag:

 

RED-HOT Air Force F-111 crews have returned from Exercise Red Flag with a perfect record. The F-111 ground and aircrews from No. 82 Wing at RAAF Base Amberley achieved a flawless sortie rate during Red Flag, planning and flying 118 out of 118 missions in the month-long exercise conducted at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada. The Australians were the only crews to boast a 100 per cent sortie success rate at the end of the exercise. In addition, there were no losses caused by SAMs - an extraordinary feat in such a complex exercise.

...

So they must be doing something right.

[D-Scythe]

The F-111 will crush the Tornado - it carries more, has longer range, is faster, etc.

 

I'd rather hedge my bets on the F-15E or the Su-34. At least these aircraft have the ability to defend themselves from enemy CAPs if it comes down to it.

[MBot]

Not to say anything bad about the Tornado, but several of them were lost in combat in GW1, and zero F-111Fs were lost, even though F-111Fs accounted for about 70% of anti-armor kills.

 

That comparison is not exactly fair, as the runway-denial sorties of the Tornados where by far the most dangerous mission to be flown during Desert Storm.

[Starlight]

The F-111 will crush the Tornado - it carries more, has longer range, is faster, etc.

 

I'd rather hedge my bets on the F-15E or the Su-34. At least these aircraft have the ability to defend themselves from enemy CAPs if it comes down to it.

 

every aircraft can have its own "weapons", they should be used according to that aspect. The F-111 and Tornado are designed to fly low and fast, not to get entangled in dogfights. The Eagle is a good multirole ac, but from what I've read is not the aircraft you'd love to fly into a gusty valley with.

 

The Tornado is a good aircraft. From the monography that I read some time ago, I learned that it has some limitations because it was built as a tradeoff for many different requests it had to satisfy for different countries.... and it also had to be politically correct, meaning that it was called a "fighter-bomber", because some political parties back when it was developed, didn't agree to fund a "tactical/nuclear bomber", which is the role it was designed for...

[Pilotasso]

The F-111 will crush the Tornado - it carries more, has longer range, is faster, etc.

 

I'd rather hedge my bets on the F-15E or the Su-34. At least these aircraft have the ability to defend themselves from enemy CAPs if it comes down to it.

 

A tiny correction, the tornado is the fastest plane on earth at low level, not that the difference matters, its relatively small compared to most other mach 2 fighters.

[pho3nix]

Like i have been saying all along...

 

This is a great time for the RAAF!

[Camoman]

Like i have been saying all along...

 

This is a great time for the RAAF!

 

 

..And such a good reason to hope my applicatiopn goes smoothly lol. Be nice to get in those birdies.

[MBot]

Sorry to go OT, but I just came across a interesting graphic comparing various strike fighters. While values such as payload and range stand out the most, what often is neglected is the ability to operate smoothly at high speed and low level. As we all know, operating at at extreme low level is a rough affair wich is very taxing on the crew. Airframe and wing design have a big impact how the aircraft handles this.

 

The graphic I found shows the amount of 0.5g turbulences per minute at a speed of mach 0.9 at very low level. The graphic states that a value above 10 cannot be sustatined by the crew for longer periods without their performance being degraded. Both the F-111 and the Tornado are very good in this regime, the Tornado leading with 8 followed by 10 of the Vark. The F-15 is far behind with 30 0.5g turbulences per minute, clearly showing that originaly the airframe is not intended for low level deep penetrations.

[szymon81]

mm..'low level deep penetrations' .. hehehe:P

 

thats good news re: the superhornets..they sound very impressive.

 

in terms of air superiority in the region, how do we compare with indonesia? i beleive they are operating a mix of upgraded F-5's, 12 F16 A/B models, Hawk109 and 209's and most recently a handful of SU-27SK and Su30MK's specced similarly to the IndianAF models..(apparently 12 on order?)

 

 

[dodger42]

Shame the F22 was not an option. Probably only need a few of those to defeat the Indonesian air force. Would that be a deterrent or a provocation?

[Pilotasso]

The indonesians are not THE australians threat. Indo AF has never been able to compete with ausie AF anyway, all of their F-16 and Su-27's variants barely fly and are of sub par standards.

Australias aims are regional, not country per se.

[D-Scythe]

The graphic I found shows the amount of 0.5g turbulences per minute at a speed of mach 0.9 at very low level. The graphic states that a value above 10 cannot be sustatined by the crew for longer periods without their performance being degraded. Both the F-111 and the Tornado are very good in this regime, the Tornado leading with 8 followed by 10 of the Vark. The F-15 is far behind with 30 0.5g turbulences per minute, clearly showing that originaly the airframe is not intended for low level deep penetrations.

 

The higher turbulences are caused by lower wing loading, and yes, the F-15 has a much lower wing loading than either the F-111 or the Tornado (although the ride is supposedly still quite comfortable).

 

However, the benefit of a lower wing loading is very much increased agility. The F-15E is far more agile than either the F-111 or Tornodo IDS in comparable weapon configurations.

[tflash]

Add to this that the low-level attack profile was conceived against the air defense setup of that past era: badly guided AAA, but lethal medium-to-high level SAM's, AND interceptors that did not have look down capability.

 

In the current situation, there are much less opportunities for a low-level approach: Schilka's, Tunguska's, Strela's and Ilga's will be happy to make your low-level flight very eventfull, and fighter radars will be able to track you from above.

 

The reality is the F-111 is obsolete, the Tornado has been thoroughly modernized in its GR.4 form to enable medium/high alt strike missions maximizing stand-off range with the Storm Shadow missile.

 

Upgrading the F-111 fleet and arming it with Jassm, as suggested by Carlo Kopp, would also cost plenty of money.