Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Super Hornet

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by captain View Post
    Price is very definiately in the equation and much more so if we get a new left leaning government.
    The Australian Labor Party support(ed) an F-22 purchase so I would hardly turn your nose up at them.

    Perhaps F15 is too close to end of life cycle to be a long term option.
    (Re: highsea as well) South Korea and Singapore, the latter of which is much smaller than Australia, consider them still viable. Their BVR capability and range is not to be sniffed at.
    HD Ready?

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by highsea View Post
      I'm sure they were discussed, but the F-15 is really at the end of it's life cycle, while the Super Hornet will stay in production for years to come. Oz's existing HUG bug infrastructure is well suited to maintaining the Super Hornet, so life cycle costs will be much lower than any F-15 variant.
      I think the Super Hornet was probably the best choice for Austrialia. But saying the F-15 is no longer a viable option may be a stretch. Does the newest and most capable version, the F-15SG have much more in common with the 1970's F-15A, then the SH does with the F/A-18A? Depending on the role of the aircraft, and the missions required of it, I would not be surprised if the F-15SG outperforms the F/A-18E/F in a variety of cercumstances.

      Comment


      • #33
        Fortunately Australia's military and political leaders are smarter than you.
        Yes, wabpilot, most people are, but I'm not about to let a little thing like that stop me from voicing my opinion.:)

        My point on the F-35 is that it is, for all intents and purposes, replacing the F-111. The problem is that the F-35 has nowhere near the range or bomb carrying capacity as the F-111. All of Australia's potential foes are a long ways away. That creates a logistical nightmare for Australia's limited tanker fleet.

        really, the person you are talking to "wabpilot", is a retired USN F-14/F-18 pilot. bit more respect for him would do you only good
        No offense intended, only to point out that Dr. Carlo Kopp actually has been in a Super Hornet.

        Yeah - export controls are gonna stop Australia buying the F-22. Not the price or cost of maintenance, no way.
        If Australia were to acquire the F-22, it would certainly be a "silver bullet" fleet. Nobody can afford very many. Maintenance costs aren't the issue. Every plane has maintenance costs. The F-22 was specifically designed to be extremely maintenance friendly.

        Someone mentioned the Typhoon. Not enough range. Again, Australia doesn't have many options.
        I want what I do not have.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by scorefour View Post
          My point on the F-35 is that it is, for all intents and purposes, replacing the F-111. The problem is that the F-35 has nowhere near the range or bomb carrying capacity as the F-111. All of Australia's potential foes are a long ways away. That creates a logistical nightmare for Australia's limited tanker fleet.
          Maybe. But you also have to look at the type of bombs needed to carry out a mission these days. An F-35 with JDAM is as effective as a fleet of F-111s. It can sneak in, drop a single bomb to destroy a single target, and then sneak out. F-35 will probably be better suited to defend itself if it has to. The operational cost is much lower than the 40 year old F-111. A huge reason why we retired the F-14 and replaced them with F-18E is due to operational cost.
          "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by scorefour View Post
            Yes, wabpilot, most people are, but I'm not about to let a little thing like that stop me from voicing my opinion.:)
            Good to know that you understand where you are in the pecking order.

            My point on the F-35 is that it is, for all intents and purposes, replacing the F-111. The problem is that the F-35 has nowhere near the range or bomb carrying capacity as the F-111. All of Australia's potential foes are a long ways away. That creates a logistical nightmare for Australia's limited tanker fleet.
            You are all over the place with your argument. You do understand that your first claims were about the F-18F?

            For the sake of general understanding, I'll lay out the situation for you.

            1. The F-111 (all of Australia's variations) is getting old.

            2. The F-111 costs a fortune to maintain, on the order of $A600 million per year. That's a lot for at best 24 active airframes.

            3. The RAAF has twelve F-111s configured as front line strike aircraft. Four more are configured for recon and at any given time four to eight are used as conversion trainers. This is a TO&E that the RAAF has maintained since the withdrawl of the Mirage III recon version.

            4. Turnaround time between sorties for the F-111 runs about sixty person hours.

            5. The oldest F-111Cs will run out of airframe hours before the F-35s enter service. The rest of the fleet is not far behind.

            Facing those facts, what is the responsible air force and/or politicial leader to do?

            I'll answer, the responsible leader says get an interim replacement. What are the options?

            1. Rafale B.

            2. Typhoon.

            3. F-18F.

            4. F-15K.

            Pick which one? I'll answer again, for Australia the F-18F makes the most sense. It is easy to maintain, although the Rafale B and Typhoon are in the same class maintenance wise. The RAAF already operates the F-18A HUG. The cockpits are identical. That makes the training pipeline a lot easier than the current F-18/F-111 pipeline. The F-18F has full support from the USN and USMC meaning spares do not have to be stockpiled in Melbourne but can be ordered from either the west coast NADEP or east coast NADEP. For that matter, if the RAAF keeps the F-18F long enough to need an upgrade they get to set up a competition between two NADEPs plus L-M Australia and Boeing Australia for the business. The RAAF can send its instructor pilots to one of two USN Fleet Replacement Squadrons for initial training. Of all the aircraft listed, the best man/machine interface is the F-18. Last, but not least, the F-18 will have a built in market when the F-35s start to replace it. The RAAF can either replace their own F-18A HUGs with some F-18Fs or they can sell their relatively new F-18Fs recovering some of their initial capital outlay. It will probably result in the F-18F purchase costing less than a comparable lease.

            In a later post, I might discuss why the F-35 makes sense for the RAAF, but suffice to say the Australians made a wise choice there too.

            ...only to point out that Dr. Carlo Kopp actually has been in a Super Hornet.
            Let's be clear, you were claiming that Carlo had actually flown the aircraft and somehow that made him qualified to evaluate it. It may come as a surprise to you, but the RAAF actually sent real live graduates of the Empire Test Pilots School who are or were currently serving with the ARDU to evaluate not only the F-18F but also the F-15E, Typhoon and Rafale B. Unlike Carlo, these are skilled aviators and engineers who can give an evaluation of various airframes to their military and political leaders. Care to guess which type came out on top? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't the F-111. The bottom line is, the RAAF is a professional force that did a thorough evaluation of the available aircraft compared that evaluation against their real defense concerns and made a recommendation.

            Someone mentioned the Typhoon. Not enough range. Again, Australia doesn't have many options.
            The only time range would be an issue is if Australia plans on a preemptory strike without duly notifying Washington and invoking the Nixon Doctrine.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by scorefour View Post
              Yes, wabpilot, most people are, but I'm not about to let a little thing like that stop me from voicing my opinion.:)
              Well, at least you're good-humoured enough not to take offence ;)

              Originally posted by scorefour View Post
              No offense intended, only to point out that Dr. Carlo Kopp actually has been in a Super Hornet.
              I'll take a USN aviator's opinion over a non-flyer like Carlo Kopp any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

              "The Mike Sparks of Australia"

              Good one Gunny, I can't imagine a more vicious put-down :)) :)) :))
              “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

              Comment


              • #37
                Wabpilot,

                You're response claims that I was all over the place with my arguments. Here was that portion of my post:

                Why Australia went for the Super Hornet and the F-35 is beyond me. Neither plane seems to fit the needs of Australia.
                The F-35 was part of that argument and that is what I thought you were refering to.

                Now then, I would love to hear what you have to say about the F-35 making sense for Australia. I don't claim to be an expert on the subject. It only seems on the surface that the F-35 is hardly a good replacement for the mission it will be inheriting. I know you don't necessarily agree with Kopp, but he advocates a substantial upgrade of existing F-111's to continue the "bomb truck" role.

                Let's be clear, you were claiming that Carlo had actually flown the aircraft and somehow that made him qualified to evaluate it.
                When the hell did I say that? I only pointed out that he had been on a test flight. That's all. If anything, he became a little more familiar with the plane and some of the things it can do. You may not be a fan of his, but Boeing obviously thought enough of him to take him for a spin in their new plane.
                I want what I do not have.

                Comment


                • #38
                  What stops the RAAF from getting some new Terminators (Su-35) or Super Flankers? Those can be configured for ground attack. They're also cheap both on the price tag and maintenance. And they come with no strings attached.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by scorefour View Post
                    I know you don't necessarily agree with Kopp, but he advocates a substantial upgrade of existing F-111's to continue the "bomb truck" role.
                    It's not economical to do that. The F-111's air frames are old. It takes a lot of man power to get them to fly. Wabpilot stated that it takes 60 man hours for every hour of flight time. That's a lot of personnel you need to keep around to make sure the planes fly. And every hour it sits in a hanger is an hour of it not being used to drop bombs. To make that up, you need to buy even more planes.

                    I think the Super Hornet needs something like 30 man hours or less for every hour of flight time (could be substantially less). Assuming this figure is accurate, that means I can cut my maintenance personnel by half and use the savings for something else. Or I can keep my current staff and have the jets turn around in half the time.

                    Logistics is what prompted RAAF to select the Super Hornet.
                    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Feanor View Post
                      What stops the RAAF from getting some new Terminators (Su-35) or Super Flankers? Those can be configured for ground attack. They're also cheap both on the price tag and maintenance. And they come with no strings attached.
                      Commonality with the US. Australians train with US military. The ABCA alliance military are interchangeable. You can drop a squadron of RAAF fighters on a USAF base and you probably won't notice any loss in efficiency. All the training for maintenance staff and spare parts are the same.

                      Got a broken tailpipe on an RAAF Super Hornet? Call USN and it'll be FedExed overnight.

                      Got a broken tailpipe on that Flanker? Well, can't get one from the US. Gotta call Sukhoi. Where is the nearest Sukhoi depot? A lot farther than the nearest US base.
                      "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by scorefour View Post
                        The F-35 was part of that argument and that is what I thought you were refering to.
                        You quote Carlo about the F-18, you claimed Carlo went on a test flight in an F-18. You claimed that Carlo had been reluctant to criticise the F-18 because he got a press ride. Then you introduced the F-35 to the argument. Therefore, you are all over the place.

                        I only pointed out that he had been on a test flight. That's all. If anything, he became a little more familiar with the plane and some of the things it can do. You may not be a fan of his, but Boeing obviously thought enough of him to take him for a spin in their new plane.
                        There you go again, claiming Carlo took a test flight. Boeing took him on a press demo ride, because he writes a lot. His writing finds its way into the mass media so he reaches a lot of uninformed people, like you. Therefore, it is advantageous to Boeing if he gets a press demo ride. It is interesting that you seem to value the opinion of a comedian over that of people here who are military professionals. At least two of us are or were aviators and have weighed in on this issue. That is the value of this board, you can probably find someone who is actually knowledgeable and willing to share. Rather than basing you claims on fantasies produced by comedians. I also find it amazing that you would accept without criticism the claims of Carlo while completely ignoring the results of a professional evaluation. It shows a lack of seriousness on your part.
                        Last edited by wabpilot; 03 Nov 07,, 13:39.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Feanor View Post
                          What stops the RAAF from getting some new Terminators (Su-35) or Super Flankers? Those can be configured for ground attack. They're also cheap both on the price tag and maintenance. And they come with no strings attached.
                          Nothing. The RAAF is very aware of Russian offerings in the marketplace. They went so far as to schedule a demonstration of the Su-27 and they even had the then Chief of Staff of the Air Force go for a ride in one. Over the years, Australia has been willing to look outside the traditional US or UK/European suppliers for weapons. However, those suppliers have a tough selling job because support pipelines are in place to Australia from the US and to a lesser extent Europe and the UK. When Australia looks to make a purchase, it weighs not only the claimed purchase price, but the lifetime costs and capabilities. Russian designs simply do not stack up well when measured against those criteria.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                            I'll take a USN aviator's opinion over a non-flyer like Carlo Kopp any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
                            Carlo does have a commercial pilot certificate. Although, he does not exercise the privilige very often and certainly not professionally. Also, Carlo is not an aeronautical engineer.

                            "The Mike Sparks of Australia"

                            Good one Gunny, I can't imagine a more vicious put-down :)) :)) :))
                            I agree whole heartedly!

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Just about everything we have or do now days is a result of the US, at least 85% of our TV is US, (the US needs "Hey Hey It's Saturday" to show them what good TV is). Ford, Gm and Chrysler do their best to try and make us buy their cars, Most kids use more "Americanisms" than the good old, fair dinkum Aussie language.
                              strategically, We're in an interesting position, geographicly speaking. I feel the US needs Australia's deterant to be sizeable. Even though the cold war is over, the war on terror has taken its place and with Indonesia being so close and being the largest Muslim nation on earth who only give convicted terrorists "a slap on the wrist", it would be in their best interest to have a few bases, naval, air and army on Oz soil.

                              Uncle Sam needs a handle on what's going on in the region, we could have the benefit of having a larger defence force, even if it is by proxy, and the US personell could add more to our economy, the US economy is looking a bit crook at the moment, the Oz $ is worth over .90cents and is expected to peak over the $ mark by mid next year.

                              So, I'll put in our order now;

                              10 x B52s
                              15 x C5 Galaxeys
                              10 x Globe masters
                              2 x nuclear aircraft carriers, complete with battle group,
                              2 x L/A class Submarines
                              30 X f22s
                              3 x B2 Bombers
                              20 F117 night hawks
                              6 x Chinook heilos (that would make 10, with ours)
                              35 x Bell choppers to replace our (Vietnam) era fleet
                              6 x LCACs
                              2500 x decent 4x4 vehicles, (not humve's or landrovers)
                              25 x Palidains
                              100 x Mi Abrams
                              50 Cruise Missles,

                              That's just for starters, It seems PM Howard and George Dubya are good mates, mates look out for their mates here ya know.

                              Think what the injection of funds into the US economy would do.

                              Any comments?;)

                              Freddie
                              Never hold your farts in, they run up your spine, and that's where shity ideas come from.
                              vēnī, vīdī, velcro - I came, I saw I stuck around.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by furkensturker View Post
                                So, I'll put in our order now;

                                10 x B52s
                                15 x C5 Galaxeys
                                10 x Globe masters
                                2 x nuclear aircraft carriers, complete with battle group,
                                2 x L/A class Submarines
                                30 X f22s
                                3 x B2 Bombers
                                20 F117 night hawks
                                6 x Chinook heilos (that would make 10, with ours)
                                35 x Bell choppers to replace our (Vietnam) era fleet
                                6 x LCACs
                                2500 x decent 4x4 vehicles, (not humve's or landrovers)
                                25 x Palidains
                                100 x Mi Abrams
                                50 Cruise Missles,
                                A few of those items haven't been manufacturered in years.

                                Forget the C-5 Galaxys. Add more C-17's to your list as well as more C-130's for short-haul stuff.

                                Forget the B-52 and B-2 bombers, you don't need that kind of global reach.
                                F-22 and F-35's will fit the bill perfectly.

                                Forget the F-117's. You're talking about state-of-the-art 1970's technology.

                                Ditto the Los Angeles-class SSN's. You want something smaller and more modern.

                                Forget the CVN battlegroups. The manpower requirements alone would be unimaginable to the RAN. Never mind outfitting their airgroups.

                                You've already got Abrams tanks and Chinooks choppers, so that's a good pair of buys. The Paladin is operated by dozens of allied countries, so that's another good buy.

                                LCAC's are a good thing to have in those waters, but I believe they're out of production.

                                The Bell UH-1Y Huey would be a good fit as well.

                                Will this be cash or charge?
                                “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X