Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Australia Eyes F-18F  
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4216 times:

Per this article in Flight. A squadron for stopgap....

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...ornet+squadron+as+JSF+stopgap.html

Quote:
Defence minister Brendan Nelson's office confirms that Australia has asked the USN for data on the purchase or lease of one squadron of two-seat Block 2 Super Hornets, because its JSFs will be delivered from 2014 - too late to replace the F-111s, which are to be retired between 2010 and 2012. Only the F/A-18F is being considered for the stopgap requirement.

The minister's office says Australia is looking for early delivery of aircraft from Boeing's current production line in St Louis, Missouri. This would mean the navy giving up delivery slots, as the US Air Force did to enable expedited delivery of Boeing C-17 transports to Australia.

The office says a decision on whether to proceed with the Super Hornet deal is expected early next year. This could coincide with finalisation of the 2007-8 budget in February.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6483 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4194 times:

The Super Bug is a poor replacement for the F-111. Perhaps we should lend them some B-2s?  Wink


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4076 times:

How about some more F-111's? Lord knows there's tons of them sitting out in AMARC, they could have some less-used birds for a steal I'm sure.

DeltaGuy


User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7463 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4039 times:

http://www.amarcexperience.com/AMARCDBAircraftTypesSummary.asp

However, many areprobably in poor condition and the EF111 are substancially modified.


User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4805 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4024 times:

Still waiting for Australia's F-22 order  Wink


56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4010 times:

With over 200 of the various models, EF-111's not included, there has to be at least a handful of acceptable candidates.

Hey, if they'll torch fuel, fly em  Smile

Amazing to look at that list...the A-7 count has gone down majorly, and so has the F-4.

DeltaGuy


User currently offlineLegs From Australia, joined Jun 2006, 235 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3986 times:

Id imagine most of the good airframes have been pillaged fairly thoroughly for the rarer spare parts.
Another big stepping block is that the current Australian F-111 configuration is significantly different to any that the USAF ever had, especially in the avionics suite. Dont get me wrong, I reckon its a great idea as it would keep in a job a bit longer, its just never gonna happen sadly.

As far as the F-18Fs as a stopgap, the ideas not all that bad, it worked in the 60's with F-4s.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 843 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3979 times:

I said almost this exact thing in a thread two months ago, man I wish I'd kept my mouth shut!

I find this a very bad move. I'd rather see the purchase of the F-22 in a small buy than waste our money on this aircraft. The Super-hornet will last 10 years until it is outclassed by regional adversaries whereas the F-22 would last at least the next 30! A poor decision from a department that has made too many in recent memory.

Cue AirRyan to extol the virtues of the Superbug  Wink


User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7463 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3952 times:

I have rechecked the AMARC website

8 F111A 1967 numbers retired 1991-1994
54 F111D 1968 numbers retired 1991-1992
64 F111E 1969 numbers retired 1995
77 F111F 1970-1974 numbers retired 1996
16 F111G 1967 numbers retired 1993
37 EF111A 1966 numbers retired 1998
17 FB111A 1967 numbers etired 1991

It seems likely that the older retirements, F111A/D/G are picked clean to keep the F111E/F flying.

Even the F111E/F have been parked for 10 years +.
The EF111A is a substancially new aircraft and was pretty old when it retired.

Did'nt they have problems when they bought the last batch of F111's. I mean finding something that could be restored to flyability.

IMO this is a dead end. Best buy some F18F, which will have resale value.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3952 times:

Quoting Legs (Reply 6):
Another big stepping block is that the current Australian F-111 configuration is significantly different to any that the USAF ever had, especially in the avionics suite.

Not as much as you think. Most of the current RAAF F-111s are former USAF F-111Gs, which were originally SAC FB-111As. The FB-111s all got the AMP mod before they went to TAC and were redesignated as F-111Gs. The biggest difference between the RAAF and USAF airplanes was the SRAM wiring was removed before going to Australia.

Why wouldn't the RAAF consider the F-15E as the stopgap airplane?

Quoting Ozair (Reply 7):
I find this a very bad move. I'd rather see the purchase of the F-22 in a small buy than waste our money on this aircraft. The Super-hornet will last 10 years until it is outclassed by regional adversaries whereas the F-22 would last at least the next 30! A poor decision from a department that has made too many in recent memory.

I also think the F-22 (or FB-22) would be the ideal choice for the RAAF. But, Australia has the same problem as the US does, politicians who always think they know better.


User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3866 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 1):
The Super Bug is a poor replacement for the F-111. Perhaps we should lend them some B-2s?

They're not intending the Super Hornet to be a replacement; they want a temporary airplane to stand in until the F-35 becomes available. The Super Hornet will do nicely. And bear in mind they're talking possibly "leasing" the airplanes so it seems clear they don't intend to keep them any longer than is necessary.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4778 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3846 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
Why wouldn't the RAAF consider the F-15E as the stopgap airplane?

Given that the proposed F-15+ Super Eagle was snubbed by the USAF and the forecast 2012-13 service entry date based on a 2009 go-ahead is no longer valid, there is little time advantage for the RAAF to pick it over the Super Bug or just waiting for the F-35. Besides, no order from the USAF means the projected US$59M price tag had become overly optimistic vs. the US$60M for the JSF - not to mention a stopgap order for a few airframes might not be enough to launch the new version. I doubt the RAAF would go for the original F-15E even as a reliever.

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...9+Boeing+F-15E%2b+Super+Eagle.html



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5678 posts, RR: 45
Reply 12, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3838 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
Most of the current RAAF F-111s are former USAF F-111Gs

Not quite, only 4 I believe of the current active fleet (about 20 or so) are F-111G, many of the G models went straight into longterm storage, mostly as spares source due to wing failure issues.

Whilst I believe there may not be enough "Air superiority" in the F-35, I don't think the Raptor has enough "strike"

Something of a quandry for a small force with a lot of ground to cover.



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4778 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3825 times:

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 12):
Whilst I believe there may not be enough "Air superiority" in the F-35, I don't think the Raptor has enough "strike"

Something of a quandry for a small force with a lot of ground to cover.

Now, those are attributes the Super Eagle has in spades at a fraction of the cost - if we're talking medium-long term solution and the RAAF could dispense with its "stealth" fascination and aversion to "dated technology".



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5678 posts, RR: 45
Reply 14, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3812 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 13):
Now, those are attributes the Super Eagle has in spades at a fraction of the cost

I beleive it has pretty long legs as well and that wouldn't hurt in our environment!



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineSkennedy From Australia, joined Dec 2006, 4 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3754 times:

The Super Hornet will fulfill the role of nicely as a care taker aircraft. The Australian government, like all governments has made the costly and possibly unpopular too late decision to decide on a suitable replacement and had therefore has put itself in this position facing a multi-billion dollar bill for aircraft we don't really need in the long run.

User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 843 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3658 times:

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 12):
Whilst I believe there may not be enough "Air superiority" in the F-35, I don't think the Raptor has enough "strike"

I do agree that the JSF is deficient in air superiority missions but I think the Raptor will evolve to a point where it's strike it enough for our needs. Remember F-111 strike missions are really based around a pair of aircraft delivering precision munitions (laser guided) to a high value target, using its low level flight and TFR to avoid detection/destruction. An F-22 equipped with JDAM can accomplish to same mission but fly at a higher altitude faster and without detection. The F-18F would fly slower, require an escort, more tankage and due to its vulnerability use a JASSM.

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 14):

I beleive it has pretty long legs as well and that wouldn't hurt in our environment!

Standard combat loads are approximately 25% greater than our existing A models. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-18.htm

I can't find any figures on F-22 combat radius or load other than the following, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-specs.htm

I guess the choice comes down to whether we need an aircraft that will a lot of bombs an average distance or a plane that will carry a few bombs a superior distance. It is obvious which would be more survivable. No RAAF aircraft has obtained an air to air kill since I believe the Korean War, so maybe this is what we need but I am not convinced.



Quoting Skennedy (Reply 15):
The Super Hornet will fulfill the role of nicely as a care taker aircraft. The Australian government, like all governments has made the costly and possibly unpopular too late decision to decide on a suitable replacement and had therefore has put itself in this position facing a multi-billion dollar bill for aircraft we don't really need in the long run.

Do you really think that a fighter/aircraft it not required, that these will be replaced with viable UCAVs in the future 10-20 years?


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3608 times:

For the USAF, the follow on to the F-111A/D/E/F was the F-15E. But, the Mud Hen was not really a suitable substitute for the FB-111A/F-111G, as the SAC 'Vark had longer legs and carried a much heavier load (MTOW was 109,000lbs).

But, for the RAAF, it seems the F-15E+ would be an ideal F-111 interium replacement. This becomes even more true, when the politicians, in about 5-6 years decide the interium airplane will have to stick around a little longer (like 30+ years). US politicians do this, and yours are not very different than ours.


User currently offlineSkennedy From Australia, joined Dec 2006, 4 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3600 times:

Ozair, you must have misunderstanding my intentions. I believe that the F-35 or whatever fighter we eventually get purchase should have been thought out better in the beginning, and not have required the lease/purchase of the F-18F Super Hornets as a stop gap. The F-22 would be a solution to this problem.

Australia will never be able to develop a fighter attack aircraft that is entirely suitable for our unique circumstances and let alone pioneer front-line UAV attack aircraft. We simply don't have the economic or military power to achieve such a project. The USAF will always have the upper-hand on the expensive top shelf military hardware.


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6483 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3590 times:

Quoting Skennedy (Reply 18):
Australia will never be able to develop a fighter attack aircraft that is entirely suitable for our unique circumstances and let alone pioneer front-line UAV attack aircraft.

If Australia can shell out for Global Hawk (as seems to be the case), then they can shell out for a UCAV.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4778 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3536 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 16):
Quoting StealthZ (Reply 14):
I beleive it has pretty long legs as well and that wouldn't hurt in our environment!

Standard combat loads are approximately 25% greater than our existing A models. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/a...8.htm

I think he was referring to the Super Eagle.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 16):
I guess the choice comes down to whether we need an aircraft that will a lot of bombs an average distance or a plane that will carry a few bombs a superior distance. It is obvious which would be more survivable.

Unfortunately, the Boeing site does not have anything on the F-15E+ ... range or warload.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
But, for the RAAF, it seems the F-15E+ would be an ideal F-111 interium replacement.

Dismissing for a moment the fact that only the F/A-18E is being considered as a stopgap, it's intriguing what would result if Messrs. Criss and Kopp were to suddenly pick up the cudgels for the Super Eagle as they have done for the Raptor? I bet Boeing would only be too happy to provide them all the support they need as that might mean more profits over the Super Bug.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 16):
but I think the Raptor will evolve to a point where it's strike it enough for our needs.



Quoting Skennedy (Reply 18):
The F-22 would be a solution to this problem.

OTOH, the reaffirmation of the Raptor export ban pretty much put that option way into the future, if ever.



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3451 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 1):
The Super Bug is a poor replacement for the F-111. Perhaps we should lend them some B-2s?

Minus the politics the Navy would be better off with Tomcats and Intruders on their decks than Hornets and Super Hornets, but now that Grumman has turned in their man cards and no longer makes aircraft for the US Navy, it's all the US Navy has.

Actually, as long as the KC-30's can escort some Fox block 2 Hornets they are a fairly competitive platform and can carry a wide assortment of ordinance.

I would think some F-15K's would serve the Oz just fine, even built carbon copy to the South Korean GE powered units - I'm still waiting to hear Boeing's sales pitch on a potential sale like this - how do you pitch a carrier borne Fox Hornet when a modern GE powered Strike Eagle would serve you much better being that you don't need the carrier capability? The only advantge would be price and that is it.

Could the RAAF potentially use these off of British or perhaps even US carriers in the future, or at least be qualified and rated to do so if need be?


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3432 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 21):
but now that Grumman has turned in their man cards and no longer makes aircraft for the US Navy

The E-2 Hawkeye is still being produced. In fact the D model is on the drawing board as we speak.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 843 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3401 times:

Quoting Skennedy (Reply 18):
Ozair, you must have misunderstanding my intentions.

You’re correct; I wasn't quite sure what you were meaning, thanks for the clarification.

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 20):
OTOH, the reaffirmation of the Raptor export ban pretty much put that option way into the future, if ever.

I don't see this as an obstacle, it would simply take a request from our PM Howard directly to Pres Bush and things would start moving. The issue is that on previous occasions when we have been canvassed regarding it we have responded with a no!

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 21):
Could the RAAF potentially use these off of British or perhaps even US carriers in the future, or at least be qualified and rated to do so if need be?

Although we do have some crew exchanges there would be no point to such a qualification. If the JSF purchase goes ahead then perhaps we will see something of this nature. Rumors keep mentioning a small Bravo model purchase which would be used on our future amphib vessels currently being tendered. It would be easy to move these crews between US Wasp vessels etc that use 35B models as well.

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 20):
I think he was referring to the Super Eagle.

Your right, apologies Stealth for misinterpretation.


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 24, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3396 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
I don't see this as an obstacle, it would simply take a request from our PM Howard directly to Pres Bush and things would start moving. The issue is that on previous occasions when we have been canvassed regarding it we have responded with a no!

The ban is US law, I believe. Congress critters oppose the export.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
25 Post contains links and images AirRyan : It should be illegal for half these congresspersons to even hold the responsibility for they are completely void of many matters including military s
26 Oroka : She might be getting on in years, but the F-15 is still a sexy jet!
27 Post contains images KC135TopBoom : The different versions of the F-15E are still the best interdiction airplanes around, except for the few remaining F-111s. I believe that Singapore h
28 Post contains links DEVILFISH : A DID piece also reports on the purported inability of the F-35 to handle the Su-30 threat, and criticized the singling out of the F/A-18E/F as the s
29 KC135TopBoom : That would depend on when the Su-30 attacks the F-15E. If the Mud Hen is still on his way in, carrying all those bombs, the F-15 is easy pry for the
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Australia Eyes F-18F
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
B-2's In North Of Australia posted Fri Jul 28 2006 01:54:56 by Ozair
Australia Possibly To Purchase C-17 posted Thu Dec 15 2005 23:04:26 by Glennstewart
Turkey Eyes Large Eurofighter Order posted Wed Nov 9 2005 10:53:59 by Lumberton
Russian AF Eyes II-96 Tanker posted Sun Jul 31 2005 06:22:01 by Cheshire
Australia Delays JSF Choice posted Mon May 16 2005 13:24:02 by Ozair
Australia Signs $1.5b A330 Tanker Contract posted Tue Dec 21 2004 11:51:29 by 777ER
Australia Selects A330-200 For Air Force Tanker posted Fri Apr 16 2004 11:06:30 by KEESJE
USN Hornet Overshoots In West Australia posted Fri Jan 17 2003 15:29:51 by PerthGloryFan
Australia To Join JSF Program posted Thu Jun 27 2002 15:42:34 by Aviatsiya.ru
Photo Of VFA-4's New F/A-18F CAG Bird? posted Sun May 19 2002 21:22:47 by CX747

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format