MiGMasher 0 Posted December 3, 2007 EXCERPT FROM AUSTRALIAN GOVT. "ON THE RECORD" Site Link Official position regarding the Superhornet...... 29 October 2007 THE ADF AIR COMBAT CAPABILITY In response to the Four Corners story on 29 October 2007, the ADF corrects the record on a number of issues raised during the program. SUPER HORNET In keeping with the 2000 Defence White Paper, the ADF is committed to maintaining an edge in regional air combat capability. The Super Hornet is the best aircraft to meet Australia's bridging air combat requirements as we prepare for a JSF-based future, subject to government decision. The Super Hornet is a battle-proven, multi-role aircraft that is clearly the only capable, available system which meets Defence's requirements in the next 8-10 years. The Super Hornet is the clear choice as a bridging air combat capability for three reasons: First because of its excellent capability to meet Australia's requirements; Second because of its availability and supportability; and Third because Air Force has the capacity to make this transition more easily than with any other aircraft. The Super Hornet is in service with the United States Navy through to 2030 and will continue to be upgraded, keeping it relevant through until 2020. It will ensure our air combat capability edge is maintained through the transition to F-35 over the next decade. The Block II Super Hornet will be on the ground in Australia in a little over two years. The Super Hornet acquisition will allow us to retire the F-111 at a time of our choosing. Regarding claims the Super Hornet is not sufficiently stealthy The Super Hornet is a low-observable (LO) aircraft, orders of magnitude more 'stealthy' than F-111 or Su-30s. The F-35 JSF is a Very Low Observable (VLO) aircraft and true 5th generation. Regarding Super Hornet not being 5th generation The ADF has never said that the Super Hornet is '5th generation' - a term referring to the combination of stealth and sensor integration. The only two true 5th generation aircraft are F-22 Raptor and the F-35 JSF. Super Hornet vs Su-30 series aircraft If a Super Hornet was to meet a Su-30 in the coming 8 years, ADF pilots would want to be in the F-18F cockpit every time. Any pilot who has flown the new Block II F-18F with AESA radar would feel the same way. The Super Hornet is a true multi-role aircraft that spans the air combat spectrum, including maritime strike, which is so vital for Australia. The Block II airframe is redesigned for signature reduction and the aircraft is built around the most advanced radar in any non-fifth generation aircraft in the world. Modern lethal weapons render any aircraft performance measure irrelevant if it does not enable first shot. First shot is achieved long range through: modern networking; survivability – (through signature reduction and integrated electronic counter-measures that deny opponents the ability to shoot); advanced radars to cue weapons early; and lethal missiles – (with long range and protection against countermeasures). In its air superiority roles, the F/A-18F possesses all these attributes and will test any modern air defence system. Air combat capability is about far more than the aircraft specifications. Reliable, sustainable logistics support, the best training and a full air combat system of command and control is required to match modern threats. No other aircraft can meet this requirement in the bridging timeframe better than F-18F Super Hornet. Was DSTO's F-111 wing testing flawed? There were no errors in the set-up of DSTO's F-111C wing fatigue test. The wing fatigue test was developed to simulate the loads on the aircraft in-flight. The F-111C wing fatigue test was initiated by Air Force and conducted by DSTO to manage and address fatigue cracking problems identified in the mid-1990s. The Wing Fatigue test article failed unexpectedly during testing. All F-111C wings were subsequently replaced with later model wings which passed the wing fatigue test. Defence evaluation of various capability options: It is a normal part of prudent military planning to develop fallback options for Government consideration. The bridging capability option leveraged off several years of on-going analysis through Air 6000. Preliminary DSTO studies were carried out on both the technical risk and operational analysis of Block II Super Hornet as a bridging air combat capability prior to Government decision. The F/A-18F Block II Super Hornet is clearly the most capable aircraft across all air combat roles that Air Force have the capacity to introduce in the bridging timeframe. The option of the F/A-18F Super Hornet builds on our understanding of the current F/A-18 fleet. This option is least risk to ensure that Australia's capability edge is maintained at a time of major equipment renewal and change for Air Force F-111 The F-111 is a great strike aircraft, professionally operated and maintained by RAAF personnel. The F-111 has been the stalwart of Australia's air strike power for last 30 years but will not continue to meet Australia's strategic needs. Australia aims to retire the F-111 at a time of our choosing, noting the F-111 was planned to retire well before Super Hornet was considered as a bridging capability. The F-111 would operate at increasing operational risk with emerging threats in the coming decade beyond 2010. It would also operate at increasing safety risk beyond 2010 with the ageing airframe issues highlighted by wing fatigue, well publicized fuel tank issues and wiring looms. The F-111's effective range is increasingly reduced as it needs to avoid air and surface threats rather than having the ability to penetrate them as can a modern multi-role fighter such as the F-18F Block II Super Hornet. The F-111 needs a fighter escort with any air threat, is not networked and doesn't fit into Australia's networked Defence architecture for the coming decade. The decision to join the JSF Program Australia joined the JSF Program in October 2002 to obtain access to F-35 Air System information, as well as capability and industry outcomes, recognising that gaining these benefits did not commit Australia to acquire the JSF aircraft. The decision also recognised the clear benefits that a stealthy, multi-role, 5th generation JSF offered over the full range of contender aircraft based on Defence analysis undertaken on contenders to replace the air combat capability provided by the F-111 and F/A-18 aircraft. For a minimal outlay of only around 0.3% of the JSF's development budget, benefits from joining the Program included: The opportunity to participate in a developmental program largely funded by the US Government; Privileged access to JSF Program information; The opportunity for very detailed technical risk analysis by Defence of all JSF systems years before any contractual commitment; Constant engagement with the JSF Program Office on JSF cost analysis.Unprecedented ability for early development of our concept of operations and tactics; Enhanced opportunities for interoperability and commonality to support future coalition operations; Delivery of the required air combat capability ahead of non-Partner customers.The unprecedented opportunity for Australia to participate in, and influence, the design and capability of an advanced fighter aircraft; The opportunity to take part in the JSF test program (the most comprehensive flight test program ever); Australia is already involved in defining what will be included in the first upgrades to the aircraft after the current development phase is complete; and The opportunity for Australian industry to be part of the global supply chain of the world's largest defence project. ......Well, there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. The Super Hornet is a stealth airplane while the Lightning is a Very Stealthy airplane! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SayethWhaaaa 245 Posted December 3, 2007 What a crock of sh*t. You know why the response took this long to be released? Because Brendon Nelson can only type with two fingers... [*]Privileged access to JSF Program information;[*]The opportunity for very detailed technical risk analysis by Defence of all JSF systems years before any contractual commitment; By privileged access, does that mean we only had to threaten to quit the program and only file for access to the avionic sys-specs (which hadn't necessarily been finalised) in the US Supreme Court and wait three years for access? I'd hate to see how long the other member nations would have had to wait! The unprecedented opportunity for Australia to participate in, and influence, the design and capability of an advanced fighter aircraft;[*]The opportunity to take part in the JSF test program (the most comprehensive flight test program ever); ^^ This is a great governmental/public service trick that we used to use in ASPI. You take a statement, reword it a few times so each sentence, whilst still meaning the same thing, looks different to the eye. This allows you to get away with repeating yourself again and again and makes the document continue to the next page, thus, looking more comprehensively researched. Ok, ok, I'll get off my soapbox now... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MiGMasher 0 Posted December 3, 2007 (edited) hehe, perhaps he was using one hand to type while giving himself some "stress relief" with the other! I was interested in the comment that the Super Hornet is a Low Observable Airplane. In the old days if I recall the phrase "Low Observable" meant "Stealth". I dont know about anyone else but from the way the article was worded it seemed to me that they (DOD) were saying that the Superhornet is a stealth airplane, which in fact is untrue. Yes it has had "LO" technologies integrated within it but it is not a true stealth airplane. It also seems to me that the DOD are bagging the F-111's survivablility based on threat systems /associated IADS infrastructure combos that our nearest neighbours do not have. And the explaination that the F-111's great range capability would be nullified because it would have to fly around those threats is pretty weak since the DOD is purchasing tankers that have boom technology. Or have they forgotten? "The F-111 needs a fighter escort with any air threat, is not networked and doesn't fit into Australia's networked Defence architecture for the coming decade." ...Since when in the history of air warfare have any bombers or attack aircraft not needed a fighter escort in the face of an enemy air opposition? If the Americans used this logic then aircraft like the A-10 or B-52 would have been gone a long time ago. Just because retaining the F-111 would mean that it wont make money for certain people, companies or organisations doesn't mean it is a useless weapons system. They only way to make it useless is to not upgrade them, which is what has happened, even though it is likely to be significantly cheaper while improving combat performance. IIRC the F-111 performed in many sorties over North Vietnam without a Fighter escort or even SEAD support. If they were desperate for a replacement for the F-111 they should have picked the F-15E Strike Eagle. Singapore has confirmed their order of 24 Strike Eagles, which have all the latest bells and whistles, to include the APG-63(V3) AESA Radar. They made the smart choice IMHO! About the only bright positive thing to come from the Super Hornet purchase is, as has been recently announced, the procurement of the AIM-9X. Now originally the Australian DOD purchased the AIM-132 ASRAAM for the RAAF to replace the AIM-9L/M Sidewinder. They're going to find out soon that the ASRAAM purchase was a waste of taxpayers money. Ask the Germans what they think about the ASRAAM...and why they produced their own dogfight missile, the IRIS-T. And another thing...all this fascination and preoccupation with networking is all good, but you still have to physically be capable of engaging and destroying the enemy. So ELINT/SIGINT/COMINT/TELINT/MASINT/HUMINT/C4ISTAR systems are telling me all I need to know about the enemy, and more. Can I do anything about it, or Can I effectively degrade the effects of the enemy with what I have at my disposal? If the answer to these is NO then a shift in, or balance of, priorities is in order. Edited December 3, 2007 by MiGMasher Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MigBuster 2,884 Posted December 3, 2007 Theres a lot of debate flying around on the AIM-9x ASRAAM, IRIS-T, Python which is the best blah blah - and its mostly speculation - though by all accounts the ASRAAM is a flippin good missile and will do the job. They obviously want the Superhornet which is why they are marketing it as being Low Observable I suppose to sell it to people who dont know any better! As for the claim that the F-18E/F can just penetrate modern air defences easily - that I dont believe - against an S-400 system it had better have pretty good jamming support - otherwise it needs to go low level like the F-111 - which is a bit of a nightmare without decent IR countermeasures. In A-A you need a great radar and great missiles - the F-18E/F has a APG-79 AESA radar and can carry loads of AMRAAMs - what more do you want tbh. The flaw with the SH is its speed which is vital if tasked to interception or in climbing to gain a good height to release missiles (or outrun missiles). Saying that though the speed is still adequate IMO for what it needs to do. In a straight line the SH can do about M1.6+ apparently - which I doubt it will hardly ever do - just like most jets. There is also speculation that the Block 3 F-18E/F will have 55,000lbs of thrust (up from 44,000lbs)- see it if it happens but would be nice!!! Other than that it looks pretty cool! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
column5 63 Posted December 3, 2007 Modern lethal weapons render any aircraft performance measure irrelevant if it does not enable first shot. First shot is achieved long range through: Out of all of that, the above is what strikes me most. Has everyone forgotten how BVR missiles were going to revolutionise air combat in the 1960s, and then in Vietnam the ROE required visual ID before shooting? Does anyone think that there are going to be very many situations in which taking BVR shots without positive ID on the target will be acceptable? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MiGMasher 0 Posted December 3, 2007 Theres a lot of debate flying around on the AIM-9x ASRAAM, IRIS-T, Python which is the best blah blah - and its mostly speculation - though by all accounts the ASRAAM is a flippin good missile and will do the job. They obviously want the Superhornet which is why they are marketing it as being Low Observable I suppose to sell it to people who dont know any better! As for the claim that the F-18E/F can just penetrate modern air defences easily - that I dont believe - against an S-400 system it had better have pretty good jamming support - otherwise it needs to go low level like the F-111 - which is a bit of a nightmare without decent IR countermeasures. In A-A you need a great radar and great missiles - the F-18E/F has a APG-79 AESA radar and can carry loads of AMRAAMs - what more do you want tbh. The flaw with the SH is its speed which is vital if tasked to interception or in climbing to gain a good height to release missiles (or outrun missiles). Saying that though the speed is still adequate IMO for what it needs to do. In a straight line the SH can do about M1.6+ apparently - which I doubt it will hardly ever do - just like most jets. There is also speculation that the Block 3 F-18E/F will have 55,000lbs of thrust (up from 44,000lbs)- see it if it happens but would be nice!!! Other than that it looks pretty cool! The Germans have had experience with the Russian HMS/R73 Combo on account of their inheritance of the MiG-29's upon reunification, which is why eventually they went their own way with creating their own dogfight missile - because they knew that an ASRAAM-equiped fighter would not cut it if the fight went WVR. While AESA-euipped Super Hornets, armed with heaps of AMRAAM's, may seem enough, it was not optimised as a fighter. The USN even admits this in their official website , stating that the Super Hornet is basically a bomb truck that if the situation called for it could be used for air-to-air roles. The size of the APG-79 AESA antenna is smaller than the array on the Sukhoi. And even though the Super Hornet does have LO features, the fact that it carries all of its stores externally would practically negate any advantage those features would have given. And if you are carrying a large load of AMRAAM's on pylons that are angled slighty away from the fuselage and direction of flight I would say you'd be still producing a good return on any radar and at range too. Probably the only way to use the LO features would be to only arm the Super Hornet with 2 Sidewinders and 2 AMRAAMs, and have no pylons or external tanks fitted - a substantial reduction in air-to-air firepower. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MiGMasher 0 Posted December 3, 2007 (edited) Out of all of that, the above is what strikes me most. Has everyone forgotten how BVR missiles were going to revolutionise air combat in the 1960s, and then in Vietnam the ROE required visual ID before shooting? Does anyone think that there are going to be very many situations in which taking BVR shots without positive ID on the target will be acceptable? Apparently if your forces are "networked" (you would know where you are, where the good guys and bad guys are), doing a VID theoretically is a thing of the past...so they would say...assuming all platforms/sensors/systems are working perfectly and don't break down, most likely at the wrong time, or are interfered with, passively or actively, by the enemy. Edited December 3, 2007 by MiGMasher Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Typhoid 231 Posted December 3, 2007 Apparently if your forces are "networked" (you would know where you are, where the good guys and bad guys are), doing a VID theoretically is a thing of the past...so they would say...assuming all platforms/sensors/systems are working perfectly and don't break down, most likely at the wrong time, or are interfered with, passively or actively, by the enemy. there are quite a lot of systems and tactics to enable a positive ID. but of course, nothing is absolutely certain. In the Gulf War I (Desert Storm) the JFACC would not permit the USN to employ the Phoenix and kept the F-14's out of the central air to air war for precisely those reasons. But even with solid networking, we still have problems getting a good ID and shooting the right guys (a couple of Army Blackhawks by F-15s and Hornets & Tornados by Patriot come to mind). but the various systems included on the marginally more stealthy SH (as compared to anything other than the F117, F22 and F35) and the Link-16 integration with other sensors do give a measure of more assurance of what we are engaging BVR. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MigBuster 2,884 Posted December 3, 2007 The Germans have had experience with the Russian HMS/R73 Combo on account of their inheritance of the MiG-29's upon reunification, which is why eventually they went their own way with creating their own dogfight missile - because they knew that an ASRAAM-equiped fighter would not cut it if the fight went WVR. While AESA-euipped Super Hornets, armed with heaps of AMRAAM's, may seem enough, it was not optimised as a fighter. The USN even admits this in their official website , stating that the Super Hornet is basically a bomb truck that if the situation called for it could be used for air-to-air roles. The size of the APG-79 AESA antenna is smaller than the array on the Sukhoi. And even though the Super Hornet does have LO features, the fact that it carries all of its stores externally would practically negate any advantage those features would have given. And if you are carrying a large load of AMRAAM's on pylons that are angled slighty away from the fuselage and direction of flight I would say you'd be still producing a good return on any radar and at range too. Probably the only way to use the LO features would be to only arm the Super Hornet with 2 Sidewinders and 2 AMRAAMs, and have no pylons or external tanks fitted - a substantial reduction in air-to-air firepower. I dont think any jet has a significant advantage in WVR and even an AIM-9M would be good enough in some cases - Its got to be said that anyone caught in a close range dogfight these days has screwed up so badly that getting out alive regardless of what hes in is gonna be luck - whose going to win out of 2 jets with HMS with the latest heaters? even if you do get a first shot in and the opponent decides to try and dodge (and not fire back) you are probably a few seconds away from a missile from another plane hitting you becuase your SA at that range is gonna be non existant against a similar enemy. I think the F-18E/F is a good plane - although tbh an F-4 Phantom with an AESA and 8 AMRAAMs would be pretty formidable - may not be as stealthy or carry as much but its faster :) - just goes to show that its the avionics and tactics that matter these days. Is there any evidence that Asian/Russian radars are anywhere near what the US Military has? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SayethWhaaaa 245 Posted December 3, 2007 They obviously want the Superhornet which is why they are marketing it as being Low Observable I suppose to sell it to people who dont know any better! Got it in one. The one of the biggest gripes in this whole situation is that the previous government (possibly even the new administration too) have been selling stealth a panacea, the silver bullet. Where as in our immediate region, specifically the Northern arc and to a lesser extent the asia pacific region, capability is key, not necessarily having the latest of the latest technology. Stealth is going to make no difference if, like was stated before, that the aircraft have to use external stores or if IFR tankers have to be moved much closer to combat. And given the boneheaded idea of replacing long range strike platforms with two types of lighter, less specialised fighter/strike fighters, this problem will be exacerbated by the combination of having to: -Bring the IFR tankers much closer to the strike zones - Keep them there for longer periods - Having escorts for the tankers (which in turn means more tankers to cover the escorts) ...and that's not including having a larger strike package due to the F-35's/Superbug's lower loadout capacity when compared with the Pig. Think about it, that's a lot more risk and requires much investment just so we can have AESA, HMS, AIM-9Xs and a plane whose training programme isn't markedly dissimilar than the existing RAAF Hornet training programme. The government's arguments seem to make sense, but only if you're looking to get rid of the F-35 in favour of the F-111. I think they got their aircraft names mixed up... PS. I like they way they'd referred to the Re-Seal/De-Seal victims FUBAR as "fuel tank issues". That's like referring to the Black Plague as "Health Issues". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MiGMasher 0 Posted December 4, 2007 I dont think any jet has a significant advantage in WVR and even an AIM-9M would be good enough in some cases - Its got to be said that anyone caught in a close range dogfight these days has screwed up so badly that getting out alive regardless of what hes in is gonna be luck - whose going to win out of 2 jets with HMS with the latest heaters? even if you do get a first shot in and the opponent decides to try and dodge (and not fire back) you are probably a few seconds away from a missile from another plane hitting you becuase your SA at that range is gonna be non existant against a similar enemy. I think the F-18E/F is a good plane - although tbh an F-4 Phantom with an AESA and 8 AMRAAMs would be pretty formidable - may not be as stealthy or carry as much but its faster :) - just goes to show that its the avionics and tactics that matter these days. Is there any evidence that Asian/Russian radars are anywhere near what the US Military has? Well, as others have pointed out with examples, you may find yourself having to get in closer than you would have liked because the situation maybe too risky to do BVR engagements. USAF F-16C's were caught out cold with their AIM-9M's when they went against the German MiG-29's IIRC... On the subject of HMS technology I really wonder how good were the VTAS-equipped USN F-4's. The AN/AVG-18 was designed for the F-14 and AH-1 also. This HMS system never really caught on I guess. IDF/AF personel "borrowed" a Polish MiG-29 in the late 1980's to see what it could do. Whatever they learned is embodied in the Python 4/5. Regarding Asian/Russian radars I would assume nothing. It has become habit to deride OPFOR systems regardless of their actual known capabilities. The Russians, like the Americans, usually don't export their most sensitive technologies, though it can be argued (from what we know, or what is implied, with OSINT) that the Flanker family is an exception, in some cases. And their design philosophy and method of employment is different too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MigBuster 2,884 Posted December 5, 2007 (edited) USAF F-16C's were caught out cold with their AIM-9M's when they went against the German MiG-29's IIRC... Would be interesting to know what actually happened here - if two sets of (an equal number of) planes started out at a distance to each other with heaters only - then you should expect the jets with the better IR sensors and longer ranged missle should win - (even a missed shot would cause defensive action) a HMS probably wouldnt even be used unless the fired missiles missed and the jets merged somehow. I know that the AIM-9L wasnt as all aspect as advertised when it was used in the Falklands and wouldnt lock up headon (in a freezing cold environment)- wonder if the AIM-9M was just as bad? Edited December 5, 2007 by CoolHand29 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted December 6, 2007 The Super Hornet is supposed to have a significantly smaller RCS than the legacy Hornet, despite its larger size. It is not a "stealth" plane, no, however compared to other 4th gen fighters (ie anything before the Gripen/Rafale/Typhoon/F-22/F-35 era) like the original Hornet, Eagle, Viper, Flanker, etc it is much harder to see. Also, do remember stealth against other fighters is a minor consideration nowadays...it's stealth vs SAMs that is of more concern. Vietnam was the last time any significant number of planes was lost due to enemy air action, but even then the ground fire was more deadly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+EricJ 4,256 Posted December 6, 2007 Plus the Super Hornet buy adds some stuff: - Tanker capability (ARS pod)/support. It's also a save-money scheme since legacy Hornets use the probe and drogue system, whereas the boom system, used only by the USAF with the obvious exception of the RAAF F-111s. Australia really can't deploy F-111s all the time since on probably average deployed tankers were mixed fuel probe/boom system, and then again, when has the RAAF deployed F-111s in support of any NATO led operation?. Plus you can utilize all aircraft in support of NATO operations because everybody else uses the drogue system. While the Super Hornet isn't the best, it's fast becoming more taskable than just a strike or just plain fighter. People tend to get stuck in one plane, one mission syndrome. Besides, why deploy an expensive KC-135 (or whatever they use) for a training op when you can task out a Super Hornet or two? I mean this isn't the Cold War, countries like to be able to get more bang for the buck. And as SayWhat?! mentioned, it's easier to train legacy Hornet pilots because overall yes, the SH is newer, it's similar in training or an "advancement" program which doesn't require too much additional training, which is required for any new fighter = save money. - It's a bomb truck yes, but the F-111 can't carry a few LGBs, a fuel tank, and a couple HARMs, and self defense missiles at the same time. Sure the Super Hornet is never going to match the range or power, but I don't know about you, you can do more with less especially if your plane you're flying can carry more. This isn't Vietnam, it's the 21st century, so conceivably, the Super Hornet could do it's mission, but doesn't require a total escort package, a SEAD package, and a whole airforce to bomb one bridge. Again it's 2007, not 1977. Plus you can argue about the Popeye... couldn't you figure out how integrate it on the Super Hornet? And for the argument sake of clearance issues, the F-4 IIRC can carry them, so can the Super Hornet. Besides, the Super Hornet has a better chance of getting to the target than the Aardvark. - It's new. Sure I don't know what the USN mechanics think of the Super Hornet, but like the F-14, it's old, old and just old. Sure they were great aircraft, but they're old. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sparkomatic 7 Posted December 10, 2007 - superbugs are nice, but the US Navy's own studies proved the F-14D more capable in a number of critical areas...you can find those results on-line - it would be nice if the USAF actually went ahead with an F/B-22 like Dr. Rosch had intended, but with Moseley in charge nothing that makes sense will happen - and UCAVs will be held back by the fighter-general-mafia in US until we are way behind - I have worked with superbugs, they are junk just like bugs in general...no offense but remember that the USAF REJECTED the "Cobra" and it never really got over it...go ahead and reply with a story about a bug driver gettting like 19x F-15 kills...it never happened (though an Eagle did in fact meet its fate in the sights of an A-10, that is true at a Red Flag). Lucky for bug drivers that they have never faced a true air-air contender and it is a fine bomb truck when air dominance has already been achieved Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
