MiGMasher

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!

Interesting tidbit of info I found in the National Archives of Australia, stating that back in the early 1960's the RAAF might have chosen 30 modified North American RA-5C Vigilantes equiped to drop ordnance from centerline/fuselage hardpoints. The Vigilante was considered back then to be the best aircraft that currently (back then) existed to replace the Canberra bombers, especially when compared to the F-4C/RF-4C and the Mirage IVA. The F-4C/RF-4C was dropped from consideration at the time because... *It had no Terrain Following radar *The Radar was optimised for Air-To-Air combat *Its combat radius of 627 miles(?) was too short and... *...required the purchase of KC-130 Hercules Tankers (because the KC-135 was already deemed to be unsuited for Australian service), which would have required additional aircraft for fighter cover. *...which meant the C variant had to be reconfigured with IFR probe *No ECM, which meant external carriage, which degraded performance *Modifications of the airplane to allow it to meet RAAF requirements would have been too expensive and would not have payed off in the long run anyway. The Mirage IVA was dropped because... *Poor range and weapon load *Modifications will still not come close to RAAF requirements *Lack of acceptable reconnaisance capability *Doubts about ECM capability. Senior RAAF personel deployed to NAS Oceana and MCAS Cherry Point, and NAS Sanford, to evaluate the F-4 and RA-5C. They were very impressed with the latter aircraft. However, as history shows, they did not rush in to buy the Vigilante, preferring instead to wait for the TFX/F-111, which was still on the drawing board at the time. The TSR2 was already determined to be inferior to the F-111, particularly in the areas of range, take-off and landing performance, weapons carriage, reconnaisance capability and cost. Ah...what would have been, eh? She is a beauty, isn't she?

True. But there is the comparison straight away...it's basically for "free". In view of tight budgets some in the Israeli political sphere, to include former PM Binyamin Netanyahu, are advocating that the Merkava tank production line be shut down, going instead with the US M1 Abrams tank. So far that's not happened. In regards to the TAVOR, IMI is trying to get a US company to produce the rifle to reduce cost by using the aid money. I don't know what the status is with that so far.

According to www.isayeret.com the Israelis liked the MP5 and PSG1, but don't (atleast officially) have them in their inventory due to the reasons I stated previously, and a third element...Israel Military Industries ie. "Support homegrown company/buy their product instead of foreign products" etc etc. The TAVOR family is one glaring example of this. The Israeli Army has heaps of M4/CAR-15/M16's and can get more for a substantially lower price (US Military Aid) compared to the indigenous TAVOR. I'm not knocking the TAVOR but it is clearly the more expensive family of rifles.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I liked the episode about the Crusader and Cdr Dick Schaffert! That guy had alot of testicle fortitude!

So that could explain why CVW-10 borrowed the defunct CVW-19's Fin Flash, and why CVW-13 borrowed the transfered CVW-10's previous Fin Flash.

Service Life Extension Program?

Reminds me of Israel rejecting MP-5's, PSG-1 and MSG-90's in favour of improved versions of the Uzi and indigenously modified CAR-15/M16/M4's for the Designated Marksman role, not to mention the purchase of SR25's, M24's and M82 sniper rifles. Israel could use the aid it gets to buy these American weapons as well but could not do it with the German weapons, because to do so was not only an expensive exercise, it also had political implications in view of their origin.

I would think that, had the Viggies gone into service with the RAAF they would have had a similar camo scheme to the Canberra Bombers they were to replace. All speculation of course... As to the arnament, well, the government publication did not contain specifics other than having hardpoints located under the fuselage, with the wing pylons holding the external fuel tanks. Could mean that the recon package, the canoe fairing, was detachable for the Oz version of the RA-5C, who knows... Here's the link guys... Canberra replacement: Evaluations and proposals

FLR-9...SIGINT

Hehe gotta love the KH's...reminds me of that cool song "Eye In The Sky" by the Alan Parsons Project. That website is awesome, thanks!!! Found heaps of info and many pics there of USN squadrons and air wings that I never knew existed. It's puzzling though that CVW-13 and CVW-10 had the same fin flashes (AK) and when the latter went over to the Pacific it borrowed CVW-19's "NM". The Navy must have run out of two letter fin flashes hehe, which makes me wonder why didn't they just reactivate CVW-10 and CVW-19 proper. Found some pics that show some of the units I never knew about, like VA-93, VA-153 and VA-215. Never knew USS Oriskany operated A-7's alongside the F-8's!!! Also, never knew VA-155 originally flew A-7's, and found one of those really hard to find pics of A-6C's with the TRIM. Awesome, Awesome, Awesome!!!

Thanks Typhoid for the info! In your opinion, which one of these was the best recon platform? BTW I hope I'm not being a pest or anything but if you can provide more info on the following it will be greatly appreciated: The following tail codes I've seen in various pics: - AH - NM - AP - NS What air wings are these? I'm 50 per cent sure that NM is CVW-19 but when you read some tomcat sqn histories such as the ones for VF-191 and VF-194 successive authors have stated it to be CVW-10. Which one is the right one? Also, are you familiar with "Hey Rube"? Thanx:)

I was wondering...how did it work back in the old days before the tomcats had TARPS?: Did a carrier air wing have either the RF-8 or RA-5C detachment or both?

Yeah! Drug Dealers and pimps killed his Girlfriend, so he painted the town red, in their blood hehe!

Ritter was in it too

Looks like a new generation salon hair dryer, complete with the choice of TV in a HUD, Internet browsing, or listening to radio or MP3s.

You figure, with the USAF clearly wanting more than the 183 aircraft planned, that foreign sales to the most trusted countries would atleast be entertained to help lower the cost. Is production still capped at 183 F-22's?

Yeah, it seems to be the trend these days. The movie version of "Clear and Present Danger" wasn't bad though. Maybe hollywood should do a movie on the Son Tay Rescue Mission, and do it soon...while there are still H-53's in the USAF. I believe one of the still-serving MH-53J/M's (was a HH-53C back in 1970) was a participant of the raid.

Congratulations on your promotion, mate! Stay safe!

Hehe yeah knowing us it probably will still be flying today! HMAS Melbourne would be too small to launch and recover these big birds. Melbourne was half the size of the Essex class. I'll try to find the link to the article again. It was a very interesting read.

Have the F-22's been cleared for export yet?