Over 10 years ago the Super Hornet was a "non-starter" for the RAAF
Times change. Not always for the better.
Years ago, Australia was being setup to buy the F-22. Back then, the Super Hornets that Nelson fell for in 2006 and that are now in service was considered a "non-starter".
(click image for large view)
25 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Notice no mention of the F-15.
2010 arrivals should have seen the commencement of the F-15AU programme, imho.
Modified and evolved to meet RAAF requirements.
Superior range and capacity for superior performance vs the F-35.
Superior long-range situational awareness vs the F-35.
Superior flexibility in cleared load-outs and multi-mission capabilities.
Supplement with UCAV by 2022. Replace with mature 5.5 gen starting in 2035... call it a day.
I guess I would have gone with the G550 dual band AWACS, too. Cheers-
Why didn't the Australians buy F-22s? At current rates, they would be no more expensive...and Australia could get them, unlike a lot of other countries.
I cant help thinking that some of that leaking was about building the case for the F35. Whatever the facts, Australia was never going to get it after John Howard was seduced by LMs powerpoint presentation in his hotel room on one of his many trips sucking up to Bush. Its probably not too late to avoid the F35 Money pit, but what to do instead?
A properly equipped squadron of block 35 F-22 increment 3.2 with 8x SDB II munitions and follow-on variants of JDAM-ER w/ eo/IIR dual mode would be nothing to sneeze at. I'd further contemplate the JDAM-ER and even SDB with a GPS/INS + passive RF w/home on jam dual mode seeker.
Note: it's about systems requirements and proper development which are the limiting factors.
They lack appropriate warheads, standoff targeting ability, standoff range, EP, kinematics and their guidance is optimised for terminal coordinate refinement of pre-located planned targets, not ships moving, maneuvering and doing ASMD.
SDB II addresses moving targets. Who's stand-off range vs. what kind of ships? The penetration of the SDB is significant (that of a BLU-109). With proper fusing it should be able to mission kill a variety of targets. SAR + GMTI modes are good enough to create a target template before release. Also; DAMASK JDAMs have already been tested. The idea that these weapons cannot be used against ships isn't supportable.
Problem with a small shaped charge with a jdam vs a frigate sized ship is its hitting from above, not on the waterline.
Standoff range is kind of important vs any ship with an anti-air capability.
Again, very low kinematics on these weapons. ASMD is a well rehearsed event.
Big problem with F-22 is it has no EO sensor. Big deal for ROE, targets of opportunity, BHA, sensor handoff to an EO seeker etc. SAR/GMTI acquisition followed by letting loose JDAM may be an option in a pinch, but it's nowhere near best practice or even comparable with 'legacy' 4th gen striker capabilities.
On a frigate sized target the fusing/penetration of the SDB could easily penetrate below the keel before it goes off.
As for IRST: where do you think the F-35s IRST shaping came from?
In any event, Australian senior Defence weak leadership and strategic thinking on air power issues is another case of them not knowing what they do not know.
A force of F-22s does a few things. One is deterrence and the other is winning air campaigns of your own choice.
As for a balanced force: Defence already lied about the F-111 which could have been kept going with improvements until the 2020s. Where once the F-22 kills off the big threats: you can strike whatever you want.
Surface ships with no air cover overhead after the F-22 removes it end up like the Prince of Wales and Repulse: dead.
Something to think about since the poor decisions by Defence have now almost guaranteed that we will lose air supremacy to the North. This means those big expensive (and not very useful) Hobarts and Canberra class ships will not have any cover.
But yeah, putting 2500 Marines up North provides so much strategic deterrence. Not. A better choice would have been a USAF F-22 Wing.
Oh but wait, we can't make the Chicoms mad can we?
Short answer: our Defence strategic thinking is neither strategic or thinking.
The misunderstanding is that ROE requires an actual optical ID.
But if ROE requires an optical visual of the maritime target, prior to engagement with 'LJDAM' or 'JSOW C1' eg, then even an F-35 will be flying well within Surface fleet's WEZ (especially in inclement weather).
Throw in a Global Hawk, recon sat, or UCAV though and you'll have a surplus of visual ID.
However, in the age of AESA w/ SAR mode, that is your ROE visual in many cases.
And as ELP stated, the WEZ against F-22 would be less than the F-35, due to flight envelope and SDB II range.
Lastly, while one can assume further evolution to munition types, even sufficient air-bursts would cause substantial mission damage to a surface structure and anything exposed.
After so many ASMD rounds depleted, any surviving target could then be chased off by more vulnerable 4th gen striker with heavier ordnance.
The F-35 IRST shaping might have come from a projected F-22 IRST, but the F-22 even in the early 2000's did not have an IRST. So while early intentions may have been good, the F-22 still is unsuitable. Also, you need more of a FLIR than an IRST.
Please excuse me, but your argument n favour of the F-111 tells me you wern't close to F-111 operations in the last 10 years and familiar with their limitations. Even an upgraded F-111 with JASSM/GPS/EWSP would not give you a capability over what a Classic Hornet has with those capabilities. Range advantage is removed from the equation with its required escort and the range of JASSM.
ROE is a very complicated thing. In a theater requiring visual ID, SAR is NOT visual ID, despite its resolution.
ROE is graduated. Where visual aquisition is required, SAR does not suffice. maybe you can just bomb coordinates, maybe you require SAR mapping, maybe you need to aquire the target on sensors, maybe visually. It depends. ROE is a sensitive subject, so I don't think any serious discussion can be had on this topic.
"Please excuse me, but your argument n favour of the F-111 tells me you wern't close to F-111 operations in the last 10 years and familiar with their limitations. Even an upgraded F-111 with JASSM/GPS/EWSP would not give you a capability over what a Classic Hornet has with those capabilities. Range advantage is removed from the equation with its required escort and the range of JASSM."
---
I have observed USAF F-111 ops. As for the Australian end of it; You may want to talk to Peter.
My understanding with the F-111 in Australia since the mid 1990s is a Defence leadership making decisions on lies and uninformed indifference to what is real.
First; where Boeing took over the sustainment of the F-111 contract. The fox, telling the farmer the definition of a chicken.
Then there is the lie about the F-111 being structurally risky past 2010. There are some other untruths but you get the idea.
The reason the F-111 didn't get upgraded to take J series weapons is laziness and not any real technical challenge.
I have also been around maintenance and sustainment communities (USAF depots and the flightline). It may interest you to know that one of the last F-111 squadrons to be retired out of the USAF (not talking about the jammers) had some glass-cockpit appliances and other upgrades giving the unit MC rates over 90 percent.
BTW--The F-4 is technically more challenging with day to day MX. That from a person I know that worked both F-4s and F-111s.
Your idea of the Hornet and the JASSM is not useful. An F-111 can take a JASSM much further with less tanker assets. As well as Harpoon and other weapons had the idea gone farther.
If escort is needed, the Hornet is a poor choice. It is too short-legged. Even worse when carrying something like JASSM. Tanker-city.
The Hornet will get killed. Meaning if a real escort is needed you better bring something else besides that...and the F-35.
Continuing use of the F-111 out to the 2020s (if not longer) would give a joint coalition force a value-added platform.
Your false religion of faith-based Defence groupthink will not work here. The makers of yesterday's, today's and tomorrows air power roadmap for Australia can only be looked at as unfortunate.
The F-111 may be gone now. But it went a way on a big lie. This seems to be a problem of epidemic proportions inside Defence leadership circles.
My opinion is not based on group think, but rather is based on my experiences trying to integrate F-111's into an OCA strike package. Would have been better off rolling downrange as self escort strike and the Pig drivers at retirement knew it. Tragics from the 80's and 90's believing the F-111 was still capabable at retirement have been out of the air power game for too long.
The problem with the F-111 was not necessarily its expensive maintenance but its 1960's role in the 2010's.
Fast, maybe low level, with kinematics as its only defence. No situational awareness available to the crews on the air picture, totally reliant on GCI to know when to turn tail and run (their only defence).
For the support required for it, it would be better to integrate B-52's or B-1's into the package with their greater bomb load.
25 comments:
Notice no mention of the F-15.
2010 arrivals should have seen the commencement of the F-15AU programme, imho.
Modified and evolved to meet RAAF requirements.
Superior range and capacity for superior performance vs the F-35.
Superior long-range situational awareness vs the F-35.
Superior flexibility in cleared load-outs and multi-mission capabilities.
Supplement with UCAV by 2022. Replace with mature 5.5 gen starting in 2035... call it a day.
I guess I would have gone with the G550 dual band AWACS, too. Cheers-
Sukhoi also a nonstarter... Must be rubbish too!
Get real..the chart has the Lockheed Martin logo on the chart...of course they will say the F/A-18 is a non-starter.
Why didn't the Australians buy F-22s? At current rates, they would be no more expensive...and Australia could get them, unlike a lot of other countries.
Australia didn't buy F-22's for reasons that have been stated time and time again.
Cost
US Law
Negligible air-surface capability
No maritime strike capability
etc.
Don't forget:
-Spin
-And rent-seeking
And Houston did not ask.Too busy burying the F111, and lying to the Senate.
Maybe the RAAF and Houston didn't want the F-22?
Didn't Labor promise to ask for it? Can't remember them following through on that one...
The F22 had some serious enemies. Anyone remember this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR2009070903020.html
I cant help thinking that some of that leaking was about building the case for the F35. Whatever the facts, Australia was never going to get it after John Howard was seduced by LMs powerpoint presentation in his hotel room on one of his many trips sucking up to Bush. Its probably not too late to avoid the F35 Money pit, but what to do instead?
Yeah, at the time I wrote this.
http://www.f-16.net/news_article3621.html
To anonymous #4...
"No maritime strike capability"
A properly equipped squadron of block 35 F-22 increment 3.2 with 8x SDB II munitions and follow-on variants of JDAM-ER w/ eo/IIR dual mode would be nothing to sneeze at. I'd further contemplate the JDAM-ER and even SDB with a GPS/INS + passive RF w/home on jam dual mode seeker.
Note: it's about systems requirements and proper development which are the limiting factors.
Errrrrr no.....
Can't hit a moving target with coordinate bombs buddy...
But you can with DAMASK-JDAM and SDB II.
But neither are appropriate anti ship weapons.
They lack appropriate warheads, standoff targeting ability, standoff range, EP, kinematics and their guidance is optimised for terminal coordinate refinement of pre-located planned targets, not ships moving, maneuvering and doing ASMD.
SDB II addresses moving targets. Who's stand-off range vs. what kind of ships? The penetration of the SDB is significant (that of a BLU-109). With proper fusing it should be able to mission kill a variety of targets.
SAR + GMTI modes are good enough to create a target template before release.
Also; DAMASK JDAMs have already been tested.
The idea that these weapons cannot be used against ships isn't supportable.
Problem with a small shaped charge with a jdam vs a frigate sized ship is its hitting from above, not on the waterline.
Standoff range is kind of important vs any ship with an anti-air capability.
Again, very low kinematics on these weapons. ASMD is a well rehearsed event.
Big problem with F-22 is it has no EO sensor. Big deal for ROE, targets of opportunity, BHA, sensor handoff to an EO seeker etc. SAR/GMTI acquisition followed by letting loose JDAM may be an option in a pinch, but it's nowhere near best practice or even comparable with 'legacy' 4th gen striker capabilities.
On a frigate sized target the fusing/penetration of the SDB could easily penetrate below the keel before it goes off.
As for IRST: where do you think the F-35s IRST shaping came from?
In any event, Australian senior Defence weak leadership and strategic thinking on air power issues is another case of them not knowing what they do not know.
A force of F-22s does a few things. One is deterrence and the other is winning air campaigns of your own choice.
As for a balanced force: Defence already lied about the F-111 which could have been kept going with improvements until the 2020s. Where once the F-22 kills off the big threats: you can strike whatever you want.
Surface ships with no air cover overhead after the F-22 removes it end up like the Prince of Wales and Repulse: dead.
Something to think about since the poor decisions by Defence have now almost guaranteed that we will lose air supremacy to the North. This means those big expensive (and not very useful) Hobarts and Canberra class ships will not have any cover.
But yeah, putting 2500 Marines up North provides so much strategic deterrence. Not. A better choice would have been a USAF F-22 Wing.
Oh but wait, we can't make the Chicoms mad can we?
Short answer: our Defence strategic thinking is neither strategic or thinking.
The misunderstanding is that ROE requires an actual optical ID.
But if ROE requires an optical visual of the maritime target, prior to engagement with 'LJDAM' or 'JSOW C1' eg, then even an F-35 will be flying well within Surface fleet's WEZ (especially in inclement weather).
Throw in a Global Hawk, recon sat, or UCAV though and you'll have a surplus of visual ID.
However, in the age of AESA w/ SAR mode, that is your ROE visual in many cases.
And as ELP stated, the WEZ against F-22 would be less than the F-35, due to flight envelope and SDB II range.
Lastly, while one can assume further evolution to munition types, even sufficient air-bursts would cause substantial mission damage to a surface structure and anything exposed.
After so many ASMD rounds depleted, any surviving target could then be chased off by more vulnerable 4th gen striker with heavier ordnance.
The F-35 IRST shaping might have come from a projected F-22 IRST, but the F-22 even in the early 2000's did not have an IRST. So while early intentions may have been good, the F-22 still is unsuitable. Also, you need more of a FLIR than an IRST.
Please excuse me, but your argument n favour of the F-111 tells me you wern't close to F-111 operations in the last 10 years and familiar with their limitations. Even an upgraded F-111 with JASSM/GPS/EWSP would not give you a capability over what a Classic Hornet has with those capabilities. Range advantage is removed from the equation with its required escort and the range of JASSM.
ROE is a very complicated thing. In a theater requiring visual ID, SAR is NOT visual ID, despite its resolution.
ROE is graduated. Where visual aquisition is required, SAR does not suffice. maybe you can just bomb coordinates, maybe you require SAR mapping, maybe you need to aquire the target on sensors, maybe visually. It depends. ROE is a sensitive subject, so I don't think any serious discussion can be had on this topic.
Prey then, what escorts the F18?
"The misunderstanding is that ROE requires an actual optical ID."
ROE for an Operation: USELESS DIRT event like Iraq or Afghanistan is a big difference to defense of Australian home interests.
I doubt you will have a visual ID with a Harpoon shot at 80+ miles.
Ditto with a JDAM shot on a fixed target dropped through the clouds.
Ditto with a SEAD/DEAD shot with JSOW or a snap-shot with HARM (Australia doesn't have HARM obviously).
The over-fixation on ROE to that level doesn't wash in a national emergency.
"Please excuse me, but your argument n favour of the F-111 tells me you wern't close to F-111 operations in the last 10 years and familiar with their limitations. Even an upgraded F-111 with JASSM/GPS/EWSP would not give you a capability over what a Classic Hornet has with those capabilities. Range advantage is removed from the equation with its required escort and the range of JASSM."
---
I have observed USAF F-111 ops. As for the Australian end of it; You may want to talk to Peter.
My understanding with the F-111 in Australia since the mid 1990s is a Defence leadership making decisions on lies and uninformed indifference to what is real.
First; where Boeing took over the sustainment of the F-111 contract. The fox, telling the farmer the definition of a chicken.
Then there is the lie about the F-111 being structurally risky past 2010. There are some other untruths but you get the idea.
The reason the F-111 didn't get upgraded to take J series weapons is laziness and not any real technical challenge.
I have also been around maintenance and sustainment communities (USAF depots and the flightline). It may interest you to know that one of the last F-111 squadrons to be retired out of the USAF (not talking about the jammers) had some glass-cockpit appliances and other upgrades giving the unit MC rates over 90 percent.
BTW--The F-4 is technically more challenging with day to day MX. That from a person I know that worked both F-4s and F-111s.
Your idea of the Hornet and the JASSM is not useful. An F-111 can take a JASSM much further with less tanker assets. As well as Harpoon and other weapons had the idea gone farther.
If escort is needed, the Hornet is a poor choice. It is too short-legged. Even worse when carrying something like JASSM. Tanker-city.
The Hornet will get killed. Meaning if a real escort is needed you better bring something else besides that...and the F-35.
Continuing use of the F-111 out to the 2020s (if not longer) would give a joint coalition force a value-added platform.
Your false religion of faith-based Defence groupthink will not work here. The makers of yesterday's, today's and tomorrows air power roadmap for Australia can only be looked at as unfortunate.
The F-111 may be gone now. But it went a way on a big lie. This seems to be a problem of epidemic proportions inside Defence leadership circles.
My opinion is not based on group think, but rather is based on my experiences trying to integrate F-111's into an OCA strike package. Would have been better off rolling downrange as self escort strike and the Pig drivers at retirement knew it. Tragics from the 80's and 90's believing the F-111 was still capabable at retirement have been out of the air power game for too long.
The problem with the F-111 was not necessarily its expensive maintenance but its 1960's role in the 2010's.
Fast, maybe low level, with kinematics as its only defence. No situational awareness available to the crews on the air picture, totally reliant on GCI to know when to turn tail and run (their only defence).
For the support required for it, it would be better to integrate B-52's or B-1's into the package with their greater bomb load.
F-15E w/ AESA, AIM-120C7, AIM-9X, JHMCS. That's a platform that's relevant in the strike role today.
Maybe tomorrow it will be the F-35. It certainly has the range, LO, SA and self defence boxes ticked.
Post a Comment