It is yet another sign that the New Air Combat Capability (NACC) office, is a failure for going native to the F-35 program instead of representing the interest of Australia. The F-35 propaganda and the NACC have a lot in common. Both are a lie.
Along with that, the following comment show just how stupid Smith's advisers really are:
Mr Smith said that, putting aside concerns about delays to the JSFs, standard Super Hornets and Growlers used by the US during the campaign in Libya had demonstrated the aircraft's high-edge performance.
Yeah, sure. A broken down legacy IADS.
Analysis?
Part of the justification of 100 RAAF F-35s was that it was going to be the only fighter airframe. Its original goal was to replace the legacy F-18 and F-111.
The announcement of making the first batch of Super Hornets long term means that the original justification for those aircraft (a 10 year stop-gap to reduce risk for F-35 delays) is now gone.
The idea of a 4th squadron of F-35s (which would have brought the total up to 100), is now dead.
If a second batch of Super Hornets are ordered, the plan for third operational F-35 squadron is in jeopardy. Claims by the corrupt entrenched Defence bureaucracy that they are "committed" to the F-35 now mean that the RAAF will be lucky if it sees two squadrons of F-35s; or any.
With very limited money, it is unlikely that the expensive cost-per-flying-hour F-35 will fit into existing legacy F-18 operating budgets.
The Super and F-35 are not up for emerging Pacific Rim threats. For any other kind of threat, the Super will have some use.
“It’s about $37 million for the CTOL aircraft, which is the air force variant.”
- Colonel Dwyer Dennis, U.S. JSF Program Office brief to Australian journalists, 2002-
21 comments:
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Albert Einstein
The only aircraft that would be suitable for IADS in the Pacific have not been built yet - NGAD for carrier based strike, and LRS-B from the landslide. Land based tactical aircraft simply do not have the range without a huge commitment of tankers. The F-35 and F-22 were built for an era that has plenty of basing options relatively close to their targets - like over landlocked Central Europe.
The Federal Government/RAAF are a joke of acquiring more Super Dogs again. They absolutely have got no idea of considering other proven and better aircraft such as the late model F-15E+.
The Strike Eagle is a superior next generation multi-role fighter that is available today. Its unparalleled long range, persistence and bigger weapons load make it the backbone of the U.S. Air Force (USAF). A complement of the latest advanced avionics systems gives the Strike Eagle the capability to perform air-to-air or air-to-surface missions at all altitudes, day or night, in any weather. This aircraft is at the top of the list, and I would suggest is the best choice for Australia. Why?
1. Cost is lower than the F-35, with price and delivery certain
2. It has two engines and is more reliable
3. It has the longest combat range of the group and can cover Canadian airspace from our two bases.
4. Can reach to Europe in ferry range without mid air refuelling - We have our Airbus A330 MRTT tankers.
5. More potent and survivable with a crew of two instead of one
6. Has most advanced and most powerful radar of the group - Raytheon APG-82(V)1 AESA
7. Has the lowest wing loading and can use short runways
8. Can be fitted with Gen 5 large screen displays, and heads up displays - JHMCS II/h
9. It is not compromised in design to take off and land from aircraft carriers (not overweight like the Super Hornet).
10. Maintenance costs will be much lower and more certain than the F-35
Again at $100M (est) per plane, it may seem expensive but when all costs vs performance are reviewed, X vs Y vs Z are not the same. As stated before by those in this discussion thread the F-15 provides, longer range, bigger weapons load and speed benefits that other small fighters a.k.a Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen and Super Hornet albeit less expensive cannot match. In turn, many of the new enhancements such as the fly by wire flight controls, and the availability of F110-GE-132 engines should keep operating costs at or below the known costs.
For more information about why is the Super Hornet inferior to the Sukhoi Flanker family
http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-SuperBug-vs-Flanker.html
You can also go on YouTube type in Simulation Showing F/A-18F vs Su-35S Pt 3 of 6
The simulation shows one of six scenarios over Taiwan between US Navy and PLAAF.
Engagement includes OTH Radar, UAV's, AWACS and tanker assets in addition to the F/A-18F Super Hornet and Su-35S Super Flanker-E
H3 MilSim presentation created by RepSim Pty of Australia.
See http://www.h3milsim.com for more information on the simulation used.
How did the Super Hornets perform the engagement against the Su-35?
Unfortunately, it was a appalling for the US Navy which they were seriously decimated against the Red Forces. The results are shown below.
Status for USA
Losses:
- 2 AEW E-3F Sentry
- 24 F/A-18F
- 6 KC-10A Extender
Status for China
Losses:
- 1 Su-35S Super Flanker-E
So that was a very serious loss to the US Blue Forces in this particular engagement which shows why I'm concerned about Australia considers the more Super Hornets that is not able to do the job of dominating the skies.
Mr Smith said that, putting aside concerns about delays to the JSFs, standard Super Hornets and Growlers used by the US during the campaign in Libya had demonstrated the aircraft's high-edge performance.
Only the legacy IADS it took down.
Boeing's fast-jet sales are going to have a good decade.
Even before the Chinese 5th gen threats emerge we'll be dealing with several advanced Chinese legacy aircraft now entering limited production.
All of them are equipped with AESA and advanced avionics/weapons. The J-10B, J-11B/BS, J-15, and now J-16 are all starting to emerge and will be a factor in the Pacific within the next 5 years.
Neither the Super Bug or the F-35 have the A2A moxie to be a serious deterrent.
http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/6180/72j10b1.jpg
RSF
At least I hope you to buy the international roadmap version.
As first customer maybe you could get a good price.
Peter, the exercise on Taiwan did not contemplate the use of growlers and the stealth X-47B with AMRAAMs, which will be able act as intruding ships sending information to the rest of the fighters, which may also could be operated by the co-pilots in their Super Hornets and will fire their own air-air missiles as well as long-range bombs, and also may also act as mini tankers to the fleet.
I think with the new generation of jammers, the Growlers and Super Hornets with it's very low radar cross section and hi sensor fusion and in the future the X-47B will be a fearsome force in the Asia Pacific region without the need of the astronomically expensive F -35 with it's ridiculous internal weapons capacity.
The Strike Eagle with its huge radar cross section have nothing in common with the fleet that step by step is building Australia.
More Super Hornets, Growlers and in the near future X-47B will be an air force much more powerful and affordable.
Why is it that when a group proposes the purchase and introduction of a completely new system such as the F35, the focus is all about it's proposed "new features"?
But when the latest variant of the F15 such as the SA or SE version is proposed the reaction is always, it's a different plane and therefore the air force will not be able to take advantage of the current infrastructure, thus costing more.
An F15 variant while more expensive than the F18 will still be less expensive than the F35 to own and operate.
Hello Mario Seoane
Indeed, the F-35 is astronomically expensive with it's ridiculous limited internal weapons capacity.
Its been claimed by LM that the F-35 is able to carry 18,000 lbs of ordnance - which I don't see the aircraft able to carry that high amount because of tiny wings and the airframe is small that can't fit enough in the weapons bay, plus it'll sacrifice its stealth capability if carried externally.
To be a more powerful air force, my bet is equipping the RAAF with late model F-15s and X-47B UCAV's.
Hi Canuck Fighter
For instance, if you compare to the Sukhoi Flanker/Fullback there price tag is cheaper than some of the western fighters.
Su-27SKM or SMK - US$30 million
Su-30 - US$34 million (Su-30K)
Su-30MKI - 1.61 billion (US$29.3 million)
Su-30MKM - US$35–53 million
Su-34 - US$36 million
Su-35S (Su-35BM) - US$45 million to US$65 million (estimated)
Regards
Peter, The reason that I am betting on the Super Hornet is because the USNavy has a realistic and clearer vision of the way of the future in relation to net-centric operations and the well called cooperative engagement. Is not just about having an air superiority aircraft but to be part of an entire defense system including Aegis system that Australia and allies use in the asia pacific region, and the Super Hornet is an integral part of it.
The Strike Eagle is a superb fighter from the Cold War era but the Super Hornets are the natural fighters from the actual era of sharing of information, as part of the revolution we are living in all the aspects of our daily lives with so many gadgets and advanced communications systems.
Also the SH seem to be more complete and balanced, besides having a small RCS and the same air-air weapons for long and short range as the SE (Aimx-9) that almost make unnecessary radical maneuvers like the F-15.
Also the SH has a new distributed target acquisition system and satellite communications that the SE don't.
It can take off and land on short runways with his arrest cable and can even do it from highways and U.S carriers if you need to in a coalition operation.
About the maintenance costs the SH also offers more advantages than the F-15. The biggest advantage of the F-15 is its range, but the SH with conformable tanks and new and more efficient engines will also have a significant range.
Watch this video about the way of the USNavy operates to graphic my point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WumIk1MwVPM
Hello again Mario Seoane
Are you still around?
The Cooperative Engagement Capability, quite an interesting documentary. Thanks for posting it.
Have you also seen the RepSim's Simulation Showing F/A-18F vs Su-35S Pt 3 of 6 on YouTube
The reason why I'm concerned about the Super Hornet's suitability is
there was a damning report in areas of critical operational requirements, while praising it for its improved aircraft carrier capabilities when compared to the original F/A-18A-D Hornet - something not high on our list of essential criteria.
Three sentences on page eight of the report say it all: "The consequences of low specific excess power in comparison to the threat are poor climb rates, poor sustained turn capability, and a low maximum speed. Of greatest tactical significance is the lower maximum speed of the F/A-18E/F since this precludes the ability to avoid or disengage from aerial combat. In this regard, the F/A-18E/F is only marginally inferior to the F/A-18C/D, whose specific excess power is also considerably inferior to that of the primary threat, the MiG-29."
The F/A-18E/F has a similar performance deficiences to the F-35which the aircraft has a short range and does not have the performance envelope of a true air superiority fighter compared to the large fighters (with high capability). They will be outclassed by the Su-27/30 Flanker family of fighters by most regional nations in terms of performance parameters, aerodynamic, bigger weapons payload, radar / sensor performance by widely available fighters.
Apart from the new Sukhoi Flanker family proliferating across the regions: the F/A-18E/F is acknowledged in the report as being no match for even the older and newer MiG-29 family. Space precludes quoting the report's comments on the multitude of other areas where the Super Hornet is inferior to the 1970s-designed and 1980s-built original F/A-18 aircraft. Admittedly the Block II Super Hornet has a new APG-79 AESA radar and some electronic components not in the version Coyle gave evidence on, but the fundamental airframe and performance remain unaltered: it is heavier, slower, larger and uglier (its radar signature did not measure up to expectations) than the normal Hornet.
Evidently the underwing aero-acoustic environment and resulting vibrations are so violent that some weapons are being damaged in transit to the target on a single flight - dumb bombs are fine in that environment but not long-range missiles containing sophisticated and relatively delicate components.
The way I look about the Super Hornet, it has 50/50.
Ok I'll start of with the positive side about the aircraft.
- More internal fuel at 14,500 lbs for the E model and the F model at 13,600 lbs than the Classic Hornets internal fuel at 10,860 lbs
- Fantastic Digital Avionics
- Carries a little bit ordnance load at 17,700 lbs than the Classic Hornets load at 17,000 lbs
- Twin engines for safety
The negative side about the Super Hornet:
- Poor turning capability at heavy weight at 66,000Ibs
- No Acceleration. Top Speed Mach 1.6, will get chased down by the Sukhoi Flankers
- Lower Thrust to Weight Ratio at 0.93
- The Super Hornets APG-79 AESAs range is 160 nm very similar to the JSFs APG-81 AESAs range at 150 nm detection range. Lack of range of short to medium. Which is still inferior.
Hi Peter, I think we have 12 hours of difference.
About the SH, that's why I comment it would be good if you buy the international roadmap version with better engines and in the future some X-47B. These are the natural candidates to act as part of the cooperative engagement concept with the Australian and American Navy and Army.
BTW, the Peruvian Mirage2000 and Mig29 had pretty good results against the american F-16 in the "Hawk-Condor" exercise, but they had their worst result ever against one Super Hornet from the Carl Vinson who defeat 3 Mig29 in a single dogfight.
The pilot was Samantha Mellman.
http://www.caretas.com.pe/Main.asp?T=3082&S=&id=12&idE=873&idSTo=0&idA=45693#.UM9J2G_hpFU
Nothing is perfect, but the Super Hornets are very lethal fighters in the right hands and you need an affordable airplane to train a lot.
BTW, she was an F/A-18E Super Hornet pilot at the time, not a Hornet pilot as the Peruvian article mentions. Check her linkedin page. Now she's flying Growlers.
For good or bad, Australia is becoming a Super Hornet country, and maybe one day will have some F-35 if the price goes down. So it will be a good idea for you to train as crazy to be ready. Just for fun yesterday night I create a video mixing dogfights from other movies but I think this is what it's gonna happen in the Asia Pacific region one day. Some F-35 and a lot of Rhinos aginst Chinese and Russian fighters. The F-22 won't be on place at time.
At the end the one who train the most and with the better electronics and sensors will prevail. About the video, is just for fun but maybe one day become real.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wiobs0DAIzU
Thanks SH.
Also consider the single-point-of-failure AMRAAM. 50pc PK against poor targets.
We need an AMRAAM body with an optical/IR seeker for the terminal phase, or expect to have BVR PKs down to that of a Vietnam-era Sparrow.
Or why not in the future to send ahead some stealht X-47B controlled by the SH, full of AMRAAMS or even Aim-9x with it's improved range. That would reduce the time of reaction of potential enemy airplanes. Also to have Meteors should be a real asset for the RAAF's Super Hornets. I read somewhere that Boeing also participate in the Meteor Program.
Something like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oCYHjN42-gI#!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8KOPzLbdF0
Hello,
Just to let you know that I changed a little bit my video in order to put the X-47B in the action as I think is going to happen one day in the near future.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLE-v-ldaHM
LOL!
Post a Comment