The RAAF has a problem with dog-aircraft.

Cross-posted here (BFA Facebook).


Why is the RAAF air combat capability getting worse?

Our entrenched defence bureaucracy sure has an odd sense of progress.

When comparing the F-35, the new F-18 Super Hornets (bought on a whim with no credible analysis) and our old F-18 Hornets acquired in the 1980’s, which is the most lethal air-to-air killer?

The old Hornets.

Back in the 1990’s when the F-18 Super Hornet was being fielded for the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Government Accounting Agency had damning reports on its performance in comparison to older F-18s (much like the RAAF's) currently in the fleet.

The Super Hornet is dangerously slower and weaker in the heart of the air combat envelop.

At first, this should not have been an issue for the U.S. Navy as the justification for the Super Hornet requirement was as an A-6 strike bomber replacement. The Navy rejected that idea and bet on development of a stealth bomber for aircraft carrier service. That effort failed with a dramatic project cancellation, $5B expenditure for no capability and a loss of U.S. Navy reputation.

Stinging from this, the Navy dusted off the plans for an idea they previously rejected, the Super Hornet, and added the requirement that it would also replace the multi-role F-14, a high-performance aircraft with the base requirement of fleet air defense. The Super Hornet was never prototyped. It was sold to the U.S. Congress as a classic Hornet upgrade even though it is a significantly different design. The U.S. Congress bought that con; along with all of the development problems.

Our elected officials were told nothing of the Super Hornet’s wheezing performance when we handed over the money for these jets, now in RAAF service.

Our old 1980's vintage Hornets also have better combat performance than an F-35. Lockheed Martin sales briefs for their F-16 show old F-18 Hornet acceleration data. As an aside, the F-35 was dominated in an exercise to determine its combat maneuverability. An old F-16 held the F-35 to disadvantage, and not by a little bit. F-35 acceleration data published by the U.S. DOD Test and Evaluation office show the old F-16 and F-18 at significant advantage.

It gets more interesting. Mid-life upgrades performed on the RAAF’s old F-18 Hornets show that it has an air-to-air dogfight missile with much greater range than U.S. and Russian competitors. This was done for that very reason. The missile (Google: ASRAAM) is thicker and thus can carry more rocket fuel for its length. When (and if) the U.K. fields their F-35s, they will have that longer range dogfight missile. Australia will not.

Though, there again like the AIM-9 missiles, ASRAAM can only be carried on stealth depleting external pylons on the F-35 JSF wings. Pretty silly really and at what cost?

Speaking of which, cost per flight hour of some aircraft in RAAF service compared to the F-35? Old F-18 Hornet: $12,000. Super Hornet: $23,000. F-35: $60,000 (Australian dollars converted from 2015 United States Air Force data).

Why are we being asked to hand over significant amounts of money for an ever increasing lower level of performance?

This is how battles are lost. This is how wars are lost.