The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 25, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Shornet announcement tomorrow morning
gf0012-aust    2/26/2009 5:03:28 AM
compliments of abe, via T5C, via press release:

DEFENCE MINISTER TO MAKE MAJOR CAPABILITY ANNOUNCEMENT IN RELATION TO AUSTRALIA?S FUTURE AIR COMBAT CAPABILITY

Who: The Hon Joel Fitzgibbon MP, Minister for Defence.

What: Defence Minister will a make major capability announcement, whilst welcoming the

Boeing and United States Navy Super Hornet team, visiting Australia for the Australian

International Air Show.

Where: RAAF Base Williamtown, Medowie Road, Williamtown.

When: Friday, 27 February 2009.

Time: 7:30am.
Media should gather at the security gate for pass issue.

The Minister will meet the Super Hornet team, which is in Australia for the Australian

International Airshow at Avalon, Victoria, on 10-15 March 2009.

A United States Navy early model Block I F/A-18F Super Hornet and one of the Royal

Australian Air Force?s classic F/A-18 Hornet aircraft will be on display.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2 3 4   NEXT
Enterpriser       2/26/2009 7:12:38 AM
Thanks for the heads up G.
 
I think I can guess what it will be, but it is still technically precipitous given the White Paper isn't due til April or so......
 
Brett.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       2/26/2009 3:30:01 PM

Thanks for the heads up G.
I think I can guess what it will be, but it is still technically precipitous given the White Paper isn't due til April or so......

Brett
.
Politics is kicking in, otherwise they would have waited for Avalon.  Thats when these things (air) get announced usually.
It's a the dog and pony "deflection" show....

 
Quote    Reply

hairy man       2/27/2009 1:35:21 AM

February 27, 2009

Article from:  Australian Associated Press

TWELVE of 24 Boeing Super Hornets on order for the RAAF are to be rewired to give them an advanced electronic warfare capability.

Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon announced the Government would spend $35 million for the aircraft to be modified as they move down the Boeing production line in the US.

That's a far cheaper option than seeking to modify the aircraft once in service.

What the RAAF will get are F/A-18F Super Hornets able to be upgraded to full EA-18G Growler configuration, comparable to the Growlers now entering service with the US Navy.

"If finally pursued, the relatively small investment will significantly enhance the Super Hornets capability, by giving electronic attack capacity and therefore the ability to nullify the systems of opposing aircraft," Mr Fitzgibbon said.

"It will also provide the Super Hornets with counter-terrorism capability through the ability to shut down the ground-based communications and bomb triggering devices of terrorists."

Once modified, the RAAF aircraft could be upgraded to full Growler capability through acquisition of electronic warfare pods.

Mr Fitzgibbon said that would cost an additional $300 million with a decision likely to be made in the upcoming Defence white paper, set for release in March or April.

This would give Australia an extremely advanced airborne electronic attack capability, far in excess of any regional power.

Much of the information about electronic attack remains highly classified.

Some reports suggest it would allow a hostile aircraft or ground radar to be jammed or even spoofed through inserting false data. Hostile missiles could be distracted away from their real targets or even made to attack their own side.

Under plans launched by the former coalition government, the RAAF's ageing F-111 bombers will be retired in 2010.

The RAAF's current fleet of F/A-18 Hornets will remain in service but will be gradually replaced by the new Lockheed F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) from 2015.

To ensure there was no capability gap between retirement of the F-111s and the arrival of the JSF, the former government ordered the 24 Super Hornets at a cost of $6 billion.

The first Australian Super Hornets will be delivered next year.

The Growler is similar to the conventional Super Hornet. Other than the extra internal wiring, the key difference is that it has no gun, with the space taken by dedicated electronic attack components.

For the RAAF, the gun would apparently remain, but with wiring to allow later installation of the electronics.

A yet to be resolved issue is whether the US would agree to sell Australia some of its most advanced electronic equipment.

A Defence source said the fact that the US had agreed to the installation of the wiring left them confident other equipment could be supplied.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       2/27/2009 7:02:59 AM
And here I was expecting to be hearing they had ordered another 24 to 36 aircraft and delayed the F-35 decission until 2015.
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear       2/27/2009 1:11:44 PM
 
 Woohoo!!!      
 
Quote    Reply

AdvanceAustralia       2/27/2009 1:34:59 PM
So after all the carry on by Labor (in both opposition and government) that the previous Government was wasting money buying SHs they now admit it was a good idea?
 
Cheers.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       2/27/2009 6:39:22 PM
 
So after all the carry on by Labor (in both opposition and government) that the previous Government was wasting money buying SHs they now admit it was a good idea?
 
Cheers.
 
Well they are still saying it was a rushed and that had the issue of replacing the F-111 been tackled earlier other options could have been considered. 
 
I remember various options being raised over the years, F/A-18D in the early 90's, strike roled Typhoons with conformal tanks on the early 2000's.  Even the suggestion in the mid 90's that we should buy into the F-22 program to replace the Legacy Bugs in the air to air role, allowing them to concentrate on strike.
 
The biggest failure by previous governments, of various persuasions, in maintaining our regional overmatch was in not providing for a robust aerial tanking capability or a viable AEW force.  With tankers and AEW upgraded Skyhawks would be more effective than either the HUG BUG or SH without this support.
 
Well upgraded Skyhawks are a bit of a stretch, but you get my drift.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       2/27/2009 6:53:58 PM
Well upgraded Skyhawks are a bit of a stretch, but you get my drift.


at the time they would have been good FACs and fast jet trainers...
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       2/27/2009 8:40:15 PM
Well, short of surplus B-1B's nothing available to the RAAF in the last 20 years could seriously replace the F-111 without a corresponding purchase of a substantial number of tankers.  Without tankers it was basically impossible to replace the F-111 without a substantial reduction in our effective offensive radius.
 
In the same vein, if we already had a robust tanker capability, we could have bought any one of a number of suitable strike aircraft to replace the F-111 at any time from the late 80's.  The lack of tankers making AUP and the F-111G buy more attractive than replacement.
 
On AEW, I would go so far as to suggest that the AEW / AMRAAM combos possessed by Singapore and now Thailand, would give them a greater edge over any regional Flanker force than our HUG BUG's or SH's would have.  How much better off would we be now had we converted half a dozen surplus P-3B's into AEWC platforms in the 80's?
 
Throw in another what if.  The F-111 order was cancelled in the late 60's and we bought the three squadrons of F-4E's, one of RF-4C(E?)'s and one of KC-135's that were quoted as the required force to substitute for the 24 F-111C's + 6 RF-111's that were on order or optioned.  Going with Phantoms would have forced the retirement of 2 SQN's Canberra's and possibly the disbandment of one of the, then four, Mirage squadrons, but how useful would those Phantoms and Tankers have been in comparison?  Eagles/Beagles, Bugs, or Tornado's could have gone onto replace the Phantoms, while Tigersharks, Gripens, or even AMX/HARRIER/A-10 could have replaced the Miricles and the current discussion would be whether to life extend or replace the tankers and AEW's.
 
Off topic I know but I'm bored.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussie Diggermark 2       2/27/2009 10:09:17 PM

Thanks for the heads up G.

 

I think I can guess what it will be, but it is still technically precipitous given the White Paper isn't due til April or so......

 

Brett.


Boeing's St Louis based F/A-18F production line doesn't care about our White Paper...
 
:)
 

 
Quote    Reply

AdvanceAustralia    Volkodav   2/28/2009 2:17:41 AM
"...had the issue of replacing the F-111 been tackled earlier other options could have been considered." - correct.
 
"...short of surplus B-1B's nothing available to the RAAF in the last 20 years could seriously replace the F-111..." - please excuse the way I've selectively used your words but you are again correct. Nothing else had the range. Nothing else had the payload. I doubt anything else had the survivability.
 
The B1b, of which there were/are surplus (and I believe some were offered to us), were by far the most suitable replacement for the F111. They possess the range that would give us options beyond that of even the F111, a payload that would give us more options while using less aircraft, and they are far more survivable. We would not have needed as many as the F111 so would not have needed many more aircrew to make up the 4 man crews. Their range would have negated, or at least reduced, the need for in-flight refuelling. While I agree we need AAR for the RAAF generally, air refuelling should be avoided on a strike mission if at all possible. AAR aircraft are vulnerable and require protection. They also stick out like the proverbial on the bad guy's radar and would negate the reduced signature advantage of the B1bs.
 
Of course, that's all a bit academic now. It's probably too late to bring the B1b into service. I've seen Herald refer a couple of times to what he calls the "10 hour bomber". This sounds like a good idea but would take years to develop and in the meantime we have a major capability gap. F35 with AAR seems to be all we'll get.
 
 Cheers.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       2/28/2009 6:02:37 AM
I would love to have seen a squadron of B-1B's in service with the RAAF.  In terms of capability it would have been the best choice, however politically it could never have happened.
 
There was a time when the Commonwealth insisted on the best gear possible for the ADF to guarantee our security through regional superiority, unfortunately that is no longer the case.  Even the best of the stuff currently on order is no better than, or sometimes actually inferior to, the gear being bought elsewhere in our region.  The best example of this is the F-35, while it is without doubt a very capable platform, the US is also selling it to almost any country that wants it.  There is no tactical or strategic advantage to having them if every else does too.
 
To maintain regional over match we would need qualitive superiority which can only be provided through the best high end equipment money can buy.  These days that means B-1B or B-2 and F-22, with numbers being filled out with a cheaper fighter attack or even pure attack type.  It's not just air power where this is an issue but it is the area where it is probably the most critical to the defense of our sovereignty. 
 
Basically we might as well get used to having sand kicked in our face.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    AA   2/28/2009 9:20:29 AM

So after all the carry on by Labor (in both opposition and government) that the previous Government was wasting money buying SHs they now admit it was a good idea?

 Cheers.
As much as I'd like to agree with you the process for ultimately buying the Shornet appears very flawed. It had been patently obvious for years that Australia needed an interim F-111 replacement and by failing to deal with this until the last minute the former Government did us out of the opportunity to run a competition to get a better cost/capability mix. There are also residual problems like the fact that our strike recon group aircraft won't be being fitted with JASSM while the F-18A's will, because of the original half arsed plan to have them cover for the F-111's.  That makes it more difficult for each formation to specialise in its intended role during training and operations. The only possible excuse that the former government has is that the promise of buying up to 100 F-35's may have gotten us a better deal for industry in the F-35 program, but I haven't seen any evidence to that effect and I don't think that a 100 F-35 buy is incompatable with an interim aircraft in any case. It would just be spread out over a longer period and would allow us access to later blocks of F-35's, as well as reducing the risk of block obsolescence.
 
Quote    Reply

AdvanceAustralia       2/28/2009 1:42:18 PM
Labor's criticism of the previous Government's decision to buy the SH appeared, in my view, to be more politically motivated than the outcome of any expertise in the matter. Labor was desperate to appear not only economically conservative and responsible but also strong on defence matters. It's never been either.
 
Nevertheless, one of the previous Government's first defence priorities should have been the timely replacement of, if not the aging F111, then at least the capability provided by it. They failed to do this. The biggest hurdle to overcome was that our American friends did not develop a direct replacement for the F111. Nor did anyone else we buy weaponry from (none of them have the long range problem we have). And, of course, we never developed the capability to do so. Our American friends seemed to rely on steaming a carrier strike group (or a cruiser or nuke sub) within range and firing off a seemingly limitless number of cruise missiles. Assets we don't have. Of course, they also have their B1s...
 
In short, our unique range problem makes this whole question rather tricky without a little more political will (from both sides) to deal with it.
 
Cheers.
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357    Ed Heinenmann birds were among the best ever designed.    2/28/2009 3:43:25 PM


Well upgraded Skyhawks are a bit of a stretch, but you get my drift.







at the time they would have been good FACs and fast jet trainers...

The A-4 was and is the bumblebee of carrier aviation. Some people are still amazed that it can fly with such heavy loads so far and still be so agile.
 
I am one of those people!
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2 3 4   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy