I doubt very much that the Super Hornets will only have 5-8 years service.

they won't be in for any much longer than when the last JSF gets stood up. RAAF made it clear at the JSF and Shornet briefings in the last few days that they aren't lifers.  

There are a few who would love to see them stay, but NACC certainly don't.  All the future squadron changes are hinged on them being part timers

 

 

It seems rather odd then, that they would bother with wiring the SH's on the line for the EA-18 EW derivatives if they were not considering having a Growler version remain longer with ACG.

 

Can't imagine much value in getting them wired and put into service as such (if), then getting the Nav/GIB train on that style of warfighting only to see the single-seat F-35 take on that role as part of its own unique onboard systems.

 

Curious and somewhat baffling.

 

 

Come 2020 the SH may not be survivable as a frontline strike aircraft and the F-35 would be the best option to maintain, if not regional superiority, then at least parity.

 

This does not mean that the SH can't be retained in support roles as EA-18G's, CAS, Fast FAC, LIFT or even UCAV control. They will remain useful in all but the most intense environments well past 2020.

 

I suppose whether they are retained for other roles or not will come down to money and personel.

It seems rather odd then, that they would bother with wiring the SH's on the line for the EA-18 EW derivatives if they were not considering having a Growler version remain longer with ACG.

Can't imagine much value in getting them wired and put into service as such (if), then getting the Nav/GIB train on that style of warfighting only to see the single-seat F-35 take on that role as part of its own unique onboard systems.

Curious and somewhat baffling.

for job protection issues I am not going to comment in here.  but watch your australian defence mags over the next 2 months.

the initial requirement was for 6 growlers to be staged in on the second tranche of JSF's.  the decision to change that timeline and double the build, and thus to ferk up the NACC process at multiple future levels will eventually come out in the press.

I'd love to comment in here, but I like my job better than I like spilling the beans and losing that job

I doubt very much that the Super Hornets will only have 5-8 years service.

Quote:

 

I was talking about the legacy bugs being in service for 5 - 8 years, not the Supers. Now that the Supers are getting JASSM  I think that the JASSM integration onto the legacy bugs is a(nother) outrageous waste of money, but it is unfortunately too late to stop it.

Actually IOC for the SH is scheduled for the end of 2010. See link

 

That said I am not suggesting that we should can the integration of the JASSM onto the legacy bugs at this late stage as the cost is sunk. What I am saying is that the failure of the previous government to run a proper interim fighter competition 5 years ago, rather than proposing a stopgap solution with the JASSM integration onto the legacy bugs and then buying the SH's in a rush at the last minute, has resulted in that expenditure being essentially wasted.

 

The JASSM in Australian service will be a strategic weapon as it is too expensive and is an overkill to use to use on tactical targets. In a shooting war the only Australian formation that is going to be undertaking strategic strike is the Strike Recon group at Amberley with Super Hornets. Essentially the legacy bugs will be converted to fire the JASSM and will never use them as the legacy bugs will only ever be used in the tactical strike role. If we wanted to improve their survivability with a stand-off weapon in their tactical strike role we would have been better to integrate JSOW, but now they will have to rely purely on GPS guided bomb's which have a much shorter range. It's a cock-up from both a public spending and an operational perspective.

 

Grp Capt Roberton at the Shornet briefing indicated that Aust IOC was 2010 and would take 12 months of certification. He stressed that in actual fact the platform was combat ready and could be deployed anytime within that 12 month cert period.

The Aust IOC is to meet local governance issues - it is however already US IOC cleared and war ready from the time it's picked up at the body shop. 

Initial delivery in the second quarter of 2010 is what your link says. IOC is a LOT different to getting 4x aircraft. The bulk of the fleet is to be delivered in 2011, with the remainder in 2012... 

  

I very much doubt RAAF will reach IOC for the Supers in 2010. If GRP Captain Robertson said that is so, then perhaps it will be the case, but I'll wait a bit, before committing too wholeheartedly to that timeline... :)

 

However in saying all that, I wasn't referring to the Supers, in the post you quoted. I was referring to JASSM and the Bugs, which are due to reach IOC in 2010 as a direct replacement for F-111/AGM-142. 

bad delivery on my part.  first receipt is 2010 and thats when IOC cert would start.  it takes approx 12 months.  but, as he said, they are war ready from the time we get them if necessary.

It seemed a bit much for RAAF to receive Super Hornet in Australia from July 2010 onwards and then achieve IOC immediately. 

 

Although I have absolutely no idea what RAAF considers "IOC" for a fighter squadron (another reason why things are so interesting at present - all the things we are going to see RAAF do over the next few years. I personally can't wait to see Pitch Black 2012 - 2014...)

 

I imagine a deployable 4 ship flight or something approaching that would be close to the mark. If that is the case, I imagine they would want double that number delivered and that won't happen until 2011 I expect.

 

 

Just going  off what the DMO said, just like you :-). Anyway, none of this changes the fact that had we ordered our interim fighter back when Singapore and South Korea were, we wouldn't have had to go to the extra expense of converting the legacy bugs.

The thing I always find amusing is just about every major capability acquisition by the ADF is accompanied by concerns over the regional reaction to it. This appears to have effected acquisition decisions in some cases, i.e. one of the reasons we didn't buy the F-15 in the 70's was the concern it would cause our neighbours fear our intentions.

 

We still hear the same arguments when submarine cruise missiles etc. are mentioned.