Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Our Super Hornets. How many will we get?
hairy man    4/30/2008 5:50:06 AM
From article in The Australian.. 30/4/08. "It's likely the Orme review will confirm that the best outcome for Australia's future air requirements is a mixture of JSF and Super Hornets. How many and what mix will be the crux of the debate" I believe that the order for 24 FA18E/F consists of 18 2 seaters, 6 single seaters.(Not sure which is E or F.) I would say we will end up with a squadron of each, plus a small amount of Growlers, 4 - 6. Anyone with any better ideas?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16   NEXT
BLUIE006       5/19/2008 9:32:00 AM

Im hoping Air combat review results in something like this

 

36 Ultra Hornet F-18X -ER - 

75-120 F-35 A/B (75% Airforce 25% Navy)

16 Taranis -

TLAM (tomahawk block V/VI)

Global Hawk

Sky Warrior

Navy UCAV (multi -variants)

Army UCAV ( lo-mid-high)

 

Hyper Sonic Space Bomber post 2050 ?????
 

Blow me down if we ever get to a point where we are operating 160+ air combat platforms! 

 

I would love to see a Block3 SH and the cyber rumors about a further enhanced SH just make my mouth water at the prospect of that ever becoming a reality in the USN decades from now.

 

Can't say I would be too fussed on seeing three conventional types plus a fourth UCAV design in RAAF markings though.

 

Too much system overlap IMO with little real gain using several diff types performing same roles.

 

What possible scenario would see Oz doing a first day strike on a major adversary without ANY friendlies, that would possibly warrant an F-35 only to have SH used in subsequent sorties?

 

I do like the idea of Taranis and one other combat platform though.

 



My numbers may be a bit high, however... with the exponential expansion of regional military power, one day we will need to.have close that many... maybe not quite that many yet however ... they have different timelines
 
F-18 Block X would be ending life span as Taranis came on board , at which time JSF would require upgrades etc
 
Global Hawk
Sky Warrior
 
I imagine that versions of skywarrior would be navalised,  i believe global hawk falls into strategic reconessiance asset thus not included, I-View existing (soon) , Taranis replaces a deep strike platform and is a whole lot more than UCAV thus would be considered a Fighter???
 
 
 
its  late ...

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/19/2008 10:15:46 AM

Such as?
 


It seems that the Taranis will be one of the few UAV/UCAV's to be designed to actually defend itself from other A2A threats. Something that other X-UCAV's have not previously shown to date IIRC.

Those features are hardly unique. In fact the United States has actually done this in combat already 10 years ago and not with a mere tech demonstrator but a fully operational UAV.  Now I'm not bragging about the results of that encounter. But the fact that it happened wasn't coincidence. What concept do you think they were validating? It's not likely that future dedicated DoD UCAVs  or current UCAVs such as the Reaper, X-47B would be helpless against these kinds of threats.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/tanaris/</a></div>;" target="_blank">link

 
Quote    Reply

DropBear       5/19/2008 6:24:07 PM
We need them both because we need an F-111 replacement from 2010 and an F-18A replacement from 2014-17
 
That is exactly what we will get in the SH. It can replace the F-111 simply because the weapons, avionics and mx will be superior to anything the Pig ever had. The range issue will be offset somewhat by A330 and the SH will be more survivable in a modern IADS environment than the Pig as well.
 
I see no reason to keep the SH much beyond full IOC of the F-35, that's all.
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear       5/19/2008 6:30:26 PM
Those features are hardly unique. In fact the United States has actually done this in combat already 10 years ago and not with a mere tech demonstrator but a fully operational UAV.  Now I'm not bragging about the results of that encounter. But the fact that it happened wasn't coincidence. What concept do you think they were validating? It's not likely that future dedicated DoD UCAVs  or current UCAVs such as the Reaper, X-47B would be helpless against these kinds of threats.
 
Could you point me to a source that demonstrates a UAV in the 1990's having defeated (via defensive action, or offensive) another A2A platform?
 
Did said UAV shoot down this fixed-wing platform you speak of?
 
Curious.
 


 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    DB reply   5/20/2008 3:08:16 AM
Sure...

***ht*p://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWUR3sgKUV8***


...now DB, I did not say who won the encounter did I?


-DA

 
Quote    Reply

LB    UAV vs Fighter   5/29/2008 5:19:29 AM
On two occasions during Vietnam a Mig-21 was destroyed due to combat with a Firebee UAV that one can find online.  The first time it fired missiles and then tried to tip it's wingtips but ran out of gas and the 2nd time was a 2 ship intercept and the where the Mig got lock and fired and shot down his wingman.  In that encounter the Firebee flew evasive maneuvers that led to the blue on blue.  Some weeks later that same Firebee flew through AAA and got the chasing Mig shot down.  I think there were other such aerial victories by unarmed Firebee drones during Vietnam.  Also in 1981 an Israeli UAV sqdn got credit for a Syrian Mig-21 kill- I might be wrong but I want to say they got it to fly into the ground.

UAV's and/or UCAV's will shoot down an enemy fighter with a missile within the next ten or so years.  That said we're decades away from replacing air superiority fighters with UCAV's.

As an interested observed I'd have thought the main consideration for Australia in replacing the F-111 was range.  Given that a version of the F-15E would have seemed far better.  With CFT's you get almost the same range as the F-111, almost the same weapons load, and the ability to carry just about any western aerial launched weapon.  The F/A-18E just doesn't seem to have the legs for Australia.

It's old and expensive to maintain but I always had a fond spot for the F-111.  F-15E drivers who flew the F-111 before will tell you the ride at low level in the F-111 was without equal.  I'll be sad to see them go.  Long range can also mean long loiter times.  Most small and medium size fighter bombers have brief loiter times and then have to leave the battlespace to tank and then come back to the area and figure out any new developments.  The guy on the ground most likes a platform that can orbit all day till they need the JDAM.  That said I'm not sure if the main consideration for Australia in replacing the F-111 is strike, maritime strike, CAS or something else?

 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav    Ultra Stealth   5/29/2008 6:42:25 AM
http://www.aviationweek.com/media/images/defense_images/Bombers/NGBconceptDTI.jpg" align=left>

NGB demonstrator may be a twin-engine aircraft resembling an X-47B. Initial version will be piloted, but an unmanned endurance version is a probable follow-on.

 

Is Northrop Grumman building a secret bomber prototype? In late April, the company revealed first-quarter financial results. Data indicated $2 billion in new "restricted programs" contract awards at Integrated Systems, the aircraft division. This almost certainly confirms what DTI first reported earlier this year: Northrop Grumman has a classified, sole-source contract to build a demonstrator for the U.S. Air Force's Next-Generation Bomber (DTI March, p. 30).

USAF budgets show no funding for the Next-Generation Bomber (NGB) itself in 2008, although documents show money for technology work in Fiscal 2008-10. Northrop Grumman CEO Ron Sugar said last year that Integrated Systems had made strides in black programs and identified restricted projects as the top new-business opportunity. Taken together, the evidence points to a single, very large contract win. Northrop Grumman also acquired Scaled Composites in 2007, a company that can develop large prototype aircraft quickly.

The $2-billion contract casts new light on the decision in January by Boeing and Lockheed Martin to reveal their year-old collaboration on NGB. (Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman declined interview requests.) Hailed as an NGB "dream team" combining Boeing's bomber experience with Lockheed Martin's stealth technology, the teaming now looks like an effort to catch up with a rival that has a lead in the next major U.S. combat aircraft program.

It is likely that the prototype will build on technology under development for the Navy's X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstrator (UCAS-D), putting within reach USAF's goal of a 2018 initial operational capability date for the bomber. Industry and USAF sources have talked about a competition in 2010, leading to the start of systems development and demonstration in 2011. But it would be Northrop Grumman's to lose.

Events since 2000 placed Northrop Grumman in pole position. USAF interest in a replacement bomber was rekindled after 9/11, but USAF Secretary Jim Roche and Chief of Staff Gen. John Jumper focused on the Lockheed Martin FB-22, seeing it as a low-risk solution that bolstered the case for the embattled F-22.

The departures of Roche and Jumper in 2005 coincided with a change in thinking. In October, USAF defined a three-stage Next-Generation Long-Range Strike program. Phase I would keep the force effective until 2018, with upgrades to aircraft. Phase II would be a new "2018 bomber," while Phase III encompassed hypersonic concepts. This was the end of the road for the FB-22, since nobody envisioned the F-22 remaining in production long enough to dovetail with Phase II.

Late in 2005, at a conference on unmanned combat air vehicles in London, there were signs of convergence between the bomber requirement and the Joint UCAS project. J-UCAS had been kicked off as a major effort three years earlier, but USAF was interested in a platform larger than the Navy could accommodate.

Northrop Grumman J-UCAS Program Manager Scott Winship said at the time that the company had proposed completing a third prototype as an X-47C with a 172-ft. wingspan and 10,000-lb. payload. J-UCAS leader Mike Francis stressed an advantage of the unmanned vehicle: an inherently lower radar cross-section (RCS) than conventional tailed aircraft.

Despite the tension in J-UCAS, it was a surprise when an early-2006 high-level Pentagon review killed it, splitting resources into a white-world Navy effort and a classified USAF program, while endorsing a plan to field a bomber in 2018.

It's now apparent, however, that USAF had already picked a primary approach to the NGB, and that the next two years of work, starting with the remaining Fiscal 2006 J-UCAS funding, are intended to validate that choice.

This approach emerged from J-UCAS, and particularly from Northrop Grumman, which anticipated the J-UCAS split and was prepared to respond. The company believed that the basic 42,000-lb. J-UCAS was better suited to t

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Technical note.[Joke.]   5/29/2008 9:41:16 AM

On two occasions during Vietnam a Mig-21 was destroyed due to combat with a Firebee UAV that one can find online.  The first time it fired missiles and then tried to tip it's wingtips but ran out of gas and the 2nd time was a 2 ship intercept and the where the Mig got lock and fired and shot down his wingman.  In that encounter the Firebee flew evasive maneuvers that led to the blue on blue.  Some weeks later that same Firebee flew through AAA and got the chasing Mig shot down.  I think there were other such aerial victories by unarmed Firebee drones during Vietnam.  Also in 1981 an Israeli UAV sqdn got credit for a Syrian Mig-21 kill- I might be wrong but I want to say they got it to fly into the ground.

UAV's and/or UCAV's will shoot down an enemy fighter with a missile within the next ten or so years.  That said we're decades away from replacing air superiority fighters with UCAV's.

As an interested observed I'd have thought the main consideration for Australia in replacing the F-111 was range.  Given that a version of the F-15E would have seemed far better.  With CFT's you get almost the same range as the F-111, almost the same weapons load, and the ability to carry just about any western aerial launched weapon.  The F/A-18E just doesn't seem to have the legs for Australia.

It's old and expensive to maintain but I always had a fond spot for the F-111.  F-15E drivers who flew the F-111 before will tell you the ride at low level in the F-111 was without equal.  I'll be sad to see them go.  Long range can also mean long loiter times.  Most small and medium size fighter bombers have brief loiter times and then have to leave the battlespace to tank and then come back to the area and figure out any new developments.  The guy on the ground most likes a platform that can orbit all day till they need the JDAM.  That said I'm not sure if the main consideration for Australia in replacing the F-111 is strike, maritime strike, CAS or something else?

Wouldn't that be RED on RED?

Herald

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Technical note.   5/29/2008 9:50:31 AM
Volka reply.

1. I don't think the SECURE positive telemetry control for an intruding UCAS bomber that big in size is there yet
2. The expense per vehicle puts it in the midrange between a BONE and a Spirit at todays prices.
3. Its a little large for the ten hour bomber.

Herald

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/29/2008 8:35:17 PM

Volka reply.

1. I don't think the SECURE positive telemetry control for an intruding UCAS bomber that big in size is there yet
2. The expense per vehicle puts it in the midrange between a BONE and a Spirit at todays prices.
3. Its a little large for the ten hour bomber.

Herald


By secure and positive do you mean EMCON and high confidence continuous real time?

-DA
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics