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: Could a variant of the P-8 replace some of our HUG Bugs?
Volkodav    2/22/2010 6:36:49 AM
Boeing have put forward a variant of the P-8 to replace the E-8C JSTARS instead of the planned upgrades including re-engining (which Boeing have suggested would be more expensive than a 737 based replacement). The postulated P-8 would retain its weapons bay and hard points allowing it to carry a range of stand off ordinance (possibility also BVR AAMs). With the anticipated delay to the F-35 program would it be viable to order additional (modified) P-8’s for the RAAF to fill an overland ISR and persistent strike role instead of acquiring additional interim strike aircraft? The remaining HUG Bugs could be grouped into two larger squadrons to make more efficient use of their remaining structural life through until the F-35’s reach IOC. The P-8’s could then continue in the ISR role but also could be adapted for ELINT and UCAS control.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
DropBear       2/23/2010 7:20:43 AM
 
With the anticipated delay to the F-35 program would it be viable to order additional (modified) P-8?s for the RAAF to fill an overland ISR and persistent strike role instead of acquiring additional interim strike aircraft?
 
Are you suggesting that the F-35 IOC will be so far behind current estimated timelines as to require additional Super Hornets (for example)? Therefore, are you thinking that buying the P-8 instead of these strike fighters would be the better option?
 
I'm asking, as I have not heard anything official suggesting any additional interim strikers were to be purchased.
 
Maybe the question could be..."Do we want to forgo the later batches of F-35, say after the initial 50 or so, and replace these with a dozen or so P-8?"
 
I'm just kinda thrown by the bit I highlighted in orange. Was this on the cards?
 
 
As the the HUG Bugs, we have three sqns at Willy and the fourth at Tindal. How and where would you base the amalgamated super sqns?
 
Curious.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       2/24/2010 7:11:21 AM
Are you suggesting that the F-35 IOC will be so far behind current estimated timelines as to require additional Super Hornets (for example)?  
Not me, Gates.  Pentagon is having kittens over the F-35, it won't (can't) fail but it will be late and it will cost a lot more than advertised.  Nothing unusually for any leading edge design but will still cause issues if it is delayed beyond the HUGs use by date.
 
Therefore, are you thinking that buying the P-8 instead of these strike fighters would be the better option?
 
I was just looking outside the square as to what we could do instead of buying / leasing additional SH's should the F-35 be delayed to such a degree that the HUGs can not be kept flying any longer.  My idea was that if it looked like our second larger batch of F-35's wouldn't be arriving until 2020 or later that we could look at buying an additional capability that will be useful immediately and versatile enough to increase or capabilities in other areas once the F-35's (or UCAS) finally arrive.
 
I'm asking, as I have not heard anything official suggesting any additional interim strikers were to be purchased.
 
The RAAF have actually said no, not needed, not wanted, not ever, but... its a no brainer, if the F-35 is not ready in time we are going to either, purchase an alternative, acquire additional interim airframes, or put up with a massive reduction in our air combat capability when the HUGs run out of flight hours.
 
Maybe the question could be..."Do we want to forgo the later batches of F-35, say after the initial 50 or so, and replace these with a dozen or so P-8?"
 
Not a bad suggestion.
 
I'm just kinda thrown by the bit I highlighted in orange. Was this on the cards?
 
Officially no, but then again nor was the first SH buy.  The governments do what they believe they have to do, even if it flys in the face of advice from their SME's.
 
As the the HUG Bugs, we have three sqns at Willy and the fourth at Tindal. How and where would you base the amalgamated super sqns?
 
One at Willy (including OCU) one at Tindal with an additional large pool at Willy to balance out remaining flight hours through until the capability can be retired.
 
Curious.
 
I am actually starting to wonder if HUG was a waste of time and money.  Maybe we would be better off had we started to replace the Bugs from about 2000 with a type that we would now be looking to replace from about 2020 with the F-35.
 
Quote    Reply

hairy man       2/24/2010 7:10:16 PM
I am actually starting to wonder if HUG was a waste of time and money.  Maybe we would be better off had we started to replace the Bugs from about 2000 with a type that we would now be looking to replace from about 2020 with the F-35.
 
This would have made sense.  If we had of gone ahead with the purchase of one of the aircraft under consideration ,I think they were Rafael, E2000, F15E, in about 2002, they could be replacing the F18 now, and a small quantity of F35's as soon as possible to take the place of the F111.  Now however all our eggs are in the F35 basket, which is getting dearer and later all of the time.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       2/25/2010 5:54:12 AM
Australia seems to have been amongst the first (or only) export customer for a fair bit of gear.  This can give us the hottest newest stuff but costs more, as well as being more likely to have performance and schedule issues.  Once everything is sorted and the new toy is in service the OEM / parent service takes our investment in time money and know how and role it into an improved more capable (often cheaper) version that is then exported widely.
 
We had the option to supplement our Sabres with a more advanced type in the late 50's but didn't, same with the Mirage in the mid 70's and the Bugs in the mid 80's.  We always chose to persist with a single type using expensive upgrades to extend service life rather than buying smaller numbers more frequently to retain a regional edge.
 
We had about 100 each of Sabres, Mirage and Hornet, only three fighter types, in the six decades since the end of WWII (excluding the interim Vampires and Meteors).  I wonder if we should have instead had five or six types in batches of about 50 over the same period, or we could have at least have overlapped complimentry types.  An example would have been say supplement the Sabre with an interceptor / air superiority, or fighter attack type before replaceing the Sabre with whichever type we didn't supplement it with.  We could just repeat the process until multi role fourth gen types became available then we could simply alternate light and heavy types.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

hairy man       2/25/2010 6:03:53 PM
If we could look at the length of time each of these aircraft were in service, and their condition when they were actually replaced, it might indicate whether we should already have replaced the F18's or not by now.  It must be remembered that we also had the naval aircraft to back these up, plus we leased Phantoms for awhile as well.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics