Australia looking at doubling its Super Hornet fleet to cover F-35 delays

[TsrJoe]

for any fb afficionados theres this too ...

https://www.facebook.com/thef35

[Taiidantomcat]

for any fb afficionados theres this too ...

https://www.facebook.com/thef35

Yeah we have been buds since high school 

[MilitaryAircraft101]

In the first post it says that the F-35 can carry 4 AMRAAMs internally. I've heard that LM has said the later block aircraft will carry up to 6 AMRAAMs and the earlier blocks will be upgradeable to these standards  I reckon that's pretty cool, and to be undetected by THE BEST RUSSIAN (PRODUCTION) RADAR UNTIL 35km, while being able to track the Su-35 at 160km is a great advantage. As we know, PAK FA will have improved radar and stealth, but F-35 will still have a quite comfortable buffer over the PAK FA... Anyway just my 2c

[Old Wombat]

I seem to recall similar discussions re: the F-111 back in the day. Turned out they were an excellent aircraft & flew effectively for many (albeit mostly peaceful) years.

I'll give the F-35 a go, even though I'm not convinced by all this "stealth" ... stuff ... & I hope their future is equally as peaceful, if not more-so.

My bug is the Mirages; I would much have preferred it if we'd kept the glorious F-4's 

[Maverick]

The Rhinos were excellent aircraft, especially being gun-equipped Es, but they were leased as a precursor to the F-111 deal rather than anything else, so there's no connection between them and the Miracles.  Many in the RAAF wanted to keep the F-4s after the -111s turned up either way, but it wasn't to be the case.  The final Phantom resides at RAAF Point Cook and a glorious beast it is.

Regards,

Mav

[GTX]

I seem to recall similar discussions re: the F-111 back in the day. Turned out they were an excellent aircraft & flew effectively for many (albeit mostly peaceful) years.

And there were many outcrys over their retirement with many saying "nothing could replace them".  I predict this will also be the case with the F-35 in another 30 - 40 yrs.

Regards,

Greg

[GTX]

The Rhinos were excellent aircraft, especially being gun-equipped Es, but they were leased as a precursor to the F-111 deal rather than anything else, so there's no connection between them and the Miracles.  Many in the RAAF wanted to keep the F-4s after the -111s turned up either way, but it wasn't to be the case. 

Apart from the fact that they were stopgaps for the F-111 as you point out, there would also have been a manpower shortage plus the fact that you would probably had to entirely replace the Mirages to avoid a cost blow out through operating Mirages, F-4s and F-111s.

That said though, I must admit that I find it odd that the F/A-18F acquisition was a buy rather than lease, especially given the precedent with the F-4s.  What is also odd, is the fact that official policy is still to sell the F/A-18Fs after 10yrs.  Mind you, I will bet anyone that at least 12 are kept, in full Growler condition.

Regards,

Greg

[Maverick]

Greg, how many of the F models we've bought are G conversion capable?  That is assuming that all F's aren't capable by default I suppose.  Add to that, can we 'afford' twelve Growler conversions?

Regards,

Mav

[Taiidantomcat]

Greg, how many of the F models we've bought are G conversion capable?  That is assuming that all F's aren't capable by default I suppose.  Add to that, can we 'afford' twelve Growler conversions?

Regards,

Mav

On 27 February 2009, Fitzgibbon announced that 12 of the 24 Super Hornets would be wired on the production line for future modification as EA-18Gs. The additional wiring would cost A$35 million. The final decision on conversion to EA-18Gs, at a cost of A$300 million, would be made in 2012.

From wikipedia. I know nothing beyond that.

[Maverick]

Thanks for that Ben.  As another question, are Growlers as combat-capable as baseline F models?  With the additional ECM equipment, does this impact on their ability to carry conventional ordnance, etc?

Regards,

Mav

[rickshaw]

Thanks for that Ben.  As another question, are Growlers as combat-capable as baseline F models?  With the additional ECM equipment, does this impact on their ability to carry conventional ordnance, etc?

Regards,

Mav

My understanding is that the extra equipment enhances their capabilities rather than detracts from them.

[ChernayaAkula]

<...> are Growlers as combat-capable as baseline F models?  <...>

EA-18Gs don't have the gun, with a lot of the EW stuff stored there, but IIRC it can be swapped out with ease if needed. Apart from that, they should be just as capable.

[Alvis 3.14159]

I had a Growler/ ex Prowler pilot in the shop a while ago. He liked the Growler for it's ability to get to a decent altitude, but informed me it was considerably slower than a base Super H due to all the pylons being canted out several degrees, inducing a lot of drag. (He was unsure as to why it was made that way) I don't know it that only applies to the EW systems pylons only, or if the pylon mountings themselves have the cant built in. However, it does sound like the Growler, if equipped as an EW plane, isn't exactly super on the top end of the speed range.


Alvis Pi

[Taiidantomcat]

With the additional ECM equipment, does this impact on their ability to carry conventional ordnance, etc?

Very much so.

I had a Growler/ ex Prowler pilot in the shop a while ago. He liked the Growler for it's ability to get to a decent altitude, but informed me it was considerably slower than a base Super H due to all the pylons being canted out several degrees, inducing a lot of drag. (He was unsure as to why it was made that way) I don't know it that only applies to the EW systems pylons only, or if the pylon mountings themselves have the cant built in. However, it does sound like the Growler, if equipped as an EW plane, isn't exactly super on the top end of the speed range.   Alvis Pi

I Agree with Alvis. They canted the pylons because they were having separation issues with ordnance in testing. its always created drag and slowed things down. but it isn't as big a problem, depending on what you carry. EA-18Gs carry those big generators, no gun, and no wingtip pylons.

You start to hit a wall, Because in order to get range you have to have some growlers, some buddy tanking hornets, and finally some actual shooters. The F-35, just needs itself. I know not everyone is going to believe that the F-35 is as combat capable as 4 legacy aircraft but if you look at the above... it has to be at least as good as three right? 

[rallymodeller]

Is there actually a two-hole F-35 on the drawing boards, as opposed to a paper project (i.e. has one been funded)? If not, there's no way an F-35 will be able to replace a dedicated jammer aircraft like a Prowler, let alone a Growler. The pilot just doesn't have the capability to fly and operate the jamming gear, you need an EWO to take care of that. And no matter how stealthy your force is, you are going to need dedicated area jammers. Anything else is just wishful thinking.

As to the F-111 comparison, how did that interceptor version work out? Oh, right. The F-111 was great as a bomb truck (no argument) but it sure as hell wasn't a fighter in the strict sense. The only reason it wasn't called the "A-something" or "B--something" instead of "F-111" was the funds were already allocated and it was too late to change the designation. So using the F-111 comparison against the F-35 is actually self-defeating; the F-111 turned out to be far less flexible than was touted early in the program. The Navy knew this, that's why they bailed. Which seems to be happening again.