Hornets And AMRAAM [Archive]

smartman

3rd Dec 2002, 09:47

JSF (v Su35 or Typhoon or Rafale, to a lesser degree):

Less Range
Less Endurance
Less Payload
Lower Mach
Lower Turn Performance ('spec at high level in BVR conditions)
Less persistence
Similar stealth with full payload (which is still Less)
Reliant on off-board sensors (much higher cost variant may improve)
Single engine (I hear you! - but given a choice? 'Specially in Oz)

I acknowledge that these are 'noddy' factors - but put together with several other important 'scenario' factors', don't they tend to support my assertions? My misinformation comes from 12 years being paid to assess the pros 'n cons of what's value for money in the business - doesn't mean my views cut the mustard I know, but also doesn't imply that I'm anti US kit. Far from it - I'd be happiest with a Raptor any day; but then I can't afford a Ferrari either.

Still, I've a mind that is open to informed persuasion that the ADF/RAAF won't eventually catch a cold by putting all its offensive eggs into one basket, and that with JSF it will dominate the region (that indigenous word 'dreamtime' comes to mind). Meanwhile, I maintain that an apparently good financial deal (apparently/quizically!) today doesn't necessarily give tomorrow's boys the right toys.

Incoming -------------------

Jackonicko

3rd Dec 2002, 10:43

Smartman is absolutely spot-on in his assessment of the JSF, though he understates the type's formidable air-to-ground capability - and especially its very low RCS/first day of the war/'kicking down the door' capabilities.

But in almost any other scenario, the JSF (rigorously designed to cost as it is) is inferior to the next-block F-16 or F/A-18E/F, unless you have all of the airpower infrastructure (AWACS, JSTARS, F-22, Predator, U-2 etc.) available to the US forces.

There is a widespread lack of understanding about the Su-27/30/35 'Flanker' family. An RAAF Hornet would today certainly be at something of a disadvantage against an Su-27 if RoE dictated a close-in, turning visual engagement, because at low speeds the Su-27 can be phenomenally agile, and AA-11 'Archer' is a better weapon than 'Winder, with better off boresight capabilities. But only if the Su-27 wasn't taking advantage of its long range capability. The 'Flanker' does not carry external fuel, but instead has an internal 'auxiliary' tank for use in very long range missions. When this is in use however, the aircraft does not enjoy the turn performance and high Alpha capabilities which have dazzled airshow audiences.

Moreover, the aircraft (like the MiG-29) has a relatively modest BVR capability, and while it has the acceleration and missile reach, its radar and MMI are poor, and most analysts believe that AIM-120 and APG-65/73 would enjoy a significant advantage. The HUG might not be as impressive as an Su-27 in an airshow, but I think Smartman under-estimates the aircraft's real world capabilities, and over-estimates those of the 'Flanker'.

The helmet sight and ASRAAM will probably make even the RAAF's ancient F/A-18As more capable in a close-in engagement than any Su-27 variant likely to be deployed in the near future, though India's Su-30MKIs may eventually become quite capable aeroplanes.

smartman

3rd Dec 2002, 12:37

Jacko

No real contention.. And yes, I accept the 'near term' comments re-HUG and Su27. It is the medium/long term (2008+?) BVR scenario that I would challenge - the ASRAAM/HMS combo will probably become a kill/kill zone for all those that enter, but I'd always want to have it. Re JSF on day 1: agree that it will probably be highly effective - given the availability of those sensors! But in a prolonged Tier-2 conflict?

Am I still right in saying that there are many senior USAF officers who would like to see JSF funds allocated elsewhere?

Jackonicko

3rd Dec 2002, 16:34

I've never met a senior USAF officer who wouldn't willingly ditch JSF to get more F-22s.

Gnadenburg

3rd Dec 2002, 22:54

Smartman

With reference to our area of operations what would you consider a good mix? Has to be a mix because I don't see one aircraft on offer capable of all the jobs required.

Remembering our Sea-Air Gap doctrine and the important maritime strike role. Surely JSF would outperform all in this important area?

And I feel a buy British coming on. We should have stuck with the Yanks all along- dud Spitfires, Meteors, Lightning and TRS2 would have been a disaster compared Mirage/F111, Tornadoes instead of Hornets? Short range Eurofighters?

The Canberra was a stirling aircraft though.

Jackonicko

3rd Dec 2002, 23:36

Because of course the F-111 was such an outstanding success for the RAAF, right from the very beginning, and even more so for the Aussie taxpayer.

EF with conformals vs JSF in the RAAF context? No contest.

NB: When Australia got its Spits the US alternative was the P-40. When Australia got Meteors the US alternative was the P-80. When the RAAF procured Sabres, the UK alternative was the Hunter 6/9.

But you've already made your mind up, I guess.

Gnadenburg

4th Dec 2002, 00:47

Jackonicko

If only your sprit could be realised by your Ashes team!

The F111 has been a great success for the Australain taxpayer. The contigency plan in 1971 if the F111s problems persisted were as follows. Scrap the project and add another 24 Phantoms to the already 24 leased, aswell as 8 Recce Phantoms. In addition to the extra Phantoms, because of the range problems of the F4 in our defence context, 8 KC135s were to come with the package. Not sure if Mirage squadrons to be scrapped to facilitate the burden of manpower in doubling the bomber fleet.

So, forward to 2002. A force of F111s, still offering good capabilities( incoming ) as opposed to the Goliath F4 fleet above. The savings are in the billions! Could have done with the KC135s though.

Spitfires-huh. P40s had already turned the tide, in our time of need, before Churchill decided to send his clapped out Spitfires. Most were lost in engine failures. The foolish RAAF buy British almost cost us dearly. A fleet of P40s at the beginning of the war, the Yanks did offer, would have made a significant difference to theMalaya/Singapore campaign before they stemmed the tide in New Guinea.

Meteors- Yanks diddled us, we needed Sabres.

Hunter-worked out better having state of the art Mirages in the early sixties. Imagine being stuck with a fleet of Hunters in the seventies.

We don't see much of you in our part of the world, may be better to stick to American kit.

smartman

4th Dec 2002, 14:02

Gnadenburg ------

You're really just teasing aren't you!

If (like the thinking but silenced men in DoD/DSTO - and surprisingly there are more than you may think- who bothered to understand Typhoon's swing-role capabilites) you were to study that aircraft's spec, then you too will warm to Jackonicko's comments regarding EF v JSF. And to let you off the Pom-bashing hook, the jet has a European pedigree - so go on, treat yourself to a closer look. It's a pity that many Australians were prevented from so doing. Whatever happened to a 'fair go'? (Not a whinge - just an observation).

'Has to be a mix ----- ' ?? In that case, presumably you are at odds with Mr Howard's single JSF solution? But then I guess your PM (and Angus) were seduced by the offer of a good F15E deal when the Ardvark (sp?) finally falls apart which, despite DSTO's valiant efforts, is likely to be far earlier than expected. Wonder when they'll spring that on the Oz taxpayer?

I hear you're pleased with the Hawk though (and please don't have a rant about lousy support etc etc) ------

Now to a more important issue. I take it you're not a rugby union fan ??

Jackonicko

4th Dec 2002, 15:12

The Hunter was an alternative to your Avon Sabres, not the Mirage IIIOs (for which the UK alternative was the Lightning, which never had the legs for the RAAF, and would have been a poor choice).

Sabres/Meteors. Sabres weren't on offer before Korea, to you or anyone else.
And your Meteors did really rather well in the GA role, as I recall, and guys like George Hale proved that it was a better air-to-air aeroplane than some gave it credit for, though not in the high level 'over the Yalu' environment.

Spits? Tell your nonsense to Caldwell, Truscott et al. The Spit VIII in particular was a very successful aircraft in Aussie service. The P-40's record pales by comparison, while the Mustang (useful post War) was unsuited to fighter versus agile fighter combat. It did well in the long range escort role when the opposition was poor, or consisted of lumbering 109Gs, but was very handicapped by its violent and unpredictable departure characteristics and by the fact that gun tracking was so poor. (Go look at the SETP evaluation of the Mustang vs Thunderbolt vs Corsair vs Hellcat before you go repeating all the enthusiast nonsense about the P-51).

F-111 a success for the Aussie taxpayer? God save them from what you'd classify as a procurement failure then!

But then you're showing yourself to be just another typical whingeing Aussie (how amazing that you have the brass neck to accuse us of whingeing....!) with the usual anti-Brit chip on the shoulder. Still sore that your great grand-dad was transported for stealing that sheep, Bruce?

PS: I don't give a to$$ about Cricket (it's no longer played by or watched by gentlemen, and they seem to do it in coloured pyjamas now) but eagerly await your response on the rugby front.....

Gnadenburg

5th Dec 2002, 02:39

Smartman

Maritime strike is a primary RAAF role. Much more so than other air arms. I alluded to the sea-air gap doctrine so in light of this, what would offer a significant maritime strike option? What can Eurofighter offer? Would JSF not be an effective maritime strike platform?

Jackonico

Australians think of P40s and the Battle for Australia as the English think of Spitfires and the Battle of Britain. Nothing to do with relative capabilities, more an abandonment in our time of need!

This is not a chip on the shoulder, but the British have cost us dearly time and time again. The last is pertinent in our natural alignment with the Americans. Part of our defence relationship and alignment should be a bias toward their kit.

On Caldwell, I invite you to do some research. I know he would have prefered P40s to clapped out, hand me down MK 5 Spitfires with their worn out engines. We were getting pounded but the FW190 threat in Europe was more important to Churchill-all new builds Spits went to the RAF until we( and the US ) turned the tide- in late 43 we got the MK 8! The MK 5s cost us dearly in terms of engine failures. You are no doubt aware of Caldwell's first combat over Darwin.

On Bluey Truscott. He held the Japs at bay in New Guinea in P40s and tragically died in a famous P40 accident.

We foolishly stuck by a well entrenched British- RAAF doctrine at wars start. P40s offered but knocked back because British fighters would be made available. They of course were not made available. But oh what a difference a few hundred P40s would have made, especially in Malaya/Singapore.

Jacko, there is a generation gap between us, you may be surprised my great grandfather not a convict but lying in a war grave in France.

And on convicts, somebody who steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving English family, showing an initiative and commitment needed to tame this harsh and big brown land! Wasn't the English gentry who tamed it. Though the latter responsible for some spectacular military ineptitude.

Rugby, do Australains play rugby?

Aussie rules ( Bluey Truscott a famous footballer before a famous fighter pilot ) and cricket our primary sports.

smartman

5th Dec 2002, 15:18

Jacko

Forget it old son; m'thinks you're right - his mind's made up. Must be a C Kopp reader. And worse still, he's an aerial ping-pong fan.
I bet he has his eyes on the Presidency as well -----------

Gnadenburg

5th Dec 2002, 21:29

Smartass and Jacko- Eurofighter Sales Team.

What has Eurofighter got to offer in a maritime strike role?

And I asked around, some of our suburbs in Brisbane and Sydney play rugby. Are we not any good? Maybe the little interest factor.

Greatest sporting nation since the former East Germany. No drugs and no Stassi though.

Ex Douglas Driver

6th Dec 2002, 03:21

Don't tell me Dr C Kopp's comments have infected the UK!! Has one of Australia's self-professed greatest military minds been ruffling a few feathers in the northern hemisphere?

After "flying" the F111 fixed base simulator:
Without doubt the smoothest and best handling large aircraft I have ever had the pleasure to fly. A predictable instrument platform, with crisp response in all axes, perfectly damped, with the best IFR instrument cluster layout I have ever seen. The aircraft rolls and pitches very nicely, and is very easy to fly precisely in basic aerobatic manoeuvres, and at low level. At no time is it obvious that you are handling a 100,000 lb gross weight strategic bomber, the aircraft exhibits fighter like handling through most of the envelope. Pig drivers tell me that the real thing is even nicer than the simulator.

Among others, the reason that the RAAF F/A-18 fleet (or the "Bug" as he prefers to call it) is experiencing fatique problems is because it is underpowered. Whaaat? How does this work??:confused: :p

smartman

6th Dec 2002, 08:12

Ex DD

This is not the place to pour scorn on such a fine analytical Lockheed-spopnsored brain; his recent piece on JSF is a fine example of his work. His PEng qualification has clearly improved an outstanding ability to muddle fact, theory and fancy, with neither objectivity or subjectivity featuring in his thought processes.

But then I'm a simple Oz-loving Pom - and that's another muddle.

Gnadenburg

Your question reveals a CK affinity. As I impled, your mind is set.

Rowing ?

For PEng, read PhD (stupid boy)

Jackonicko

6th Dec 2002, 11:44

While you base your opinion of UK products on a perception of the performance of the Spitfire V (!) and the Meteor, you seem strangely disinclined to pay any heed to Australia's recent record with the Kaman SH-2G(A), the C-130J and the SH-60. You then "Problem! What Problem?" us on the subject of the F-111.

And since you're so worried about the anti-shipping role, why do you prefer a design with two internal weapon's bays each of which is too small for a Harpoon or a Kormoran, and coming from a nation where the prime customers have no plans to use the type in a maritime attack role? Perhaps you think that Australia can easily, simply and cheaply integrate a suitable weapon as it did with AGM-142 on the F-111. That has been such a success, after all.....

Eurofighter, by contrast, can tote a pair of Storm Shadows a bloody long way, and with Italy and Germany looking hard at EF as a replacement for their maritime Tornados, a manufacturer-funded integration of even more suitable anti-ship weapons is not hard to predict.

Apart from range (and what are tankers for anyway?) Australia would have been better off buying Gripen than JSF - and certainly the advanced Gripens now on the drawing board with big conformal tanks and fuselage plugs would have presented a better match to more of the RAAF's requirements.

PS: If Hurricanes couldn't really cope against the Japs in 1941-42, what makes you think that P-40s could have done?

Gnadenburg

6th Dec 2002, 13:30

Jacko

Don't be so sensitive, just asking opinions of the JSF in the maritime strike role and what the rest of the field offers.

Agree on your reference to some problems. Maybe we should just stay a few years behind USAF/USN in kit, letting them iron bugs out. Strike Eagles would be welcomed as the interim.

On P40s. Lousy gunsight but a hundred or so displaying the fighting spirit of the Australian troops on the Malayan Peninsula may have bloodied the Japs enough not to be able to bluff their way into Singapore. The first significant Japanese defeat of the war, with respect to the fighting retreat on Kokoda by mostly 17 year old militia troops, was at Milne Bay and mainly due our P40s.

A fleet of RAAF P40s, as offered in 1939 but denied due our "Buy British Only" policy, would have made a difference in 41-42.

Jackonicko

6th Dec 2002, 14:45

Depending on your assessment of the air-to-air threat, either F-15E or F/A-18F would have been very sensible aircraft for the RAAF - especially as interim replacements for the F-111.

To replace the F/A-18, however, EF was very much Australia's best choice, if it was affordable. (Cheaper than an F-15E, a Rafale, or an F-22, remember).

If it wasn't then Gripen or F/A-18E or F-16/60.

But not JSF....

smartman

6th Dec 2002, 19:24

Gnadenburg

Given up on sport ------

Jacko has nutshelled some of the important messages that the Brits tried to get across in the Air 6000 debate. I like to think we didn't fail: I really do think that there were those that did not want to absorb what was said. It's not that they were stupid, or that we were seen to be toting potentially outmoded kit. A US solution was deemed to be the only way to go, and with hindsight that should've been recognised much earlier - but we had to try (and I enjoyed doing it). The rationale (in the main, the US alliance and regional support ) is easily followed, but the outright rejective opinions from some high quarters - and some were very agricultural - was harder to understand. Not sour grapes - just some musing with a Wolf Blass to hand -----

You said 'Maritime strike is a primary RAAF role. Much more so than other air arms'. Your last assertion is questionable. Ask the USN. Also ask your colleagues who have served exchange tours on Buccaneer and Tornado maritime strike/attack squadrons. I think you'll find that (if you accept the valid AAR point made by Jacko) those outfits' weapon systems and tactics were as good as any ('specially on shiny Twelve! Hey-Ho).

So Typhoon in the maritime role -----

Given the planned CASOMs (and other possibilities) and CFTs it will outperform F111, F/A18E/F, or JSF (I leave Gripen comments to Jacko!!). Sorry to be so simplistic, but the arguments are not that difficult (and DSTO has all the numbers) - especially given the maritime opposition over the next umpty years. As for stealth (bear in mind we're talking stand-off delivery at sea with a highly capable DASS) and radar performance, they will be more than adequate in the role. The aircraft will also retain 6 AAMs in the role. And if anyone shouts 'F111 range!!' - then the only solution to that is buy another F111 (???)or use your new tankers. Not certain from memory, but I think even CK didn't rate JSF in the maritime role (but then again he wouldn't condone Typhoon either).

Cheers

Booger

6th Dec 2002, 20:15

Firstly - I must say I find the lack of respect being shown for "Gruppen Fuhrer" Kopp very disturbing. He is a true visionary of Australia's military aviation future - the sooner he is appointed to a top procurement position the better.;)

As for the repeated claims that EF with a couple of 'CASOMs' (I've not heard the term but I assume that Stand-Off Munition is in there somewhere) will "outperform the Pig..." HAH!

Guys, come off it. Just because it's printed in the shiny BAe brochure doesn't make it so. A hornet sized fighter with hornet fuel loads & a pair of leaky-turbojets can have all the conformals and external fuel tanks you can cram on the thing - the only way it's going to approach the payload/range of a Pig is by trucking in the tropopause at theoretical long range cruise Mach. Very Tactical - NOT..!!! The DSTO paper figures referred to are widely known (and s******ed at) in the RAAF.

Before Jacko et al start on the whole "pom bashing" thing let me say that I do think the Typhoon is an impressive a/c. I'm sure it goes like $hit off a shiny shovel and turns up it's own rectum with a vast array of weapons/sensors (I can read brochures too). Unfortunately it offers no advantage over current generation aircraft that many of it's supporters have already mentioned - ie Block 60 F16s etc... With such brilliant decisions as "hey, let's get rid of the gun, it'll save a few hundred pounds" is it any wonder that there is a healthy amount of scepticism for the project? Coupled with that is the fact that Australia is far better off aligning itself to be 'USAF Det A' than it is to be 'RAF/Euro Det A'.

We can't afford to buy a variety of a/c to cover all contingincies, and at this stage the JSF represents the best compromise for our operations. Australia is right to put all it's "eggs in one basket" - because it is one big, mother-humpin', well armed, well funded & well organised basket.

smartman

6th Dec 2002, 20:48

Gnadenburg

Re: Booger

Says it all; I rest my case ------------

Jackonicko

6th Dec 2002, 21:18

1) The proposed removal of the gun from EF (quickly reversed) was only ever to apply to RAF aircraft. It would never have affected an RAAF Typhoon.

2) No-one pretends Typhoon will out-range the F-111. Nor would the F-15E. But that's the only advantage the ancient, outmoded Pig does have. If all you need is payload range buy a B-52 or an A340.

3) The statement that Typhoon "offers no advantage over current generation aircraft" is so breathtakingly stupid that it could only come from the uninformed and thoroughly biased or indoctrinated. The Typhoon offers a lower RCS than any current generation aircraft. The Typhoon will do BVR air combat better than any aircraft with the possible exception of F-22. The Typhoon will be a Swing Role aircraft in a way hitherto undreamed of. It outperforms anything in its price bracket. If RAAF fighter pilots go to war in JSF against a developed Su-27 with parity in weapons and radar, they'll do no better than parity. In an F-16 or an F/A-18E/F or an F-15 they'll lose more often than they win. In an F-22 they'll win 90-95% of the time, and in EF just less than that, but more than 85% of the time.

4) You need to get yourself better informed before you go spouting quite such ill-informed nonsense about EF. You haven't heard of CASOM. You didn't know that the gun was back in. You didn't seem to know that the gun was never in doubt for anyone except the RAF.

5) No one aircraft will fulfill all parts of the RAAF's requirement. But JSF is not even a good compromise. It's a good Day One 'kick-down-the-door' LO attack aircraft. But it's not a long range interdictor and it certainly is not an air dominance fighter. JSF is small, under-armed (two BVR AAMs, two PGMs ONLY), reliant on an air power infrastructure (AWACS, JSTARS, etc), its price is escalating at a fearsome rate, and the programme lacks support even in the higher echelons of the US Air Force. It may well be mother-humpin' however....

EF, on the other hand isn't a bad compromise, lacking only range for the F-111 replacement part of the requirement (and JSF doesn't have that range either, even in full LO configuration with internal weapons only). In every other way it's a better fit than anything.

Even if you Aussies are too biased to look at EF, there are better options for the RAAF than JSF. Replace the F-111s with F-15Es (that's a no-brainer, surely) but bear in mind they cost more than an EF and will be 'Flanker' fodder. Replace the F/A-18s with F-16C-60s or (better still) Gripens.

And while being an ally of the US may be useful, what will you do when they have their next bout of introverted isolationism, or take a dislike to your foreign policy and impose an embargo? And ask the JSF salesman how much work they'll GUARANTEE to place with local industry (not just give you the chance to bid for) and then ask the same of the Gripen or Typhoon boys.

And I'm a fully-fledged, bona fide independent journalist with a reputation as being both anti BAE and a Eurofighter cynic.

Gnadenburg

6th Dec 2002, 23:12

Jacko

Could you elaborate on your point as to the suitability of the Gripen?

A country 8hours flying time by 5hours flying time needs good range surely?

Would a force of a hundred short range Gripens and five airborne tankers not create an airborne Maginot Line?

You guys are so quick to slam the Yanks. You must understand, in our defence context, they have and continue to be a presence in our region.

And it is not Pommie bashing to say we haven't seen much of you since the fall of Singapore ( ignoring police actions and confrontations ) and the obvious alternative alignment and allegience this creates.

A Civilian

7th Dec 2002, 00:37

Surely the best replacement for the F111 role is the Su-34.

Well I can dream cant I :)

Jackonicko

7th Dec 2002, 01:41

In a defensive context the Gripen is an excellent little agile fighter and is cheap enough that it can be bought in quantity. Its operating costs and costs of ownership are exceptionally low, making it a great bargain for any air arm. With HMS, IRST, etc. it's much better specified than an F-16, and is cheaper to own and operate. It has a very good radar and the export version has good EW kit.

It has a great datalink which works very well. This would be very useful indeed in the Aussie context.

Though small in size the Gripen has good combat persistance and an excellent range of air-to-air weapons options have been or are being cleared.

Though the basic Gripen is lacking in range, extended range versions are under development. Moreover, the aircraft's very good off-airfield (road strip) rapid deployment capability and ability to operate with little support would allow forward deployment by small nuimbers of aircraft to cover massive geographic areas. Whereas basing four JSFs here, and four there would pose huge problems and impose major costs, Gripen is optimised for this kind of deployment. RAAF doctrine would need to change to take advantage of this, and to make greater use of AAR, but you should remember that JSF doesn't have 'sufficient' range either, especially when you hang weapons off it externally.

It's also a formidably good and proven AMRAAM shooter, with great BVR capability. In the air-to-air role it can carry four AMRAAMs and four IR-homing AAMs. The export aircraft will probably carry up to six AMRAAMs.

The aircraft is also exceptionally versatile, and only its lack of stores stations makes it anything less than a great swing role fighter. It does carry a range of useful air-to-ground weapons, and the Swedes use it very successfully in the anti-ship role, using an indigenous missile. The radar has very good anti-ship performance. The export version will have a useful recce capability, too.

I make no apologies for being a great fan of the Gripen, and a mixed force of Gripen/EF or Gripen/F-15E would be better for the RAAF, in my view than a force of JSFs.

And it's proven and it works. After the SH-2G(A) and the C-130J your faith in the USA is quite remarkable.

Booger

7th Dec 2002, 02:22

Jacko, I'll concede this: you are the funniest guy (since admin guru) to post on PPrune...

One question mate: Have you ever flown & operated a military 'fast jet'??? As a military aviator you sure make a great journalist...

Your unfaltering belief in the EF is to be commended, but with comments such as "the F15E would be Flanker-fodder" you expose your true anorak wearing, plane-spotting, wannabe self. Either I'm unaware of the actual Mud Hen versus Flanker combat that's taken place or you're basing your statement on Computer simulations - in which case I'm guessing you were in the Beagle sim and a small tuft of navel lint was flying the Flanker sim.

By the way, sorry for not knowing the CASOM acronym, I've misplaced my copy of the "Try-hards Guide to Obscure & Irrelevent Military TLAs for Pathetic Blunt Losers".

Before you get huffy and start with the "bl00dy criminal ignorant colonial $hit", why don't you post a poll for all military aviators on the EF versus 'the rest' and see what responses you get?

:)

Ex Douglas Driver

7th Dec 2002, 06:36

..... and with one reply, what was a good argument with mostly informed debate, gets dragged into the gutter by needless name calling.

NOT REQUIRED:mad:

StopStart

7th Dec 2002, 09:35

Forgive me but as I suspect no-one on Pprune has flown EF in combat against a Flanker or anything else for that matter may I ask where anyone else would draw their opinions of such a combat from?
Hands-in-the-bar or perhaps simulations?

:rolleyes:

smartman

7th Dec 2002, 10:23

Ex DD

Agree (and my little digs at CK are unapologettically playful!)

I can vouch that Jacko's percentage comparisons of Typhoon v Others in BVR combat are an accurate representation of UK MoD studies (NOT industry) - and also that these studies are regularly updated (with the help of ex- F15 and F16 drivers) to confirm Typhoon's continued validity. That he has no FJ operational background is entirely irrelevant to the debate - that I have plenty is equally irrelevant: we both have a comprehensive appreciation of specifications and analyses, and try to put forward our views as dispassionately as possible. It is difficult not to rise to uninformed comment, and yes we happen to favour the European competition - but our contributions are surely still valid in the context of this thread ??

And just in case anyone thinks I'm blinkered to reality, I'll be the first to concede that if the UK Government is not prepared to go the mile with Typhoon's planned development potential, and if European industry underperforms (and there is as much potential for this in the US), then Typhoon's potential will be sadly blunted.

And Booger - if you believe that the currently advertised combat claims of F22 or JSF are based on something other than computer simulations, then I miss your point. And if you can't accept that F15E is inferior to a state-of-the-art Flanker in BVR combat, I recommend an early bath -----------

Gnadenburg

7th Dec 2002, 11:17

Jacko

Down here in OZ some of our most unscrupulous journalists caught up in a "Cash For Comments" scandal.

You being paid by BAE for such a positive Gripen slant?

Gripens, in Australia's defence context, would have to be a Maginot Line. An aggressor, near or far from our soil, would have much room to manoeuvre, in whatever form, outside of Gripen's limited range envelope.

On Northern roads. They are somewhat differtent to European autobahns ect. Our main North-South, Adelaide-Darwin Rd, affectionately known as "The Track". I think Gripen northern road operations spectactular to witness, whatever the result!

Eurofighter and maritime strike? Still not sold, can you elaborate?

ORAC

7th Dec 2002, 14:44

Typhoon Maritime Attack.

Dedicated radar modes:
The ECR-90 has a range of air to surface modes including; beam mapping, sea and surface search, Ground Moving Target Identification (GMTI) and Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR). The SAR mode available in Tranche-1 gives a 1m resolution, test flights have reduced this to 0.3m (this improvement will be introduced in Tranche-2).

SCLs:
4 ASM ( Penguin, Harpoon), 4 AMRAAM, 2 ASRAAM, 3 fuel tanks.
or
6 ASM, 4 AMRAAM, 2 ASRAAM.

Reference the gun, the F-35 is getting the same Mauser cannon as the Typhoon.

PBI Media - June 3rd 2002:

"In November, Boeing concluded a licensing agreement with the Mauser subsidiary of Germany's Rheinmetall for Mauser's BK 27 27mm cannon that is to be used in Lockheed Martin's [LMT] F-35 JSF (Defense Daily, Feb. 13)".

Defence Daily - Sept 26 2002:

"GD has been selected over Alliant Techsystems [ATK] and the Mauser subsidiary of Germany's Rheinmetall, which are teamed to produce the 27mm cannon, to integrate the JSF gun system. GD said it will develop an integration package for the JSF gun system at its Burlington, Vt., Armament and Technical Products (ATP) division, as well as conduct the integration for production aircraft.

Lockheed Martin originally selected the BK 27mm cannon offered by Boeing [BA] and Mauser in July 2000. GD had initially offered its GAU-12 25mm gatling cannon for the JSF in July 1999, but withdrew its proposal in February 2000".

Reference CASOM.

The Conventionally Armed Stand Off Missile is a development of the Storm Shadow fitted with a BROACH unitary warhead. It has a maritime attack capability against ships & submarines. It's fitted with a high resolution IR sensor for target identification and acquisition. If the target acquisition process is unsuccessful the mission will be aborted and the missile will fly to a predetermined safe crash site. Stand-off launch range is 215nm+. Integration of the CASOM on the Typhoon is funded within the present RAF budget.

smartman

7th Dec 2002, 18:51

Gnadenberg

'Cash for Comments' --------

No such thing in industrial UK - if I'd paid Jacko for a piece of print, I would've soon been topped by those that foolishly hired me. Over the years the UK aviation press has been, with some exception, mainly very astute in its words; there is, thankfully, no CK comparison ------

Jackonicko

7th Dec 2002, 20:45

Booger,

You appear to base your opinion of Typhoon and F-15E on ignorant, uninformed anti-Brit prejudice. You sneer at brochure figures without having bothered to assess their accuracy or veracity.

I base mine on independent, non-industry simulations of both aircraft being flown against a developed Flanker using JOUST. And on having spoken in depth to people who've flown both, and who've evaluated both professionally (and not just from GmbH partner nations). And while I have no professional experience of flying a military fast jet, I have been lucky enough to have been given a 'grandstand view' of operational flying, and to have had patient friends who've taught me what questions to ask, and what the answers may mean.

I'm struggling to be civil to someone who may be an F-111 pilot or nav, as he pretends, but who seems to have none of the social graces, intelligence or manners that I'd have expected from any commissioned officer in the RAAF.

You, on the other hand, make silly remarks about 'navel lint' and anoraks. With your breathless enthusiasm for the 'Mud Hen' and 'Beagle' you sound more like a spotter than I do, old chap, while your lack of open-mindedness and tight grip on silly and out-of-date generalisations about EF (no better than F-16) is in danger of marking you out as being a 'bear of very little brain'.

Gnadenberg,

Gripen International have given me the odd tie, drink and dinner, but their hospitality and generosity has never been as generous as that offered by Lockheed. Eurofighter GmbH cannot compete with Lockheed either, though they do a nice line in laptop bags! Cash (unfortunately) never changes hands.

Were Australia acquiring F-22s or an aircraft with F-111 range, the Gripen's relatively modest radius would be a valid criticism. But JSF's range is similarly (not equally) inadequate. Forward based Gripen with conformals and tankers would do the job cheaply and well, though EF would be better.

Booger

7th Dec 2002, 22:24

Deep breath, calm blue ocean...

As one who is a 'bear of very little brain', I will attempt to better myself and refrain from any further personal jibes (but dammit it's just so tempting!!!:D ).

You cannot replace the Pig & Hornet in RAAF service with a single platform that will do both current jobs, anything we acquire will be a compromise. The ADF is a the cusp of a shift in Defence thinking that will take us away from the much vaunted (but impossible to achieve) 'Self-reliance', and return us to our post WWII 'little brother to US' philosophy. Whether this is the right path to take is open for debate, but probably way beyond the scope of this topic.

The arguments made that EF is a far better option than JSF for Australia are moot - we have made our choice!!! You must realise that Australia is choosing what is best for Australia, not what's best for the EF consortium. Once again don't take my word for it, ask ANY RAAF fighter/strike pilot what current fighter (or 'swing role') aircraft he would prefer as a Hornet/Pig replacement: I assure you the EF is way down (if not bottom of) the list. Don't believe me? Start a PPrune poll !!!

For Jacko et al, this is not due to any anti-brit feeling. When/Why would a fighter pilot give up the chance to operate the best aircaft type just to 'spite a nation'? Guys you've got to let it go, the EF is just not for us!

Now why would the EF, seemingly so brilliant, not be the aircraft for us? For the same reason that I lampooned the ill-informed comment that 'the F15E would be Flanker fodder'... You must understand that you are dealing with unclas (or restricted at best) info. Could it be that the operators of these aircraft types know just a little more about regional tactics and aircraft capabilities? Funnily enough I never recalled seeing any industry executives or aviation journalists at any intel briefiengs or capability reports. Not a slight, just a fact of life.

Back to the topic at hand: the ultimate aircraft type would be the F22, but unless all Australians are willing to accept a 80% marginal tax rate for 15 years to pay for them, it aint gonna happen. Ergo, JSF is the 'way to go'.

Now, I wasn't too offensive that time was I?;)

Jackonicko

8th Dec 2002, 00:01

Since your temperature seems to now be back at a safe level, we can continue. Thanks very much for such a reasonable response.

I'm glad that we at least agree that a single platform replacement for two such different aircraft types is unwise. I should point out that I don't much care whether the RAAF buys EF, nor what is best for the EF consortium. I'm not a shareholder. (I am interested, mildly, in what's best for any of our allies, however, although I think that F-15E/F-16 or F-15E/Gripen is the best option for you chaps, if you can't afford F-15E/Typhoon).

What current F-111 F/A-18 pilots think is the right replacement for their aircraft is interesting, but irrelevant, since few ordinary frontline squadron blokes will be fully briefed on the potential replacement aircraft, whether we're talking about JSF or EF. (Funnily enough I never recalled seeing any Aussie F/A-18 drivers flying EF or the perceived threat in JOUST....) 'Not a slight, just a fact of life'. When assessing EF you're not even dealing with restricted or classified info - you're making assumptions based on often ill-informed comment. You don't actually seem aware of EF's capabilities and characteristics, whether we're talking about performance, range, payload or price. If EF is at the 'bottom of your list' it's a good indication that you are inadequately briefed.

I should perhaps have made it more clear that when I said that the F-15E would turn out to be 'Flanker' fodder, I was referring to any F-15E bought by the RAAF in the future, and was comparing it to the developed 'Flanker' used as a nominal threat in UK MoD simulations assessing EF and other fighters. Remember that this is an aircraft with the performance and agility of today's 'Flanker' but assuming parity in pilot training, missile performance, radar performance and avionics. This is unlikely to happen, but is still a useful 'worst case' baseline threat aircraft for assessment and analysis of EF/JSF etc. (I'm inclined to think that a higher level of agility was assumed for this 'developed Flanker' than is realistic, because when these studies were launched, the significance of the Su-27's 'internal auxiliary' tankage was not fully appreciated. (The Su-27's airshow levels of agility were assumed to be available at higher AUWs than is actually the case, and the fact that the aircraft is quite so severely restricted with full fuel was not originally appreciated). Naturally the F-15E is vastly superior to any deployed 'Flanker' variant today, but that's hardly a great achievement!

I'd expect F-16, F-15 to get 'votes' because people are familiar with them, and know their capability compared to that of the current and near-time threat. I'd expect JSF to get votes because it's had a very comfortable ride, and people assume that it will be as much of a 'class leader' as its predecessors. I'm always astonished at the degree of ignorance about JSF's price and capability, and the extent to which most people's opinions have been formed by pro-Lockheed journos and LM marketing material. By the same token I'd similarly expect EF to score very badly among current RAAF pilots, because your opinion will have been largely moulded by ill-informed and hostile press coverage of the programme.

I have enormous respect for what current frontline people think about their current aircraft, and (sometimes) what their int people think about threat aircraft, though int on Soviet types is often patchy, and capabilities have often been dramatically over-estimated in some areas and under-stated in others.

Nevertheless, I'm surprised that Aussie aircrew are so happy about an aircraft with inferior A-G payload than an F/A-18 and (Ok, this next is a stretch) inferior A-A armament than a Pig!

The JSF is cheaper than EF, for sure, but carries only two PGMs and two BVR AAMs, and relies heavily on third-party off-board sensors and platforms which the RAAF will not have. As the low element in a high:low mix, the JSF could make sense, but it's a bit like buying only F-117s instead of a balanced mix of F-15Es and F-16s.

In the light of the difficulties you've experienced with the Kaman SH-2G, you'll forgive us if we're sceptical as to the wisdom of your procurement decision makers.....!

Gnadenburg

8th Dec 2002, 04:51

Jacko

Ok, let us say the stalwart of the RAAF's offensive capability, for the last 30 years, doesn't make it to it's predicted retirement date. Of course I am talking about the F111.

JSF is delayed.

Both likely scenarios.

PM Howard has no doubt got a behind the scenes handshake, to the effect that if this happends Super Hornets or Strike Eagles will be available for lease.

But will there be enough available for lease? Overburdened US services will be affected too so I can't see them giving up their precious F15E's or Super Hornets.

Enter your EFA sales team. Unwanted RAF EFAs for lease? At a price as competitive as the Airbus deals we see down our way!

Replace F111s, disband a Hornet squadron so the others can make it to retirement and await the JSF.

So send down the fighting 54th. Are they up and away with EFA yet? They were late, but valiant over Darwin. Bit of media hype, good sales pitch, a serious presence at the next Five Power Defence exercises and you never know.

So, EFA and JSF a balance?

And seriously, in our defence context, can EFA offer a decent strike capacity?

Booger

8th Dec 2002, 07:55

Sorry Jacko, but the fact is most (if not all) RAAF fast jet operators have had the BAe Typhoon brief. I also managed to have a fair old chat to an EF test pilot/engineer team (RAF, not company) in Oz in 2000. Neither myself nor any of my peers at the brief were particularly enamoured with the stats the sales team pitched at us. It simply doesn't offer that "next step" that the RAAF must take. I can only assume that the data they were providing us was correct, but the 'little things' kept stacking up: eg: "does the PIRATE offer LRF for weapon solutions?" Answer: "No, that capability was delayed/withheld until further development..." It might surprise you to know that I am well aware that the gun is back in EF, but the mere fact it was at one point slated for removal is mind-boggling and does not exactly give us much faith in the 'design by committee' approach.

Bear in mind that this 'disinterest' or 'lack of enthusiasm' in EF is in the context of a RAAF capability upgrade - again, I will state that in isolation the aircraft is impressive. However, it would be far easier & more cost effective to simply buy Super Hornets (not that this an option, far from it - my point being it's a less capable but a FAR safer/cheaper option).

No siree, the RAAF's going to get funky and go for an unproven type (like the EF) but with a much LARGER safety net than the EF consortium can offer. The fact that no RAAF knucks have flown the EF speaks volumes for the EF sales approach - don't you think they would welcome the chance?? Additionally, the remark about no RAAF knucks being involved in the JOUST/sim tests is correct - no self respecting Fighter Combat Instructor (RAF equivalent = FWI) would make a detailed review of a type based on a simulation... only an extensive DACT package would satisfy these guys. What they don't know about air combat isn't worth knowing and it sure as hell wasn't learnt in a sim. Irrespective of what you think, these guys have the runs on the board and they don't want the EF as part of their opening eleven (last reference to cricket, I promise!!! ;) )

Gnadenburg, I agree with the F15E option... I think the JSF will see it's own share of problems (as we are already seeing with the EF). Personally, I hate the thought of buying 'A-models'... I'm a firm believer in tried and proven. If I had my way (and I won't, I'm just one of these operators that sales teams could care less about) it would be mud-hens for all. NO unproven technology, excellent track record and a wealth of praise from the many RAAFies who have had the pleasure of an exchange on them (both Pig & hornet operators). They might be expensive, but at least the cost & CAPABILITY is known up front - no surprises... What does the future hold? Certainly there will be an interim replacement before JSF arrives, I only hope that saner heads prevail.:confused:

Gnadenburg

8th Dec 2002, 09:42

Booger

Mud Hens a splendid interim, though like the Phantoms be hard to give up!

24-30 Strike Eagles, scrap the F111s and one squadron of Hornets. All is well until JSFs arrival.

Malaysian Flankers will create a nice little arms race down here.

Jacko

May have to work on the Singaporians with EFA. And you reckon we are Pommie bashers? At least we do it to your face!

Jackonicko

8th Dec 2002, 17:49

Booger,

The removal of the gun from the EF was nothing to do with the design or the design team, and everything to do with customer stupidity (and then only one customer). Just as German cost-saving attempts were never allowed to compromise the DASS for other users, RAF attempts to save money on the gun were never likely to have any affect AT ALL on the aircraft for other operators. To suggest that this somehow reflected a 'design by committee approach' is either misguided or mischievous.

If EF doesn't offer this 'next step' that you need then the only thing that could is F-22. JSF certainly won't except in the narrow LO PGM delivery role. JSF will give an F-16/Gripen level of capability, EF will give an F-22/F-15 level of capability. To compare the two aircraft is foolhardy.

I'm fairly sure that RAAF guys have flown the EF rig, and have seen the intuitive MMI and displays in action, and will have had the opportunity (like me) to see how DVI allows complex target sorting and allocation in a multi-bogey engagement to be achieved simply and successfully. This so impressed the F-22 cockpit committee that they bought the technology for their own aircraft, remember! Nevertheless, the fact that GmbH didn't see fit to despatch an aircraft down under to give the guys a closer look speaks volumes for the lack of competence of the marketeers. (Until people have seen someone like John Turner fly HAVV rolls in a prototype Typhoon with a fairly early incarnation of the FCS software, people actually believe the nonsense which LockMart's tame journos have spouted about the aircraft's agility. RAAF pilots should have been given the opportunity to witness this, and indeed to fly the aircraft, in my view).

I'm astonished that anyone answered any question pertaining to Pirate with anything approaching realism. In its initial incarnation, I'm certain that it will be no better than modest, but I'm equally sure that Northrop Grumman's conformal array IR sensor will take much longer to develop to the same level of capability and may never reach maturity. You may be aware of how the distributed sensors have already come under threat as par of the rigorous cost-cutting which is intended to keep JSF's unit cost down.

Gnad,

"Can EFA offer a decent strike capacity?". It has 13 stores stations. It can carry an overload of nearly 18,000-lb (8,000-kg) of stores, or a normal max of 14,330-lb (6,500-kg). It has an internal 27-mm cannon (not 20-mm). It can carry four BVR AAMs, two IR-h AAMs, external fuel and either two CASOM, four Penguin, six ARMs or 18 Brimstone. Or in the air to air role six BVR AAMs and four IR homing. And it's cheaper than an F-15E and much more capable in the air-to-air role.

EF and JSF, EF and Gripen, EF and F-16, EF and F/A-18E would all make good force mixes for the RAAF. EF and F-15E might be even better.

But if its JSF alone then you'll always rely on allies for AD, escort and air superiority, and you'd best order the AWACS, JSTARS, U-2Ss, F-22s and dedicated SEAD now.

smartman

8th Dec 2002, 19:24

Jacko

You can take a
horse to water -----------

Don't be too harsh on the marketeers: they were let down by their blinkered masters - both in Goverment and Industry. It was (and remains) a stunning error that no allowance was built into the development programme (in terms of time & cost) to take the aircraft to distant potential customers from the outset. No vision I'm afraid. And as for DESO!!

Gnadenburg

8th Dec 2002, 23:38

Defence Minister announced today there will be no interim fighter prior JSF introduction in 2012.

My prediction : F111 will be retired well before 2012, JSF will be delayed but the politicians will accept the loss of capability, declaring F-18s and new tankers a sufficient strike capability.

Yanks should demand and assist us in maintaining a comprehensive strike force ie F15E. Despite our close alignment they rarely compromise the dollar!

Smartman

Enjoy your posts. You mentioned Wolf Blass. Reliable, over ripe and over oaked Aussie export wine- bottled sunshine the Poms refer it to. Would be happy to offer assistance with more suitable recommendations.

smartman

9th Dec 2002, 10:39

Gnadenburg

Pollies are the same the world over. Why should Minister Hill hint at any need for an interim so long as the Pig still flies - such a decision requires a jam tomorrow outlook, and that's not part of the pollie mindset. Wonder what advice the new DefSec and Chief Scientist are giving? And what's Paul Dibbs's view?

Trouble is that F15E (good choice) and F18E (less so) are unlikely to be available at relatively short notice in procurement terms - but then who knows -----------

Our man Blair is presently doing a similar tap-dancing routine over Typhoon. When pushed to give an answer to 'is the Government still committed to the planned purchase of 230-odd aircraft', his reply is always 'the Gov remains fully committed to its Typhoon obligations'. Which, in legal terms, means that all that the Gov is signed up for at present is a contract for Tranche 1 aircraft, and that further purchases could be well-trimmed - but then who knows ----------

The whole world seems to be going JSF mad. Oh to be a Lockheed marketeer - but then you'd have to be a real dedicated fan. So I guess there isn't a long queue of volunteers then.

Would you ever believe the new-car salespitch that went - "look, bung us a wadge up front, say around the projected value of one car, and I'll promise you the best thing since sliced bread in around 10-yearsish time. What - a courtesy car and a trade-in price as well - you're joking! And yes I know you're a loyal customer and we have a nice ongoin' agreement, but we've others in the same boat who came along before you - so you're a bit down our delivery schedule I'm afraid. We'll do our best though".

I fancy you'd get a considerably better all-round deal from SAAB/BAES. But, hey, I'se not going there again. Still, just think of that short notice production availability when the Germans and Italians scale down their intended buys(on cost grounds Booger!!)
Better get in there before the Saudis.

Talk to me about juice instead -------------