Posted: 18 Feb 2013, 15:31
Yes/No?! false choice - the Super Hornet has a future as a Super Dog Squared (the Growler version).
Military Aviation Forum
https://www.f-16.net/forum/
count_to_10 wrote:So, the choice of SH over SE was jamming?
gtx wrote:Yes. As a Growler, it definitely has a future.
Conan wrote:count_to_10 wrote:So, the choice of SH over SE was jamming?
No. It was a combination of capability, price, availability and ease of introduction into service.
Capability - SH has most of the capability of the Strike Eagle and several new capabilities for RAAF they haven't experienced before but will need to ahead of F-35 that F-15 didn't offer in-service at the time we considered them. These being primarily fighter LO technology, AESA radar, towed radar decoys and much more advanced weapon systems, sensors and avionics then were in the inventory of RAAF at the time.
Price - SH was about $30m per plane cheaper than the Strike Eagle ($720m in savings up front) and vastly cheaper over the long term to sustain.
Availability - SH was available to us at an IOC level in less than 3 years, due to USN giving up production slots already planned for themselves and the overall maturity of the platform. We went from placing an order in May 2007 to IOC in December 2009. No other aircraft in the whole world could have provided this.
Ease of introduction into service - RAAF pilots, ACO's and maintainers were able to transition onto the Super Hornet easier than in any other aircraft in the world and focus on delivery capability from the aircraft, not just training on it. That's how we managed to get to IOC (a deployable and sustainable squadron sized formation) from contract placement to IOC in only 2 years and 6 months.
USN gave us and continues to provide great support to RAAF that would have been unavailable on any other aircraft due to configuration issues. If we'd bought Strike Eagle, they'd have been of a similar configuration to Singapore's and of significant difference to those operated by the USAF. Building up a capability would have required greater investment in time and resources by us, not having the same degree of "reach-back".
These advantages should not be sneezed at when considering that the Super Hornet was and is RAAF's interim combat aircraft. They aren't as sexy as issues like acceleration, turn rates and so on, but they make REAL differences to aircraft combat capability, not just the paper stats...
geogen wrote:
Ironic how what was a sure bet is now one of the most speculative and risky gambles in Tacair recapitalization history with possibly significant and potentially catastrophic consequences to maintaining force structure capability and deterrence in a highly uncertain post-Cold-War era, in staying on track as is.
count_to_10 wrote:That makes a lot of sense.
I was wondering more about the range issue that APA made such a big deal about.
Conan wrote: able to give the all important politicians a backseat ride of their life (thus keeping RAAF in the politicians good books to a degree).
XanderCrews wrote:Conan wrote: able to give the all important politicians a backseat ride of their life (thus keeping RAAF in the politicians good books to a degree).
When the F-22 was "going to decision" That was one of the things I told my brother at the time "You know whats going to kill the F-22 is its one man ride, they forgot the seat for the guy who votes on funding"
(just a joke)