Northrop begins production of first F/A-18F Super Hornet for Royal Australian Air Force. (?)

This is strange, did I just miss something entirely or was Australia still “investigating possibilities” and ordered a “detailed review of all options” just a month ago?

AMITYVILLE, N.Y., Feb. 5, 2008 (PRIME NEWSWIRE) -- Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC) has begun production of major structural components for the first F/A-18F Super Hornet strike fighter aircraft for the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF).


On Feb. 5, GKN Aerospace-Monitor, a premier supplier to Northrop Grumman, began machining the first wing bulkhead, one of three titanium bulkheads that hold the F/A-18 wings in place. The government of Australia is purchasing 24 F/A-18Fs from the United States in the first international procurement of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

www.irconnect.com...

Note that nowhere in the article was it stated that the production has begun on the bases of a contract fulfillment, or even what numbers that will be produced, or for that matter, any other tangible information.

This is from just a month ago;

Australia wants the US F-22 Raptor for RAAF

Mr Fitzgibbon has ordered a detailed review of all options for replacing the RAAF's ageing fleet of F-111s and F/A-18 Hornets.

When asked by the Herald Sun if the Russian-built war planes would be considered, he said all options would be included.

"The review should include a comparative analysis of everything on the market," Mr Fitzgibbon said.

"I'm not ruling out any option."

That would include the latest Russian Sukhoi 35 and MiG-29 fighters, which compare favourably on performance and very favourably on price with US-built planes.

In the early 1990s Sukhoi offered the government a fleet of its Flanker aircraft for less than the RAAF spent upgrading its existing fleets.

Politics and the ANZUS alliance with the US prevented serious consideration of the offers.

Both Sukhoi, with its Su-34 and 35 attack aircraft, and MiG, with its MiG-29 combat fighter, are in service with air forces around the world including India, China, North Korea, Burma, Malaysia and Indonesia.

www.news.com.au...

See what I mean? I've have never seen a deal being made in a single month.

How detailed of a review ordered by Mr. Fitzgibbon could be considering the time frame, how much time was spent on its review, and that does not even include contract negotiations!

Very strange.

I'm fairly certain that despite the wording of the new Labor governments statements when they were first elected, they are mainly investigating/reviewing the procedures that were used in making the decision by the previous Liberal government.

iskander,

The timing of this statement is anything but strange. This is nothing more than Boeing attempting a bit of damage control and positive spin. And the reason is simple, they are s@$t scared that the Rudd government really WILL pull out and damage the SH's reputation both at home and far more importantly almost on the cusp of the Indian AF's decision for 126+ new fighters. I should point out however that your first quoted source does indeed state that 24 aircraft are being purchased. And IIRC the contract was signed by former defence minister Nelson in early 2007. As for the new governments SH contract review under new defence minister Fitzgibbon, it has only just started and will be ongoing for some months at least. As I said this is just Boeing spin merchants trying to talk up the order and maybe even put a little pressure on Fitzgibbon to not cancel the order by in effect saying, "see were allready building them it's too late to back out now".

As for the review itself there are plenty of political reasons for the new government to seriously consider cancelling the order and conducting a fresh assesment of capabilities and threats. They appear to be about to do this with the billion dollar+ SH-2G Super Seasprite helicopter program for the Royal Australian Navy.

LEE.

This news has already been posted on the current Aus F-18 thread. 2 days ago
www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 8-2-2008 by Canada_EH]

Lee is right. The contract was one of the last thing's Nelson did as Defence Minister before he got the boot. And it isn't just the Super Bug deal being examined, it is all major defence acquisitions made by the Howard government, but of course the media focuses on the more controversial ones (Super Hornet, Sea Sprite etc).

If the contract is terminated, there will be a payout (which will probably be a substantial amount, but once you add up through life costs, it will probably be a huge saving). Hopefully we'll finally get the answer most of the public want - is there a capability gap, and if so, will Super Hornet plug it. And even beyoned that, will the F-35 also meet our needs.

Iskander, if the Aussies do pull out of the deal the parts (or even the completed aircraft if it gets that far before a decision is made) would probably just be redirected.

There is a similar precedent which ironically involves the F-111. In a book I have there is a photo of two completed F-111K's (aka Merlin GR.1) intended for the RAF which was taken around the time the UK govt cancelled our order, many more aircraft were at an earlier stage of construction. The two completed aircraft became test airframes and the parts for the rest went into USAF F-111E's I believe, or even the Aussie F-111's that are at the centre of this purchase.

Maybe history will just repeat itself, but I happen to think the RAAF will just get its Super Hornets anyway.

[edit on 9-2-2008 by waynos]

I believe the termination payment numbers being kicked around are in the order of $350M. Frankly though I think we should tell Boeing to go jump. They have screwed up the time table on the Wedgetail AEW&C program and apparently there are some issues arising out of the legacy Hornet centre barrel replacement program that are kicking up technical issues and costs. You would think that the worlds biggest aircraft manufacturer could be relied on to get it right or at least inform the customer when problems arise (which in the case of the Wedgetail they didn't until very late). Frankly I dont see any reason why we should incurr large additional costs much above what has allready been paid, when the SH's are being built identical to those for the USN. It's a simple matter of painting over the Kangaroo roundels and shipping them to a USN squadron.

Even if it is $350M this wont be a barrier politically when you consider that the Rudd Gov is apparently about to can the 1billion+ Seasprite contract, potentially the FFG upgrade (also 1billion+) and probably a host of other less well known but equally expensive and dubious decisions taken by the last administration.

As Willard said, out of this a clear understanding of what is actually needed will hopefully come, instead of distracting unjustified pork barreling to win elections. It may well turn out to be a SH afterall but a proper examination of all the facts is and always was needed to arrive at such a decision, and that was always the point and the problem. Interestingly the CDF is carefully distancing himself from the SH decision by basically saying (between the lines) it was taken by the previous Gov, and it was their concerns/idea, not the ADF's that saw the SH ordered. Who knows Willard, a few years from now you might be converting to a Rafale.

LEE.

The Wedgetail delays aren't all on Boeing though. It would be one thing if they just didn't get the planes built, or they were having problems getting them to fly right, but most of the delays are getting brand new software and new radar systems to work together. There was always a lot of risk with this program, as with the 787. Boeing has been setting aggressive schedules for their programs lately, and expecting everything to work out, and their subcontractors have been letting them down.

System integration of the level of complexity that we are talking for the AEW&C is challenging to say the least, and Australia isn't the only country to suffer. That said, when you put forward a contract with a delivery date, you do so with eyes wide open. And I think the timeline set was very optimistic for our aircraft. I'd rather they get it right though, so if it takes a little longer, so be it. I'm sure that the Government will look to recoup some costs though.

As for the Rafale, it isn't a bad aircraft, but it would be challenging to integrate our current weapons on it (which I'm sure we'd do as I doubt we'd go the MICA option). I think the options are:

1. Find there is no need for an interim fighter and cancel SH.
2. There is a potential gap due to JSF slippage, in which case I'd say we'll go Super Hornet (deal is in place, and it really isn't that bad!)
3. There is a gap, but the Government decides to accept the risk and wait for JSF (unlikely).

Keen observers will of course notice I didn't mention F-22. Unless the cost per platform gets closer to parity with the F-35, I doubt we'd go F-22 (even if it does become available, which with a Labour Government in power that is talking about reducing our commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, I greatly doubt). And until Boeing provide some hard details on their "6th" generation fighter, I'll consign it to the same fantasy land where the operational KS-172 and ramjet powered Adder live...

Amazing how threads with information that was already posted gets overlooked. Sorta pointless that I posted the information before hand now in the proper thread.

reply to post by Canada_EH


spot on Canada_EH.......
Full info and responses......

reply to post by Jezza


duplicate thread - theres allready an existing discussion about this very topic with the same information allready presented - 2 days before this one.

reply to post by Jezza


You want info or responses from me on the subject? Go to the correct thread and I'm more then happy to discuss it. Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt Jezza with everything that I've posted before hand. Its not my fault if the mods didn't catch it even though I brought it to everyones attention 3 posts in. Give me a break if people continued to post afterwards then they either didn't read the whole thread or they decided to continue posting on a forum that could get locked.

Anyways I could just be miss reading your post and If I am you have my apologies but this thread should be closed and the lack of a mod to do so or to check into the forums furthers my feeling of this thread being overlooked in the day to day operations of ATS. No ones fault here.

[edit on 11-2-2008 by Canada_EH]

reply to post by Canada_EH


nah i agree the other post is where the info is.



CLOSE THIS THREAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well this thread is about the first production model of the RAAF F/A-18F, which is a different topic to whether Australia is going to cancel the order or not. I agree that some of the posts have gone off topic slightly, and belong in the other thread, but the thread doesn't necessarily need to be closed. There is always going to be some duplication between threads whether we like it or not. I posted the original thread on the RAAF interim fighter, should I demand all other threads to do with the topic be closed? If we all try to stay on topic, and u2u someone if they are straying, then the threads will hopefully stay consistent and on track. Again, I think the thread topic is sufficiently different as to warrant a thread of its own, its just some of the posts that have gone off-topic. Certainly discussion around system integration I don't believe is off topic.

Canada_EH, I simply didn’t catch your post in the “AUS set to cancel Super Hornet order” thread.

My main point I this thread is that while Mr. Fitzgibbon very clearer requested a “detailed review of all options for replacing the RAAF's ageing fleet of F-111s and F/A-18 Hornets.”, the list which includes Russian jets, only a month later Northrop put out a press release that they are starting production order specifically for Royal Australian Air Force.

That’s what I find strange, especially considering the complete lack of response form the Australian side.

Just wanted to clarify the nature of my topic.