Hacker News Reader

Comment by justin66 | Hacker News Reader

It's quite interesting that Australia wants to let these go in favor of the F-35, rather than maintaining them in a reserve capacity. Letting the F-111 go in favor of the F/A-18 made a lot of sense because they were obsolescent and expensive to operate. In this case, I wonder if they might regret it if they ever face a period of increased military tensions.

View on HN

As early as 2012 the RAAF Hornet fleet flight activities (12-13000 hours per year) were estimated to exhaust the fleets' lifetime airframe limits (6000 hours) in 2020.[1] Keeping them in the air beyond this year was going to get more and more expensive and consume maintenance resources (and pilot training) that could otherwise be directed to the Super Hornets and F-35s.

Frankly I'm kind of glad someone took them off our hands before they became even more of a liability. We've got enough on our plate dealing with the F-35's corrosion issues (most of the fleet will be kept in moist salt air at Williamtown and be plugged into big dehumidifiers when not flying) and other things like its limited range.[2]

Which, now I put it that way, makes me wonder if maybe we should have kept a few Hornets.

[1] "43. The F/A-18A/B Hornet was designed for a safe life of 6000 airframe hours. At the current fleet flying rate of 13 000 hours per year, reducing to 12 000 from 2013–14, there is capacity on that basis for the Hornet fleet to continue flying until the end of 2020." https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/management-au...

[2]https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/projecting-power-with-the-...

That all makes sense, and I guess I agree on all points. Not knowing anything about the RAAF's resources (or the buyer's feelings on the deal), I would have leaned toward selling half and keeping half in a reserve capacity if it were at all feasible. If you need a reserve, you probably need it really badly, and it's not exactly unfathomable that the fancy-but-fragile F-35 might be grounded someday because of some automotive airbag recall-like "whoops" screwup by the manufacturer.

edit: it looks like you've still got two squadrons of Super Hornets until 2025, so you've got that going for you

The new generation of birds completely walk over last gen. For a nation with a limited military budget, staying on the cutting edge is all we can do.

Indeed, the all-in bet on the F-35 seems irresponsible, unless things have vastly improved somehow?

As an Australian, this is a concern.

We don't have enough pilots to fly them. And against the type of opponent that could overcome F-35s, Classics wouldn't stand a chance. And the cost of maintaining them, a dual stream training pipeline, armaments, etc, would significantly detract from other capabilities (like AEW&C, ISR, unmanned jets, training & readiness, etc).

F35s are undeniably costly, but criticisms on the capability front usually come from the uninformed lunatic fringe (like APA), who are really the equivalent of climate change deniers, and groups with an axe to grind (Boeing would prefer to make more Super Hornet sales).

Your comment and some of the others above brought something to mind: with the F-35 you'll miss some capabilities you had with the Hornet just because of its limited range, just like you lost some of the capabilities you had with the F-111 when you moved to the Hornet. Being able to fly an extra 50% (or whatever) further before firing a missile might have a tremendous amount of value if you have to do something like that, mid-air refueling tricks notwithstanding.

If it were me, I'd want half F-35s and half of the most advanced variant of the F-15 Strike Eagle I could afford, keeping in mind the F-15s would cost as much as the F-35. But you know, even keeping those two squadrons of Super Hornets they've got up to date would count for a lot.

A2A refuelling is still absolutely required for effective air combat, you can only fight for a short period before you are bingo. For strike you'd want a stand off weapon, but if absolute stealth was not required you can use conformal or off-board tanks.

If you used Strike Eagles you have the same problem as Supers -- they are 4.5G, not low observable, which gives warning of a strike. But I suspect the Supers will be in service for decades.

Extreme range strike is arguably complimentary to submarines, but there are no manned F-111-like platforms available to buy, and no one thinks that is a role UAS can do.

To be honest I wasn't thinking much about air-to-air combat. I guess New Guinea might get some ideas, but otherwise... anyway, the F-35 will probably perform admirably for that.

I think being able to hit ships at a distance is what the RAAF is most likely to want to do. I'd be intrigued to read a real analysis that indicates otherwise.

> Extreme range strike is arguably complimentary to submarines, but there are no manned F-111-like platforms available to buy, and no one thinks that is a role UAS can do.

I assume the Strike Eagle could achieve something not far off from the F-111 in terms of range with conformal fuel tanks. Although it looks like the Super Hornet has CFT available now, which can only be a good thing for the RAAF.

> If you used Strike Eagles you have the same problem as Supers -- they are 4.5G, not low observable, which gives warning of a strike.

The newer anti-ship missiles are meant to have a long enough range that that is less of a concern. I don't know so much about whatever version of the Harpoon missile the RAAF is flying. (or what they'd be up against, or their electronic warfare capability, which actually matters a lot...)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com