RAAF F/A-18 Hornet Targetting Systems Upgrade

[Thommo]

THE nation's F/A-18 Hornet fighter aircraft will be equipped with
upgraded target designation systems under a $100-million project
announced by the Government today.

Defence Minister Robert Hill said the state-of-the-art systems would
improve the detection, identification, precision targeting and damage
assessment phases of F/A-18 strike operations.

"This means the aircraft will be better equipped to detect and attack
targets by day or night, increasing their operational effectiveness
and reducing risk to aircraft and crew," Senator Hill said.

The project would equip the Hornets with a present generation
targeting and laser designation system, upgrading the Nite Hawk
Forward Looking Infra-red pod with new technology.

Defence will assess three systems: the Advanced Targeting Forward
Looking Infra-Red (ATFLIR) pod manufactured by Raytheon, the Pantera
pod manufactured by Lockheed Martin, and the Litening AT pod
manufactured by RAFAEL and Northrop Grumman.
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,10134684%255E1702,00.html

[Urban Fredriksson]

In article >,
Thommo > wrote:

> THE nation's F/A-18 Hornet fighter aircraft will be equipped with
>upgraded target designation systems under a $100-million project
>announced by the Government today.

That's only enough to equip a rather low proportion of
them, isn't it?
--
Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
1) What is happening will continue to happen
2) Consider the obvious seriously
3) Consider the consequences - Asimov's "Three Laws of Futurics", F&SF, Oct 74

[John Cook]

On 15 Jul 2004 07:17:44 +0200, (Urban Fredriksson)
wrote:

>In article >,
>Thommo > wrote:
>
>> THE nation's F/A-18 Hornet fighter aircraft will be equipped with
>>upgraded target designation systems under a $100-million project
>>announced by the Government today.
>
>That's only enough to equip a rather low proportion of
>them, isn't it?

Perhaps there upgrading the pilots with Raybans (sunglasses)!!!!,
Come on Australia buy 30 typhoons to tide you over till the JSF
arrives in 2017 (ish)... and stop mucking about with the old stuff.

OK I'm a little biased ;-)

Cheers

John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

[Brash]

You don't have to equip every single one. Just have enough sets to meet
requirements.

--
"The code of the warrior class has room for fallibility but there is no room
for a lack of integrity."


"Urban Fredriksson" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Thommo > wrote:
>
> > THE nation's F/A-18 Hornet fighter aircraft will be equipped with
> >upgraded target designation systems under a $100-million project
> >announced by the Government today.
>
> That's only enough to equip a rather low proportion of
> them, isn't it?
> --
> Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
> 1) What is happening will continue to happen
> 2) Consider the obvious seriously
> 3) Consider the consequences - Asimov's "Three Laws of Futurics", F&SF,
Oct 74

[Russell Waterson]

I still thing typhoons would be more versitle than JSF. JSF has very
limited warload and does not have the developmental potentual of the Typhoon

"John Cook" > wrote in message
...
> On 15 Jul 2004 07:17:44 +0200, (Urban Fredriksson)
> wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> >Thommo > wrote:
> >
> >> THE nation's F/A-18 Hornet fighter aircraft will be equipped with
> >>upgraded target designation systems under a $100-million project
> >>announced by the Government today.
> >
> >That's only enough to equip a rather low proportion of
> >them, isn't it?
>
> Perhaps there upgrading the pilots with Raybans (sunglasses)!!!!,
> Come on Australia buy 30 typhoons to tide you over till the JSF
> arrives in 2017 (ish)... and stop mucking about with the old stuff.
>
> OK I'm a little biased ;-)
>
> Cheers
>
> John Cook
>
> Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
> opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.
>
> Email Address :-
> Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
> Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

[Urban Fredriksson]

In article >,
Brash > wrote:

>You don't have to equip every single one. Just have enough sets to meet
>requirements.

Well, yes, you obviously don't need them for aircraft
which you don't have pilots for nor for those not flying
due to maintenance. But one of the motivations for getting
multi role aircraft is that you need a smaller total
number as on a given day you can use almost all in a
particular role.
--
Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
"Failure requires effort. That's why some people never fail." -Bengt Anderberg

[Pits]

Russell Waterson wrote:
> I still thing typhoons would be more versitle than JSF. JSF has very
> limited warload and does not have the developmental potentual of the Typhoon
>
> "John Cook" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On 15 Jul 2004 07:17:44 +0200, (Urban Fredriksson)
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >,
>>>Thommo > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>THE nation's F/A-18 Hornet fighter aircraft will be equipped with
>>>>upgraded target designation systems under a $100-million project
>>>>announced by the Government today.
>>>
>>>That's only enough to equip a rather low proportion of
>>>them, isn't it?
>>
>>Perhaps there upgrading the pilots with Raybans (sunglasses)!!!!,
>>Come on Australia buy 30 typhoons to tide you over till the JSF
>>arrives in 2017 (ish)... and stop mucking about with the old stuff.
>>
>>OK I'm a little biased ;-)
>>
>>Cheers
>>
>>John Cook

Have you not heard /
What is good for the USA is good for the world and if your not "with"
us your 'agin' us .

US = USA right

However they have an excellent dental plan :)
No blue cross ---- die before decay .

[Scott Hillard]

"Thommo" > wrote in message
...
> THE nation's F/A-18 Hornet fighter aircraft will be equipped with
> upgraded target designation systems under a $100-million project
> announced by the Government today.

Nothing like chucking good money after bad.


Your tax dollars at work.

[Scott Hillard]

"John Cook" > wrote in message
...

> Come on Australia buy 30 typhoons to tide you over till the JSF
> arrives in 2017 (ish)... and stop mucking about with the old stuff.



Typhoons are "old stuff". Almost as obsolete as their namesake.

At least as obsolete as the Ford XE Falcon, which is of the same vintage.

[Scott Hillard]

"Russell Waterson" > wrote in message
u...
> I still thing typhoons would be more versitle than JSF. JSF has very
> limited warload and does not have the developmental potentual of the
Typhoon


And the F-15, which we should have bought 20 years ago, beats both.

[Scott Hillard]

"Brash" > wrote in message
u...
> You don't have to equip every single one. Just have enough sets to meet
> requirements.


Enough for each one that we have a pilot for?

[John Cook]

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 17:00:50 +1000, "Scott Hillard"
> wrote:

>
>"John Cook" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Come on Australia buy 30 typhoons to tide you over till the JSF
>> arrives in 2017 (ish)... and stop mucking about with the old stuff.
>
>
>
>Typhoons are "old stuff". Almost as obsolete as their namesake.
>
>At least as obsolete as the Ford XE Falcon, which is of the same vintage.

Do you by any chance have a tin foil hat?

Cheers

John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

[matt weber]

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 17:01:22 +1000, "Scott Hillard"
> wrote:

>
>"Russell Waterson" > wrote in message
u...
>> I still thing typhoons would be more versitle than JSF. JSF has very
>> limited warload and does not have the developmental potentual of the
>Typhoon
>
>
>And the F-15, which we should have bought 20 years ago, beats both.

Probably not. A recent exercise against current East Block fighters
revealed two very disturbing issues. The F15 has an absolutely
enormous Radar Cross Section, several times an F18 or F16 RCS in fact,
it fact several times an F14, F16 or F18 RCS. The PW F100 also turns
out to have an equally ovesized IR signature. The GE F110 has a much
smaller IR signature. Translation is that a Mig 29, so SU-27 can see
the F15 long before the F15 sees either...

Both issues create serious questions about survivability against any
enemy with a competent defense Air system.
>
>
>

[Russell Waterson]

"matt weber" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 17:01:22 +1000, "Scott Hillard"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Russell Waterson" > wrote in message
> u...
> >> I still thing typhoons would be more versitle than JSF. JSF has very
> >> limited warload and does not have the developmental potentual of the
> >Typhoon
> >
> >
> >And the F-15, which we should have bought 20 years ago, beats both.
>
> Probably not. A recent exercise against current East Block fighters
> revealed two very disturbing issues. The F15 has an absolutely
> enormous Radar Cross Section, several times an F18 or F16 RCS in fact,
> it fact several times an F14, F16 or F18 RCS. The PW F100 also turns
> out to have an equally ovesized IR signature. The GE F110 has a much
> smaller IR signature. Translation is that a Mig 29, so SU-27 can see
> the F15 long before the F15 sees either...

ouch. by,by that option.

>
> Both issues create serious questions about survivability against any
> enemy with a competent defense Air system.
> >
> >
> >
>

[Scott Hillard]

"matt weber" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 17:01:22 +1000, "Scott Hillard"
> > wrote:

> >And the F-15, which we should have bought 20 years ago, beats both.

> Probably not. A recent exercise against current East Block fighters
> revealed two very disturbing issues.

Ah, a military exercise.

All sorts of things happen in "exercises" - clanky leaky subs sink yank
carriers, hopolites with slignshots take out M1 tanks.....

Worked out how many F-15s were in the skies on 09/11 yet, Matt?

> The F15 has an absolutely
> enormous Radar Cross Section, several times an F18 or F16 RCS in fact,

Which is pretty much irrelevant in the modern world - all that matters is
stealth (F117, B2, F22, JSF), or no stealth.

> it fact several times an F14, F16 or F18 RCS. The PW F100 also turns
> out to have an equally ovesized IR signature.

Which didn't appear to be much of a disadvantage for the Israelis when
killing Syrians, the Saudis when killing Iraqis, the yanks when killing
Iraqis.....

> The GE F110 has a much
> smaller IR signature. Translation is that a Mig 29, so SU-27 can see
> the F15 long before the F15 sees either...

Which might just happen if a pair of F-15s, with no supporting assets, went
up against a pair of SU-27s with no supporting assets.

And where might this happen, other than on a PC in some beard's bedroom?

[Scott Hillard]

"John Cook" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 17:00:50 +1000, "Scott Hillard"
> > wrote:

> >Typhoons are "old stuff". Almost as obsolete as their namesake.

> >At least as obsolete as the Ford XE Falcon, which is of the same vintage.

> Do you by any chance have a tin foil hat?

No, tinfoil won't block the mind-control beams. That's just what the
guv'mint WANTS you to think.

I'd be careful when getting newspaper ink on your fingers, too. It has
haloucinegens that are designed to stop you from seeing the fnords.


BTW: The Typhoon is still eruotrash.

[matt weber]

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 21:34:51 +1000, "Scott Hillard"
> wrote:

>
>"matt weber" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 17:01:22 +1000, "Scott Hillard"
>> > wrote:
>
>> >And the F-15, which we should have bought 20 years ago, beats both.
>
>> Probably not. A recent exercise against current East Block fighters
>> revealed two very disturbing issues.
>
>Ah, a military exercise.
>
>All sorts of things happen in "exercises" - clanky leaky subs sink yank
>carriers, hopolites with slignshots take out M1 tanks.....
>
>Worked out how many F-15s were in the skies on 09/11 yet, Matt?
>
>> The F15 has an absolutely
>> enormous Radar Cross Section, several times an F18 or F16 RCS in fact,
>
>Which is pretty much irrelevant in the modern world - all that matters is
>stealth (F117, B2, F22, JSF), or no stealth.
I disagree. The F16 radar can see another F16 with about a 75%
probability at 30nm. It can see an F15 with near 100% probability at
50 nm. The less time the other guy has to react, the better your
chances of long term survival. If you give the other guy days to
respond, as the Serbs demonstrated, even a Stealth Aircraft can be
brought down
100 also turns
>> out to have an equally ovesized IR signature.
>
>Which didn't appear to be much of a disadvantage for the Israelis when
>killing Syrians, the Saudis when killing Iraqis, the yanks when killing
>Iraqis.....
I believe it was F4's that took out the Syrians over the Beka Valley,
but only AFTER the Israeli's had used UAV's to locate, and then
disable/destroy all of the Ground based Air Defense assets.

[Guy Alcala]

matt weber wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 21:34:51 +1000, "Scott Hillard"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"matt weber" > wrote in message

<snip>

>
> >> The F15 has an absolutely
> >> enormous Radar Cross Section, several times an F18 or F16 RCS in fact,
> >
> >Which is pretty much irrelevant in the modern world - all that matters is
> >stealth (F117, B2, F22, JSF), or no stealth.
> I disagree. The F16 radar can see another F16 with about a 75%
> probability at 30nm. It can see an F15 with near 100% probability at
> 50 nm. The less time the other guy has to react, the better your
> chances of long term survival. If you give the other guy days to
> respond, as the Serbs demonstrated, even a Stealth Aircraft can be
> brought down
> 100 also turns
> >> out to have an equally ovesized IR signature.
> >
> >Which didn't appear to be much of a disadvantage for the Israelis when
> >killing Syrians, the Saudis when killing Iraqis, the yanks when killing
> >Iraqis.....
> I believe it was F4's that took out the Syrians over the Beka Valley,
> but only AFTER the Israeli's had used UAV's to locate, and then
> disable/destroy all of the Ground based Air Defense assets.

F-4s primarily took out the SAM sites, but it was F-15s and F-16s (and 1 F-4,
scoring the very last A-A kill by an IAF F-4) which shot down the Syrian Air
Force over Lebanon.

Guy

[Ian]

> Which didn't appear to be much of a disadvantage for the Israelis when
> killing Syrians, the Saudis when killing Iraqis, the yanks when killing
> Iraqis.....

Genuine Q?

Did the Saudis ever actually shoot any Iraqi a/c down? Stories I've heard
are that they were "unsure" of how to actually use their weapon systems, and
had to be coached mid-combat by the USAF and RAF who were around them at the
time?

Was some political pressure for the RSAF to contribute to GWI, so despite
the fact that another a/c (RAF F3??) had the shot, the commander denied it?

May just be aircrew fokelore (oh and it wasn't an RAF pilot that told me
this - was while I was working with USN a few years ago)

[Ron]

>Did the Saudis ever actually shoot any Iraqi a/c down?
Yes

>Stories I've heard
>are that they were "unsure" of how to actually use their weapon systems, and
>had to be coached mid-combat by the USAF and RAF who were around them at the
>time?

Probably
>
>Was some political pressure for the RSAF to contribute to GWI, so despite
>the fact that another a/c (RAF F3??) had the shot, the commander denied it?
>

yes, the RSAF plane was pretty much handed those kills, instead of a USAF or
RAF plane getting it.


Ron
PA-31T Cheyenne II
Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
Pune, India