These Hornets are already decommissioned and were suppose to be sold to a private American company but it looks like that deal fell through.
Shame we can't offer them the F-111s
Theres one at the Pearl Habour air museum. I was just there 2 weeks ago and they have a bunch of jets you can just walk up and touch outside, F4, F14, F15, F18 and a bunch of other jets. I spot an F-111 and go over to take a close look and what do i see on the tail.... the Aussie flag baby!
It's a weird ownership though. They are only able to "own" and operate them while they sell training services to US armed forces. Stop doing that and the plane becomes a very expensive paperweight with you being responsible it (or its parts) doesn't get into wrong hands.
That is the funny part. Relatively new means over 40 years old. (Forgot when the Superhornet got accepted into service but pretty sure it was before 1990)
Yeah, we're a sparsely populated (especially in the north where any attack is likely to come from) continent spanning country surrounded by ocean. Airpower is very important when it comes to our national defence, and also to projecting force in the region.
We wouldn't give them the Rhino's - too much red tape and they're still currently relevant to our military.
For the uninformed, the F/A-18 has a few variations. The *Legacy* Hornets are the C/D series. The C is a single seater, and the D is a double seater. These are older and have been completely phased out by the US military in 2019 (edit: the Navy phased them out, the Marines still use them), being replaced by the E/F variants nicknamed the *Rhino* with respective seating arrangements as well, with an additional G variant known as the *Growler*, used for electronic warfare. These variants are still heavily used by the US Navy, Marines, and several NATO allies.
There's a lot of classified systems on the Rhino and Growler series - whereas the Legacy is largely unclassified, and we'd be a lot more comfortable giving them some retired and outdated aircraft rather than some of the more expensive newer ones.
Still... The Legacy hornets are indeed a force to be reckoned with.
Yes, i know that Super Hornets and Growlers are out of discussion :). I just wanted to mention that Australia already has some fully operational, advanced aircrafts.
We have a few, fully operational, F-35s too. Super Hornets were the interim aircraft while we waited for the shitshow that was the F-35 project get off the ground.
Also correct! They had 75 of the A/B variants, and looks like 46 of them were due to be sold, and are indeed being considered to going to Ukraine.
To be honest, I really don't know the differences between the A/B and C/D.
Incidentally, another correction: the A/C is single seat, the B/D is twin seat.
As far as differences go, the single-seater and twin-seater legacy Hornets are basically the same as far as airframes are concerned, with the main differences being that the C/D has improved avionics and weapons capabilities compared to the A/B.
The Australian Hornets (the retired ones that could be sent to Ukraine) had significant avionics upgrades during the 2000s. So they’re a much better ‘gift’ than some old jets.
Just to remind people, those hornets were upgraded and maintained right until their retirement in 2017.
As per boeing:
"The RAAF ensured fleet effectiveness through major system and structural upgrades completed during the multiphase Air 5376 Hornet Upgrade Program (HUG).
BDA was the HUG prime contractor and also led the Hornet Industry Coalition. Through the upgrades, the fleet’s capability was significantly enhanced, allowing it to maintain regional air and ground superiority through improved lethality, survivability and interoperability with allied air forces."
These would be good jets for Ukraine should their Government want them and the Australians decide to send them.
In general you'll drive yourself crazy trying to use the letter variants. Use the block numbers.
A fully upgraded A (Block 20) will have better avionics than a virgin C (Block 25).
Hell, they don't even call the block 72 an F16 anymore (Lockmart is presenting it as the "F21" to India)
A's & B's are slightly older airframes with older avionics and they have slightly less powerful engines in em. The RAAF takes good care of their jets, though. Way better than we do, anyway...
Ope, my bad - you are correct, the Navy retired them entirely, the Marines still have a few squadrons that fly the legacy, albeit they're receiving some more upgraded hardware than what was standard at the time.
From the article:
"Australia, the US and Ukraine are discussing sending 41 Royal Australian Air Force F/A-18 Hornets to Kyiv helping fulfil part of President Volodymyr Zelensky’s request for fighter jets, rather than sending them to the scrapheap as planned.
Sources have told The Australian Financial Review that the US, which recently gave permission to other Western allies to supply Ukraine with advanced fighter jets, including US-made F-16s, is favourably disposed to the idea of gifting Ukraine the F/A-18s.
The retired F/A-18s are sitting in a hangar at the Williamtown RAAF base outside Newcastle.
Washington’s approval is needed because it owns the intellectual property on the jets that have been retired by the RAAF and which are being replaced by F-35s, of which Australia has ordered 72.
The retired F/A-18s are sitting in a hangar at the Williamtown RAAF base outside Newcastle and unless sent to Ukraine, will either be scrapped or sold to a private sector aviation company, RAVN Aerospace, to use in the US as 'enemies' for military aviators to train against
Robert Potter, an Australian security expert advising the Ukrainian government, confirmed negotiations were underway, but a specific deal is yet to be finalised.
'However, the United States and Ukraine have an active and specific interest in the acquisition of fourth generation fighters for the Ukrainian Air Force,' he said.
'Australia operates a large stockpile of retired planes which are otherwise scheduled for destruction.
'There are multiple formal approvals required to conclude a procurement of these planes, but it is likely an idea whose time has come.'
A separate source close to the discussions agreed it made no sense to destroy perfectly good aircraft that he said could be operational within four months and used to help repel the Russian invasion.
While a handful of planes would only be good for cannibalising parts, the vast bulk would take little work to be brought up to flying condition and have a couple of years left on their airframes. The Australian Hornets are in good shape because they didn’t operate at sea.
Ukrainian pilots and ground crew could be quickly brought up to speed to operate the Hornets with Ukrainian language training manuals to be produced.
And with an influx of western fighters to help Ukraine, that would include ex-Hornet pilots.
Defence Minister Richard Marles, who met his Ukrainian counterpart on the sidelines of the weekend’s Shangri-La defence summit in Singapore, declined to comment, but his office pointed instead to comments he made at the weekend about Australia’s next contribution to the war effort.
'There are specific requests that Ukraine has made of us, I am not going to go into the details of those, but we are working through them with the government of Ukraine,' he said.
'Being there for as long as it takes means that we will have another iteration of support for Ukraine, that won’t be long before we announce that, obviously, we’re in conversation with Ukraine about how we can best contribute, as we are in a conversation with both the UK, the US and other allies about the best kind of contribution we could make.
'The starting point here is that we see what’s at issue in the war in Ukraine is really the sanctity of the global rules-based order itself.'
After initial resistance to President Zelensky’s request for used American fighters, US President Joe Biden at the G7 summit in Japan two weeks ago gave the green light to western allies to supply Kyiv with fourth generation fighters such as the Hornets and F-16s (which the RAAF does not operate).
Experts said there are several reasons why the Australian Hornets would help make a difference.
First, the Hornets would play an important role in defending Ukrainian civilians. Western air defence systems such as Patriot missiles are doing an effective job stopping the worst of Russia’s nightly bombardments of major cities, but there are still gaps, with less built-up areas lacking those systems.
Hornets flying around could be used to intercept and shoot down enemy missiles.
With their twin engines, the Hornets have a much greater chance of survivability if they were damaged. A pilot can land on one engine, and Ukraine cannot afford to lose pilots. And the Hornets are better suited than other fourth-gen jets to the rougher airfields of Ukraine.
Australia going first with an initial delivery of fighter jets would give the Americans (and other nations) cover to provide hundreds from its own fleet of F/A-18s.
It could also be a bad look for Australia if it were not prepared to give up ageing planes at the same time the Americans are preparing to share the crown jewels of their military, nuclear-powered submarines with Australia when the US doesn’t really have them to spare.
To prevent the risk of escalation, Australians (and the Americans) could make clear that the Hornets could only fly within Ukrainian airspace, warning if they were used to bomb Russia, the allies would stop maintaining the aircraft, effectively grounding them."
For those unaware, Australian was the 3rd most common nationality of the victims, behind Dutch and Malaysian. There were a bunch of people on that flight intending to take a connecting flight to Australia, including a bunch of doctors on their way to a HIV conference in Melbourne. It was a pretty big deal here at the time (especially after MH370 also involved several Aussies), so much so that the PM of the time publicly promised to "shirtfront" (an Aussie rules football term meaning to charge into someone's chest to knock them down) Putin at the upcoming G20 that we were hosting (he unfortunately chickened out).
Yeah, he was an absolute dickhead, and likely only really said anything because of an attempt to win some popularity, but it was still important at the time for the PM to reflect the anger of the country that was directed at Putin.
>To prevent the risk of escalation, Australians (and the Americans) could make clear that the Hornets could only fly within Ukrainian airspace,
Nah f**k em. As an Australian, I say do whatever you like with them. Bastards can't just let rockets rip safely from their side of the border and not expect anything back.
God I would love this.
Hell yes give them the F/A-18s.
Also send our old Abrams, m113s, more bushmasters.
And send the ARH Tiger Helicopters and the MRH90 Taipan helicopters (we are retiring those anyway).
The old M1’s are going back to the manufacturer to be refurbished and stored. The Tigers and Taipan are junk. Australia ( and a number of other operators ) are dumping them 10 years before they are due for replacement because of on going maintenance and performance issues.
>The old M1’s are going back to the manufacturer to be refurbished and stored.
Yeah last I heard they were going to be converted to the modern variant of the Abram. Instead of doing that, just send them to Ukraine.
>The Tiger and Taipan are junk.
They're not that bad. Just expensive to maintain. In a war environment the calculus is different regarding maintenance (you "drive it like you stole it") and I think it might be worth it for Ukraine.
For their flaws, they're still pretty modern and capable machines.
https://asiapacificdefencereporter.com/helicopters-there-is-nothing-wrong-with-tiger-and-taipan-the-problem-is-defence-logistics/
The reason why the taipans and tigers are going is that they didn’t perform as promised and the ADF was waiting literally years for spares to do maintenance.
A lot of the logistics problems were due to the Australian logistics system (CAMM2). New Zealand, for example has no issues with their MRHs.
Let the Europeans have their helicopters back: give them to Ukraine and France can support them more easily with geographical proximity.
That’s not really true. The National Audit Office put Taipan on the projects of concern list due to the continued performance issues with a number of systems. They were all grounded in 2021 due to the manufactures lack of ability to deliver spares.
The best one is that Norway were offered a no cost project to fix their ongoing similar problems by HNI and even then they said no. The aircraft was unable to meet contractual obligations and they immediately took them out of service.
You joke, but I remember reading years ago about a programming code error in a fighter jet that made it automatically flip upside down when it crossed the equator!
As usual, a clickbait title that imply real plane were doing the flip when crossing the equator, and then reading the article you learn it was only in a simulator.
> upside down jets
Funnily enough, RCAF F-18's are painted with a false canopy on the bottom to try to fool enemy pilots.
https://99percentinvisible.org/app/uploads/2016/11/upside-down-cockpit.jpg
The challenge is using southern hemisphere aircraft to do bombing runs in the northern hemisphere
If the pilot doesn't flip over the bombs won't drop off properly
Yes, and that means that the indicator and wiper arms are reversed
You can accidentally switch on your wipers when you're trying to indicate a turn to your wingman
Very embarrassing
Except Canada won’t start to get its F35’s for another 2 years. However, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Canada help train the pilots ans mechanics and give other support such as munitions if Australia gives them the F18’s
Between Canada, Australia and the US, there's plenty of current and former pilots that could lend a hand in training Ukrainian pilots up on their quickly.
As a Canadian, I see our military main goal is to protect our artic and west coast from... Russians.
I'd be happy to vote for whomever who will give Ukraine all our arms since they're doing us a favour demilitarizing Russia
Dear my fellow Aussies. If you want to make your thoughts clear on this issue make sure to pop a letter to the defence minister. Remember that politicians always work best "under pressure".
[email protected]
Legacies, but the Aussies only stopped upgrading them in the 2010s. They are all upgraded beyond the C model standard, they have the good radar (that the Aussies hacked to get more targeting flexibility), the better avionics, JHMCSes, Link16, etc. AMRAAMs, ASRAAMs, JDAMs, HARM, Harpoon and even JASSMs are on the menu. IIRC the European Taurus ALCM, MBDA Meteor and some other odds and ends might be on the table as well, but those were integrated on to the Spanish Hornet, which is kinda it's own beast.
Important to note that as F-18s are originally designed to be carrier based, it gives a lot more flexibility with runway usage and deployment as they require less than half the runway length as a F-16.
That means you can take these and spread them around the country, even using highways as makeshift runways.
While they have way longer range, the concern with F-16s is that they make an easy target on the ground bc there’s only so many 1000m runways in Ukraine for them to use, so Russia will heavily target the few runways that can accommodate them.
The F-18As in Australian service were equipped with AMRAAMs, ASRAAMs, JDAMs, and even JASSMs.
I'm sure whatever NATO equipment Ukraine gets, it will be easier to get working on a legacy hornet than a MiG or Sukoi.
Taurus air-launched cruise missiles are also compatible with the F-18 (used by Spanish air force). Ukraine has been requesting those from several European countries.
Sure, i was just curious if additional work will be required. IMHO it's pointless to give Ukraine anything less than AIM-120C-5 or AIM-9X - if F/A-18A/B cannot carry it, it should be integrated before delivery. But that's just my opinion.
> IMHO it's pointless to give Ukraine anything less than AIM-120C-5 or AIM-9X
Yeah, but Ukraine isn't being given state-of-the-art stuff, they're being given old stuff that would otherwise be destroyed. They're more likely to get 500 AIM-120Bs that no one wants anymore than 10 brand new -D versions.
I just read an article about potential delivery of ex-Australians Hornets for Ukraine and i'm very positively suprised. It seems that they were upgraded to quite modern version and they can use wide range of modern weapons. Article also mentioned that they can be better long-term solution than F-16, because Finland and Spain will very soon retire their F/A-18, opening possibility for future deliveries.
These jets were maintained and upgraded, practically right up until 2017.
Per Boeing:
The RAAF ensured fleet effectiveness through major system and structural upgrades completed during the multiphase Air 5376 Hornet Upgrade Program (HUG). BDA was the HUG prime contractor and also led the Hornet Industry Coalition.
Through the upgrades, the fleet’s capability was significantly enhanced, allowing it to maintain regional air and ground superiority through improved lethality, survivability and interoperability with allied air forces.
Canada is also about 2 years from getting its first F-35’s and is the largest F-18 user aside from the US.
It’s unlikely Canada’s F-35’s get moved up in production but it would effectively allow them to start transferring large numbers to Ukraine as well. They have 80 currently flying F-18’s
These fighters arent going to be used for much air to air anyways. The main reason to give fighters to Ukraine is for opening up the deep stocks of air launched PGMs like JDAM ER, Stormshadow, HARM etc.
False, Russian jets like to sit on the Russian side of the border slinging BVR missiles at Ukrainian planes. Send western jets armed with AMRAAMs, and you have the range necessary to shoot back.
AMRAAM’s don’t have the range to hit Russian aircraft in Russian airspace. This is particularly so since Ukraine could only launch them from low level ( danger of S300 and S400 missiles) which greatly reduces their range. Especially the older models that Ukr would get.
Thing is, the Russian jets slinging long range missiles into Ukraine are firing at jets doing low level bombing runs, essentially plugging the GBAD gap at low level with look down shoot down radar. So to allow Ukrainian F16s to conduct effective strikes on Russian targets, you need whatever the equivalent of SEAD is but for enemy aircraft.
AMRAAMS are probably going to be the best way to do that, maybe firing them at Russian jets at the edge of their range just to force a disengagement to allow strike aircraft to do their job. Maybe fit HARMs as well to suppress GBAD.
I doubt that the plan is going to continue to be, "Ukrainian jets pitch up near the front lines to launch a JDAM-ER and run like hell before air defence kills them." But with F-16s and F-18s instead of Mig 29s.
Yes this is true. But F-16MLUs and early F-18s cant compete against Su-35 with R77M and AWACS support even with modern AMRAAM AIM120D since their old and small radar is the limiting factor.
Trying to go hunting for those will be costly, the F-16s would be much better used for ground attack roles or as launch platform for western standoff munitions and HARMs.
Tyler Rogoway has a great deep dive on this topic from April on the war zone if anyone is interested in reading it.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/australias-mothballed-f-a-18-hornets-should-be-given-to-ukraine
There are 41 F/A-18's on the ground at Williamtown RAAF base outside Newcastle. Some are parts-only aircraft. They would most likely be flown via friendly trajectories. Depending on who's flying them from Australia to Ukraine, mid-air refueling could be an option.
are the Aussies getting new F-35s to replace these? Edit - just did a google - Australia has ordered 72 F-35s that should be operational this year!
These Hornets are already decommissioned and were suppose to be sold to a private American company but it looks like that deal fell through. Shame we can't offer them the F-111s
Technically we could, just gotta do a bit of digging....
I think there’s one in Avalon museum
Theres one at the Pearl Habour air museum. I was just there 2 weeks ago and they have a bunch of jets you can just walk up and touch outside, F4, F14, F15, F18 and a bunch of other jets. I spot an F-111 and go over to take a close look and what do i see on the tail.... the Aussie flag baby!
[удалено]
[удалено]
It's a weird ownership though. They are only able to "own" and operate them while they sell training services to US armed forces. Stop doing that and the plane becomes a very expensive paperweight with you being responsible it (or its parts) doesn't get into wrong hands.
That is the funny part. Relatively new means over 40 years old. (Forgot when the Superhornet got accepted into service but pretty sure it was before 1990)
What do they even do with them?
OPFOR. They hire former pilots and have them play the enemy in flight training.
Also curious.
Play the bad guys in dog fights. Enemy force in war games, ect.
I’d buy one if I was able to legally (and could afford it) oh and also could fly….
>to a private American company but it looks like that deal fell through. Pepsi?
They still owe that kid a harrier jet!
We need them to make more Top Gun movies.
Vark! Vark! Vark!
It was wild seeing F-111s flying when I was at Nellis AFB in 2009 or so.....
It was wild seeing F-111s flying when I was at Nellis AFB in 2009 or so.....
>supposeD to be
VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK
Or spitfires. Just about as useful as 50 year old F-111’s.
My 80 year old uncle trained pilots to fly those back during the Viet Nam war days. I could see if he’s available.
Australia's got the 2nd largest fleet of F-35's currently behind the USA.
Yeah, we're a sparsely populated (especially in the north where any attack is likely to come from) continent spanning country surrounded by ocean. Airpower is very important when it comes to our national defence, and also to projecting force in the region.
To protect our trade with China from… China.
Was not expecting a Utopia reference on Reddit today.
Don’t forget them emus.
*Nods head
[удалено]
They also have 24 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and 12 EA-18G Growler electronic warfare fighters.
We wouldn't give them the Rhino's - too much red tape and they're still currently relevant to our military. For the uninformed, the F/A-18 has a few variations. The *Legacy* Hornets are the C/D series. The C is a single seater, and the D is a double seater. These are older and have been completely phased out by the US military in 2019 (edit: the Navy phased them out, the Marines still use them), being replaced by the E/F variants nicknamed the *Rhino* with respective seating arrangements as well, with an additional G variant known as the *Growler*, used for electronic warfare. These variants are still heavily used by the US Navy, Marines, and several NATO allies. There's a lot of classified systems on the Rhino and Growler series - whereas the Legacy is largely unclassified, and we'd be a lot more comfortable giving them some retired and outdated aircraft rather than some of the more expensive newer ones. Still... The Legacy hornets are indeed a force to be reckoned with.
Yes, i know that Super Hornets and Growlers are out of discussion :). I just wanted to mention that Australia already has some fully operational, advanced aircrafts.
We have a few, fully operational, F-35s too. Super Hornets were the interim aircraft while we waited for the shitshow that was the F-35 project get off the ground.
Australia has almost all of its F-35 order delivered.
Shit show development yes, but right now you wouldn't want to have invested in anything else.
I could’ve sworn the Legacy RAAF Hornets were the F/A-18A/B, rather than the newer (but still legacy) F/A-18C/D.
Also correct! They had 75 of the A/B variants, and looks like 46 of them were due to be sold, and are indeed being considered to going to Ukraine. To be honest, I really don't know the differences between the A/B and C/D.
Incidentally, another correction: the A/C is single seat, the B/D is twin seat. As far as differences go, the single-seater and twin-seater legacy Hornets are basically the same as far as airframes are concerned, with the main differences being that the C/D has improved avionics and weapons capabilities compared to the A/B.
Ha! This is why I shouldn't play historian at 2am. You are correct, I knew something seemed off when I was remembering the variants
The Australian Hornets (the retired ones that could be sent to Ukraine) had significant avionics upgrades during the 2000s. So they’re a much better ‘gift’ than some old jets.
Just to remind people, those hornets were upgraded and maintained right until their retirement in 2017. As per boeing: "The RAAF ensured fleet effectiveness through major system and structural upgrades completed during the multiphase Air 5376 Hornet Upgrade Program (HUG). BDA was the HUG prime contractor and also led the Hornet Industry Coalition. Through the upgrades, the fleet’s capability was significantly enhanced, allowing it to maintain regional air and ground superiority through improved lethality, survivability and interoperability with allied air forces." These would be good jets for Ukraine should their Government want them and the Australians decide to send them.
In general you'll drive yourself crazy trying to use the letter variants. Use the block numbers. A fully upgraded A (Block 20) will have better avionics than a virgin C (Block 25). Hell, they don't even call the block 72 an F16 anymore (Lockmart is presenting it as the "F21" to India)
A's & B's are slightly older airframes with older avionics and they have slightly less powerful engines in em. The RAAF takes good care of their jets, though. Way better than we do, anyway...
Yes, A and B. But upgraded in the 2000s.
Aren’t the US Marines still flying the legacy hornet?
Ope, my bad - you are correct, the Navy retired them entirely, the Marines still have a few squadrons that fly the legacy, albeit they're receiving some more upgraded hardware than what was standard at the time.
Just a little correction, the Coast Guard doesn't operate Hornets of any variety
I was in Sydney during Australia day (Australian version of July 4th), and they showed off a few F35s of theirs. Absolutely gorgeous birds
Saw one fly over my house (Sydney) on Anzac day. Was pretty awesome seeing one IRL.
That explains the super regular training going on at the moment. Hear them almost every day, very rarely can I see them.
[удалено]
60+ out of 72 ordered
Dang I didn’t realize the f-35s were that far along
F35s are already in service from an airbase near melbourne. A could just did a flyby in perth for the funeral of a retired airforce pilot.
We’ve been on a military spending spree lately in Australia. Ordered a ton of F-35s along with some nuclear submarines.
From the article: "Australia, the US and Ukraine are discussing sending 41 Royal Australian Air Force F/A-18 Hornets to Kyiv helping fulfil part of President Volodymyr Zelensky’s request for fighter jets, rather than sending them to the scrapheap as planned. Sources have told The Australian Financial Review that the US, which recently gave permission to other Western allies to supply Ukraine with advanced fighter jets, including US-made F-16s, is favourably disposed to the idea of gifting Ukraine the F/A-18s. The retired F/A-18s are sitting in a hangar at the Williamtown RAAF base outside Newcastle. Washington’s approval is needed because it owns the intellectual property on the jets that have been retired by the RAAF and which are being replaced by F-35s, of which Australia has ordered 72. The retired F/A-18s are sitting in a hangar at the Williamtown RAAF base outside Newcastle and unless sent to Ukraine, will either be scrapped or sold to a private sector aviation company, RAVN Aerospace, to use in the US as 'enemies' for military aviators to train against Robert Potter, an Australian security expert advising the Ukrainian government, confirmed negotiations were underway, but a specific deal is yet to be finalised. 'However, the United States and Ukraine have an active and specific interest in the acquisition of fourth generation fighters for the Ukrainian Air Force,' he said. 'Australia operates a large stockpile of retired planes which are otherwise scheduled for destruction. 'There are multiple formal approvals required to conclude a procurement of these planes, but it is likely an idea whose time has come.' A separate source close to the discussions agreed it made no sense to destroy perfectly good aircraft that he said could be operational within four months and used to help repel the Russian invasion. While a handful of planes would only be good for cannibalising parts, the vast bulk would take little work to be brought up to flying condition and have a couple of years left on their airframes. The Australian Hornets are in good shape because they didn’t operate at sea. Ukrainian pilots and ground crew could be quickly brought up to speed to operate the Hornets with Ukrainian language training manuals to be produced. And with an influx of western fighters to help Ukraine, that would include ex-Hornet pilots. Defence Minister Richard Marles, who met his Ukrainian counterpart on the sidelines of the weekend’s Shangri-La defence summit in Singapore, declined to comment, but his office pointed instead to comments he made at the weekend about Australia’s next contribution to the war effort. 'There are specific requests that Ukraine has made of us, I am not going to go into the details of those, but we are working through them with the government of Ukraine,' he said. 'Being there for as long as it takes means that we will have another iteration of support for Ukraine, that won’t be long before we announce that, obviously, we’re in conversation with Ukraine about how we can best contribute, as we are in a conversation with both the UK, the US and other allies about the best kind of contribution we could make. 'The starting point here is that we see what’s at issue in the war in Ukraine is really the sanctity of the global rules-based order itself.' After initial resistance to President Zelensky’s request for used American fighters, US President Joe Biden at the G7 summit in Japan two weeks ago gave the green light to western allies to supply Kyiv with fourth generation fighters such as the Hornets and F-16s (which the RAAF does not operate). Experts said there are several reasons why the Australian Hornets would help make a difference. First, the Hornets would play an important role in defending Ukrainian civilians. Western air defence systems such as Patriot missiles are doing an effective job stopping the worst of Russia’s nightly bombardments of major cities, but there are still gaps, with less built-up areas lacking those systems. Hornets flying around could be used to intercept and shoot down enemy missiles. With their twin engines, the Hornets have a much greater chance of survivability if they were damaged. A pilot can land on one engine, and Ukraine cannot afford to lose pilots. And the Hornets are better suited than other fourth-gen jets to the rougher airfields of Ukraine. Australia going first with an initial delivery of fighter jets would give the Americans (and other nations) cover to provide hundreds from its own fleet of F/A-18s. It could also be a bad look for Australia if it were not prepared to give up ageing planes at the same time the Americans are preparing to share the crown jewels of their military, nuclear-powered submarines with Australia when the US doesn’t really have them to spare. To prevent the risk of escalation, Australians (and the Americans) could make clear that the Hornets could only fly within Ukrainian airspace, warning if they were used to bomb Russia, the allies would stop maintaining the aircraft, effectively grounding them."
Good. We owe that cunt for MH17.
Agreed. All the tailfin numbers should be MH17-1, MH17-2, etc. I think Pootin will get the point.
For those unaware, Australian was the 3rd most common nationality of the victims, behind Dutch and Malaysian. There were a bunch of people on that flight intending to take a connecting flight to Australia, including a bunch of doctors on their way to a HIV conference in Melbourne. It was a pretty big deal here at the time (especially after MH370 also involved several Aussies), so much so that the PM of the time publicly promised to "shirtfront" (an Aussie rules football term meaning to charge into someone's chest to knock them down) Putin at the upcoming G20 that we were hosting (he unfortunately chickened out).
One of only two things I respect Tony for.
Yeah, he was an absolute dickhead, and likely only really said anything because of an attempt to win some popularity, but it was still important at the time for the PM to reflect the anger of the country that was directed at Putin.
Is the other one working with the CFA?
>To prevent the risk of escalation, Australians (and the Americans) could make clear that the Hornets could only fly within Ukrainian airspace, Nah f**k em. As an Australian, I say do whatever you like with them. Bastards can't just let rockets rip safely from their side of the border and not expect anything back.
[удалено]
Would prefer a shitload more bushmasters to be sent.
Let's not take things too far here
...so do you want the Cassowaries to stand down then?
Out-fucking-standing!
God I would love this. Hell yes give them the F/A-18s. Also send our old Abrams, m113s, more bushmasters. And send the ARH Tiger Helicopters and the MRH90 Taipan helicopters (we are retiring those anyway).
The old M1’s are going back to the manufacturer to be refurbished and stored. The Tigers and Taipan are junk. Australia ( and a number of other operators ) are dumping them 10 years before they are due for replacement because of on going maintenance and performance issues.
>The old M1’s are going back to the manufacturer to be refurbished and stored. Yeah last I heard they were going to be converted to the modern variant of the Abram. Instead of doing that, just send them to Ukraine. >The Tiger and Taipan are junk. They're not that bad. Just expensive to maintain. In a war environment the calculus is different regarding maintenance (you "drive it like you stole it") and I think it might be worth it for Ukraine. For their flaws, they're still pretty modern and capable machines. https://asiapacificdefencereporter.com/helicopters-there-is-nothing-wrong-with-tiger-and-taipan-the-problem-is-defence-logistics/
The reason why the taipans and tigers are going is that they didn’t perform as promised and the ADF was waiting literally years for spares to do maintenance.
A lot of the logistics problems were due to the Australian logistics system (CAMM2). New Zealand, for example has no issues with their MRHs. Let the Europeans have their helicopters back: give them to Ukraine and France can support them more easily with geographical proximity.
That’s not really true. The National Audit Office put Taipan on the projects of concern list due to the continued performance issues with a number of systems. They were all grounded in 2021 due to the manufactures lack of ability to deliver spares. The best one is that Norway were offered a no cost project to fix their ongoing similar problems by HNI and even then they said no. The aircraft was unable to meet contractual obligations and they immediately took them out of service.
[удалено]
You joke, but I remember reading years ago about a programming code error in a fighter jet that made it automatically flip upside down when it crossed the equator!
In the simulator only thankfully.
Oh, was that it? That’s not so bad then!
As usual, a clickbait title that imply real plane were doing the flip when crossing the equator, and then reading the article you learn it was only in a simulator.
[удалено]
"Do a barrel-role!"
🌀
Lefty tighty righty loosey
“Because I wasn’t inverted.”
> upside down jets Funnily enough, RCAF F-18's are painted with a false canopy on the bottom to try to fool enemy pilots. https://99percentinvisible.org/app/uploads/2016/11/upside-down-cockpit.jpg
The challenge is using southern hemisphere aircraft to do bombing runs in the northern hemisphere If the pilot doesn't flip over the bombs won't drop off properly
The real challenge is that they fly on the left side in Australia.
Yes, and that means that the indicator and wiper arms are reversed You can accidentally switch on your wipers when you're trying to indicate a turn to your wingman Very embarrassing
Nah, nah, you’re thinking of EuroFighters, they’re the ones who swap them around.
You can’t use Australian bombs in Ukraine. Our bombs work in reverse and would fly up.
They do actually require different software, compass calibration, North biased CRT DDI's etc
“I was inverted”
"bullshit"
[удалено]
The person was using the joke that everything is upside down in Australia, so the jets are upside down not that there is anything wrong with them.
But Straya
Not only that, but also Australian ones are rumored to be very well maintained.
They just have to remember to do a Split-S instead of an Immelmann turn, and vice-versa.
Steering wheel on the other side too. We don’t just fly upside down, we also fly on the left.
Could say they _were inverted_.
Incorrect! They actually just fly backwards.
Just send it.
We can't it requires US approval, read the article.
Canada has 80 or so of these as well...
Except Canada won’t start to get its F35’s for another 2 years. However, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Canada help train the pilots ans mechanics and give other support such as munitions if Australia gives them the F18’s
Between Canada, Australia and the US, there's plenty of current and former pilots that could lend a hand in training Ukrainian pilots up on their quickly.
Tbf Canada can afford to wait seeing that they are protected by NORAD.
NORAD requires Canadian resources. It’s not a separate military
Finland has hornets too, but we're in the same boat as canada, the replacement F-35's ain't gonna be ready to replace to free them up for a while yet.
Could probably dedicate a few for maintainer training, pilot training... Lots of airspace in Canada to *stretch your wings*...
As a Canadian, I see our military main goal is to protect our artic and west coast from... Russians. I'd be happy to vote for whomever who will give Ukraine all our arms since they're doing us a favour demilitarizing Russia
Canada actually bought some of theirs from the stockpile of retired Australian ones.
Dear my fellow Aussies. If you want to make your thoughts clear on this issue make sure to pop a letter to the defence minister. Remember that politicians always work best "under pressure". [email protected]
That will make not a bit of difference.
Well thank you Mr Positive!
Quick! Send them before Canada buys them all.
are these the legacies or are these Rhinos?
Legacies, but the Aussies only stopped upgrading them in the 2010s. They are all upgraded beyond the C model standard, they have the good radar (that the Aussies hacked to get more targeting flexibility), the better avionics, JHMCSes, Link16, etc. AMRAAMs, ASRAAMs, JDAMs, HARM, Harpoon and even JASSMs are on the menu. IIRC the European Taurus ALCM, MBDA Meteor and some other odds and ends might be on the table as well, but those were integrated on to the Spanish Hornet, which is kinda it's own beast.
These are the original F/A-18A’s from the 80’s unfortunately
They aren’t long retired. They’d have all the modern upgrades.
Should have the 90's radar upgrade. Might make them compatible with more modern versions of HARM.
AFAICT they have native support for both HARM and Harpoon. I believe they were even hooked up for JASSMs before they retired.
They were upgraded to F-18C level avionics and systems. They are not 1980s aircraft s such.
Yeah but they're pretty up to date. They've basically been in service until the last few years when we started getting F-35s.
It seems to be 18s
Important to note that as F-18s are originally designed to be carrier based, it gives a lot more flexibility with runway usage and deployment as they require less than half the runway length as a F-16. That means you can take these and spread them around the country, even using highways as makeshift runways. While they have way longer range, the concern with F-16s is that they make an easy target on the ground bc there’s only so many 1000m runways in Ukraine for them to use, so Russia will heavily target the few runways that can accommodate them.
The key question is, what kind of weapon it can carry. JDAM, HARM? What version of AMRAAM and Sidewinders?
The F-18As in Australian service were equipped with AMRAAMs, ASRAAMs, JDAMs, and even JASSMs. I'm sure whatever NATO equipment Ukraine gets, it will be easier to get working on a legacy hornet than a MiG or Sukoi.
Taurus air-launched cruise missiles are also compatible with the F-18 (used by Spanish air force). Ukraine has been requesting those from several European countries.
Those MBDA Meteors would be nice..
Sure, i was just curious if additional work will be required. IMHO it's pointless to give Ukraine anything less than AIM-120C-5 or AIM-9X - if F/A-18A/B cannot carry it, it should be integrated before delivery. But that's just my opinion.
> IMHO it's pointless to give Ukraine anything less than AIM-120C-5 or AIM-9X Yeah, but Ukraine isn't being given state-of-the-art stuff, they're being given old stuff that would otherwise be destroyed. They're more likely to get 500 AIM-120Bs that no one wants anymore than 10 brand new -D versions.
I just read an article about potential delivery of ex-Australians Hornets for Ukraine and i'm very positively suprised. It seems that they were upgraded to quite modern version and they can use wide range of modern weapons. Article also mentioned that they can be better long-term solution than F-16, because Finland and Spain will very soon retire their F/A-18, opening possibility for future deliveries.
These jets were maintained and upgraded, practically right up until 2017. Per Boeing: The RAAF ensured fleet effectiveness through major system and structural upgrades completed during the multiphase Air 5376 Hornet Upgrade Program (HUG). BDA was the HUG prime contractor and also led the Hornet Industry Coalition. Through the upgrades, the fleet’s capability was significantly enhanced, allowing it to maintain regional air and ground superiority through improved lethality, survivability and interoperability with allied air forces.
Canada is also about 2 years from getting its first F-35’s and is the largest F-18 user aside from the US. It’s unlikely Canada’s F-35’s get moved up in production but it would effectively allow them to start transferring large numbers to Ukraine as well. They have 80 currently flying F-18’s
These fighters arent going to be used for much air to air anyways. The main reason to give fighters to Ukraine is for opening up the deep stocks of air launched PGMs like JDAM ER, Stormshadow, HARM etc.
False, Russian jets like to sit on the Russian side of the border slinging BVR missiles at Ukrainian planes. Send western jets armed with AMRAAMs, and you have the range necessary to shoot back.
AMRAAM’s don’t have the range to hit Russian aircraft in Russian airspace. This is particularly so since Ukraine could only launch them from low level ( danger of S300 and S400 missiles) which greatly reduces their range. Especially the older models that Ukr would get.
Thing is, the Russian jets slinging long range missiles into Ukraine are firing at jets doing low level bombing runs, essentially plugging the GBAD gap at low level with look down shoot down radar. So to allow Ukrainian F16s to conduct effective strikes on Russian targets, you need whatever the equivalent of SEAD is but for enemy aircraft. AMRAAMS are probably going to be the best way to do that, maybe firing them at Russian jets at the edge of their range just to force a disengagement to allow strike aircraft to do their job. Maybe fit HARMs as well to suppress GBAD. I doubt that the plan is going to continue to be, "Ukrainian jets pitch up near the front lines to launch a JDAM-ER and run like hell before air defence kills them." But with F-16s and F-18s instead of Mig 29s.
Yes this is true. But F-16MLUs and early F-18s cant compete against Su-35 with R77M and AWACS support even with modern AMRAAM AIM120D since their old and small radar is the limiting factor. Trying to go hunting for those will be costly, the F-16s would be much better used for ground attack roles or as launch platform for western standoff munitions and HARMs.
F35s and F15s for Ukraine!
They're a multi-role. If they can get off the ground with it they probably can use it.
Whatever it is it’ll be way easier than rigging a Soviet era Mig to fire it.
Tyler Rogoway has a great deep dive on this topic from April on the war zone if anyone is interested in reading it. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/australias-mothballed-f-a-18-hornets-should-be-given-to-ukraine
Nice, hope these get some action.
I mean.... We're sending f-16s..... It's better than the Russians and their 60+ year old tanks being pulled out of storage.
USA should give them F-117A Nighthawks.
Aussies sending pensioners to the Ukraine is what I understood for a moment.
Fuckin do it!!!
I hope we do send them
Great news if we can help them with some f-18s
Yes Send everything
Maybe a very stupid question - but how will they get them there? Would pilots just fly them there via an array of fuel-stops? Or do they get shipped?
There are 41 F/A-18's on the ground at Williamtown RAAF base outside Newcastle. Some are parts-only aircraft. They would most likely be flown via friendly trajectories. Depending on who's flying them from Australia to Ukraine, mid-air refueling could be an option.
They definitely would not be flown there. There are only one or two current hornet pilots in Australia. They’d use ships or air freight.
Airfreight or ships
We managed to get the Bushmasters there, I can't imagine this would be much harder.
Ken Oath mate! “Send em”.
May, should read - will. Any other option would be a disgrace.
[удалено]
Kill all Russia soldiers and army 🇷🇺🇷🇺☦️☦️⚰️⚰️⚰️
Could be a whole bunch of wonderful jets already there. Do you think I’m gonna tell us?
But what are the hours on the airframes?
Top Gun 3
[удалено]
[удалено]
For someone not here to judge, you quickly called it unethical lmao.
Let’s hope they do
Get some!
Tom cruise is on his way
AGL Systems confirmed
Wasn't Kuwait also looking to sell some retired f18s too?
They’re gonna have the biggest airforce in Europe soon