[Dawes]

So is this likely to be a non-controversial decision?:




Australia Seeks Growler EA Fighter Variants


Aerospace Daily & Defense Report Mar 02 , 2009 , p. 12
Robert Wall


The Royal Australian Air Force could be the first non-U.S. military service to operate EA-18 Growler electronic attack aircraft under a deal announced in Australia Feb. 27.

The deal also is noteworthy for the fact that it indicates the U.S. is willing to share some of its most advanced technology with close allies — neither the EA-6B nor EF-111 jammers were exported.

The EA-18G deal comes not long after the Pentagon agreed to let Britain buy RC-135 Rivet Joints, the highly sensitive signals intelligence system.

Australia is not buying new Growlers; instead it would modify 12 of the F/A-18E/Fs the country previously committed to buying under an A$6.6 billion ($4.2 billion) program.

“Wiring 12 of the Super Hornets as Growlers will give us the opportunity to provide taxpayers with better value for money,” Defense Minister Joel Fitzgibbon says. A final decision on buying Growlers, including the jamming kit, is expected around 2012.

The EA modification “will also provide the Super Hornets with counter-terrorism capability through the ability to shut down the ground-based communications and bomb triggering devices of terrorists,” Fitzgibbon notes.

At this point, the government is making an A$35 million ($22 million) downpayment so half of the 24 F/A-18E/Fs on order could be turned into Growlers. Making the wiring and other internal modifications now, while the fighters are being built, is cheaper than a retrofit program, the Australian government says. A further A$300 million ($192 million) would be needed to complete the Growler effort.

“If finally pursued, the relatively small investment will significantly enhance the Super Hornet’s capability, by giving electronic attack capacity and therefore the ability to nullify the systems of opposing aircraft,” the minister asserts. “It will also provide the Super Hornets with counter-terrorism capability through the ability to shut down the ground-based communications and bomb triggering devices of terrorists.”

The Rudd administration official also was quick to claim the move as making the best of a controversial decision by the predecessor Howard administration.

“If the Howard Government had taken a more prudent approach in making the Super Hornet decision rather than rushing to fill their impending air combat capability gap, they may have realized that this was a more effective approach to take.”

[Luke Y]

I figured thats what the cryptic defence announcement today meant...

I can't see how it would be poo-poo'ed.

The only thing we won't have is a dedicated photo-recon ability will the FR-111 retirement.

[Chris Werb]

Dawes, on Mon 2 Mar 2009 1604, said:

The deal also is noteworthy for the fact that it indicates the U.S. is willing to share some of its most advanced technology with close allies — neither the EA-6B nor EF-111 jammers were exported.

Sorry, but I'm not aware of anyone wanting them. AFIAK only the US operated the A-6 series and Australia never requested EF-111s.

The EA-18G deal comes not long after the Pentagon agreed to let Britain buy RC-135 Rivet Joints, the highly sensitive signals intelligence system.

I wasn't aware we were buying Rivet Joints - I thought we were just providing crew and missions for some of them on a rental basis.

[Dawes]

Unless it's just Government-speak, this calls the Rivet Joint request a sale:

http://www.dsca.mil/...08/UK_08-89.pdf

[Chris Werb]

Dawes, on Mon 2 Mar 2009 1855, said:

Unless it's just Government-speak, this calls the Rivet Joint request a sale:

http://www.dsca.mil/...08/UK_08-89.pdf

I stand corrected.

[Josh]

The ALQ-99 system might be dumbed down a little, possibly not, but outside of that nothing is on a EF-18 that isn't on the base F-18E/F model anyway. And the ALQ-99 AFAIK is hardly a new system, though its been continually updated. I can't imagine why we wouldn't sell it to Oz. I was a little suprised Oz and Nipon weren't cleared for F-22; it would keep the lines open and reserve the option of purchasing more while keeping overall cost down. I can only surmise some of the technology in the a/c could be easily compromised by rank and file air and ground crew, probably counters to the low observable characteristics.

[Rod]

How strong are the EA-18 jammers that they can jam radio-controlled explosives from a high-altitude.

Dawes, on Mon 2 Mar 2009 1104, said:

“If finally pursued, the relatively small investment will significantly enhance the Super Hornet’s capability, by giving electronic attack capacity and therefore the ability to nullify the systems of opposing aircraft,” the minister asserts. “It will also provide the Super Hornets with counter-terrorism capability through the ability to shut down the ground-based communications and bomb triggering devices of terrorists.”

[Luke Y]

jua, on Thu 5 Mar 2009 0701, said:

I can't imagine why we wouldn't sell it to Oz. I was a little suprised Oz and Nipon weren't cleared for F-22; it would keep the lines open and reserve the option of purchasing more while keeping overall cost down. I can only surmise some of the technology in the a/c could be easily compromised by rank and file air and ground crew, probably counters to the low observable characteristics.

Was it that we specifically were not cleared for it, or rather the standard policy was 'no to everyone without consideration' and we haven't asked formally?

Quote

How strong are the EA-18 jammers that they can jam radio-controlled explosives from a high-altitude.

More to the point, how practical is it? I'm no radio/telephony expert, but wouldn't it either require either knowing the frequency or band, or necessitate jamming a whole swathe of frequencies across the board? Either way seems a pretty inefficient use of the aircraft and difficult to envisiage it being used in that role outside of supporting Jack Bauer in 24 - Downunder...

[Mote]

Quote

Either way seems a pretty inefficient use of the aircraft and difficult to envisiage it being used in that role outside of supporting Jack Bauer in 24 - Downunder

Prowlers were being said to be used for that over Iraq.

[capt_starlight]

Luke_Yaxley, on Thu 5 Mar 2009 1419, said:

Was it that we specifically were not cleared for it, or rather the standard policy was 'no to everyone without consideration' and we haven't asked formally?

Apparently it is written into an Act somewhere (perhaps one of those little add-ons that the US political system seems to enjoy) that no-one but the US would get the F-22. It would need amending legislation as well as all the other hurdles to get them released. No one seems particularly interested in the change.

[swerve]

Dawes, on Mon 2 Mar 2009 1855, said:

Unless it's just Government-speak, this calls the Rivet Joint request a sale:

http://www.dsca.mil/...08/UK_08-89.pdf

I've not heard anything about that request turning into an actual sale yet.

At $356 mn each, that seems pretty expensive for aircraft over 40 years old.

[Luke Y]

What suddenly prompted the requirement for Rivet Joint?
Seems 'odd'... :huh:

[RETAC21]

Rod, on Wed 4 Mar 2009 2322, said:

How strong are the EA-18 jammers that they can jam radio-controlled explosives from a high-altitude.

They have been designed to jam radars with kilowatts of power so why would a small radio command be a problem?

[Josh]

swerve, on Thu 5 Mar 2009 1100, said:

At $356 mn each, that seems pretty expensive for aircraft over 40 years old.

That probably covers the electronics. The airframe is probably basically free. I see to remember E-8's were described as pretty much 250 million for the radar and the 707 for free.

[Michael Dekmetzian]

Luke_Yaxley, on Thu 5 Mar 2009 1009, said:

What suddenly prompted the requirement for Rivet Joint?
Seems 'odd'... :huh:

I get the impression there's been quite a few issues with the Nimrod which would make you ask the question whether acquiring Rivet Joints might be easier.

[Gman]

Talking to a mate from DSTO (Oz tech guy), I gather there has been no approach to actually buy anything external. Opinion is that the internal jammers and electronics are sufficently useful for now, possibly to ask for the externals later or at worst, be fitted for in case of fighting alongside those of Sam.

[Luke Y]

Gman, on Fri 6 Mar 2009 1157, said:

Talking to a mate from DSTO (Oz tech guy), I gather there has been no approach to actually buy anything external. Opinion is that the internal jammers and electronics are sufficently useful for now, possibly to ask for the externals later or at worst, be fitted for in case of fighting alongside those of Sam.

Makes sense though, fitted for but not with, presents Mr KRudd in a positive light ("We're fixing Howard's mistake by getting a better deal") and of course the RAAF gets a shiny new EW capability, and the RAN a lot of training options too - Everyone wins, everyone is happy.