Ukraine Says No To Retired RAAF Hornets
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 02. 2024
- Mover, Casmo, and I discuss an article regarding the Ukraine military saying no thanks to acquiring retired Royal Australian Air Force F/A-18 Hornets.
Every Monday at 8PM ET, Mover (F-16, F/A-18, T-38, 737, helicopter pilot and wanna be race car driver) and Gonky (F/A-18, T-38, A320, dirt bike racer, and awesome dad) discuss everything from aviation to racing to life and anything in between. Send your topic ideas to cwlemoine at cwlemoine.com!
The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement.
Views presented are my own and do not represent the views of DoD or its Components.
Kids Coloring and Activity Books!
www.amazon.com/stores/author/... - Zábava
Ex Aussie Air Force pilot here. This was being openly discussed in our national news back in June 2023. It was Ukraine who initially expressed interest in these aircraft and asked about their condition and our folk organised engineering inspections to give them a straight answer. Some people are making out like we've been desperately trying to hawk unusable airframes to Ukraine, which is untrue. The Government has been pretty open from the start about their condition and the difficulty of getting a useful number airworthy, not to mention training, spares, etc. I'm unaware of anyone here in our Government or military who is pretending that it makes sense (or is even viable at all) to send these to Ukraine. That pressure has come from other places.
This came back into media-attention in early February 2024 but, by then, the Australian RAAF had already send them all for burial or recycling.
👍
I've got a Q - what are your thoughts on sending them our Taipans? Are they trash too & it's just a media beat-up saying "they're usable why are we burying them??".
More likely they couldn't afford more.
The RCAF hasn't been doing well for a while now.
They must have done their a hours surely
Keep in mind, 41 aircraft isn't Australia's entire retired Hornet force: it's _what's left_ of Australia's retired Hornets, after the Canadians came through and cherry-picked the ones in the best (or least bad) condition. So what Australia has left to "donate" to Ukraine are the birds the RCAF didn't even want for _parts._
Yeah this should be the top comment... Ukraine would somehow use them as big drones or decoys if they had any basic airworthiness without massive time/money investment to even get them in the air! 😂
@@berryreading4809 It occurs to me that describing the ex-RAAF Legacy Hornets as "flying trash" is probably too _generous._ They aren't "flying," and probably never will be.
That doesn't mean Boeing can't remedy any problems encountered.
@@michaelkatz275 Their QA will find zero defects.
@@Dennis-vh8tz lol
I'll take one. Would look sick in my front lawn.
Same here, but I don't know if it wiil fit in my garage. HOA might have a fit if I park it in the drive way or on the street 😂
@@adnaansheikh1 leave the hoa ;)
Hardest part is getting the wife to agree
Yard Art!
@@nczioox1116 put a horn in the front and say its a moden unicorn
I put the F-18 question to an ex-USAF Colonel friend who was stationed in Germany. His reply was that logistical support in Europe for the F-16 is very extensive while the same is not true for the F-18, which is only used by Finland and Spain. Amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics!
Spot on. And I think there's some media nonsense here. If I were Oz, I'd offer them quietly, and be realistic why the (probably) polite answer is no. Tempest in a Teacup here, but it makes for great CZcams content. Tomorrow we'll be talking about something else.
...don't forget the Swiss! The Finnish and Swiss C/D Hornet fleets have gone through extensive update programs and thus are still very capable machines. Both Patria and RUAG in Finland and Switzerland, respectively, are able to do extensive repairs, including the full overhaul of the airframes.
It'd mean setting up another logistics chain for the F-18 aside from the F-16, during wartime
Exactly.
@@LowSet The Swiss are too afraid to sell bullets to Ukraine. I don't think they would repair aircraft.
Aussie here. C’mon, guys. We weren’t chasing Ukraine down the street to offer them our old classic Hornets. Ukraines air assets were gradually being destroyed in the war and they were asking around to see which countries could donate jets to them. I totally understand why Ukraine would prefer F16s.
The thing I find strange is our Canadian friends wanting our old Hornets.
They took the good ones that were left
The Canadians made a big whoopsie when they pulled out of the F-35 program years ago. Politics, yay. Then they changed their minds and bought back in but had lost their spot in line. This leaves them in a weird position of having to keep their antique CF-18s airworthy much longer than anyone could plan so they are now scrounging the planet for airframes and spares.
Canada took them for parts.
Look, Canada was the only country who had a use for legacy Hornets since that's what we're still using right now. Some here (like me) wanted Super Hornets available 5 years ago instead of expensive single engine F** Amy F35s but that ain't happening.
New build F-15EXs would be more inline with NORAD needs, but someone has it in their heads that this would be a more expensive option in the long run compared to the F35. Problem is there are so many iterations of the F35, ten years from now the RCAF will still be hunting for compatible F35 parts to keep their 4th tranches flying. I don't think the shelf life of the F35 is anywhere close to the legacy CF-18s@@barrychan6308
The hornets were already beyond salvage. They were disassembled to a point where it would cost more than buying second hand ready to fly jets as of last year when the idea was floated.
Austrailia had donated 910 million in military equipment and ammunition. For a small population we are doing our bit.
Keil Institute has Australia down for just 439 million. That's 0,03% of GDP. Among the lowest of all Ukraine supporting countries, on place 25..
@@NotASeriousMoose
They could not support.
I mean it is still almost half a billion.
@@NotASeriousMoose check out New Zealand’s contribution yeah there isn’t any
NZ isn't a member of NATO an has no real military' to speak off why would they get involved ..
@@NotASeriousMoose Look up Australian Government ministry of defence Ukraine
the media started this story originally Oz govt never offered them, Ukraine asked about em after the media spun it up and asked to inspect them. From my contacts about the place only about 14 are worthy of being fixed and it would take along time to make these airframes flight ready.
Reading the same story they were the best 14 airframes saying it would take 4-6 months to make them war worthy giving them a life time of 2 more years of life.
Are they for free to Ukraine? If so take them get good prices for scrap. ❤
Canada already bought all the mostly working ones.
Oh buddy I can tell you they needed a bunch of work.
Finally got them going pretty well after some love and anger.
The one thing I was surprised about was some of the modernization needed even in comparison to our CF188.
In 2006 they let a contract to do barrel replacement on RAAF F-18s.
Over time, they underestimated some of the funds and resources needed to do the work.
So they did some of the needy ones. They did another underestimate on this work and had some shipped to Canada for the rebarrel work and then ended that refurb effort. Later as you know the whole fleet retired.
Also as you know each barrel replace is like a pinata.
When you do the tear down, each discovery is unique. Some require additional extra work.
If you go to the barrel refurb effort at Jacksonville you will see other refurb work done independent of the barrel.
Thank yoy. That was a great balanced and fact-based analysis. You gave answers based on your expertise, covered the translation issue, and stayed out of the arena of speculation. I was in Eastern Ukraine for the fist 6 months and I found that the translation issue was huge not just from pure language, but from the vastly different cultural context and norms. Thanks again.
Greg, thank you!
The idea of flying them hard until they break in half seems quite risky at the best of times, but it's a lot spicier if you spend most of your time anywhere near the bad guys below 100 feet because of the S400 threat. Your plane snapping in half at 50 feet when you try to dodge a SAM seems like it would be a survivability problem for the pilot...
More like the Buk threat. S-400s have to be far away enough from the frontline so that a normal artillery tube can't just rain steel on them, and far away enough for HIMARS not to rain tungsten. Due to the curvature of the Earth, the S-400s remain a threat to higher flying aircraft like AWACS and tankers but lose effectiveness. Which is why defense systems need by be layered.
and a significant emotional event
Well, if your plane snaps in half while dodging SAM's its going to give you one very confused SAM
I've seen videos of Storm Shadows lazily flying right over and past the S400.....😂
@@troymash8109 Yes, but that's because they follow the terrain 100 feet above the ground. If they were coming in at 5000 feet they'd be toast...
do people even read articles? there's literally no source in that article 😂 and yet people believe everything that is written without even checking amazing
Exactly the RAAF Legacy F18s weren't even offered to Ukraine
The article quoted "a person present". So, it was a source.
Yeah I think it's fake, zero source, no names, no timeline, basically "trust me bro".
@@Shindeiru69 Much like everything that comes out of Ukraine and Russia. The article stated it was person present at the meetings.
Who was that person in what meeting and when? I can make up thing like this as well.
@@reubensandwich9249
The center barrel replacement process is not easy or cheap. It’s basically a custom fix for each airframe where it’s is split into thirds (roughly) and the center third is replaced. The airframe cut are basically not at a common joint and the good center barrel is custom fit to complete the airframe. Even the center barrel replacement mechanism is custom made. Although it’s probably a bit easier and faster than when I was around this process (10 years ago). Great video!!
funnily enough this term is new to me , is that to do with the pointy bit like nose cockpit and back to the air intakes or am i totally off
You were at L3?
the easy answer is where the wings are, so from the intakes back to just before the engines @@imbetterthanyouis
@@beohbe64 yep know exactly where you talking about , cool thanks
it's also a case of who is going to do the centre barrel replacements, the Centre Barrel replacement program in Australia was completed 15 years ago and the workforce has moved on to other projects or retired.
Our hornets centrebarewls were done in Canada aswell , not australia. The tear down was done here by bae australia and the shipped by antanov to Canada.
.@@tulmar4548 Correct
Riddle me this. Why would the centre barrels need to be done on our Aussie Hornets at year 15 since it was last done yet they began delivery in 1985 and never got the centre barrels done until 2010? That's 25 years for the oldest airframes until their centre barrel was done. But we're now having a shit fit at year 15. 🤔
@@smeary10 only ten hornets actually went through the cbr program. So 60 something of them are all original 34 to 39 year old planes. Canada bought some when we retired them and Canada got the best ones ( obviously the 10 that went through the program ). What's left is essentially junk , can be refurbished but its prohibitively expensive and time consuming. The cost of the cbr per plane was around 11 million in the late 2000s. You are prolly looking at closer to 20m now.
@@tulmar4548 I did not know that. Thanks for sharing. So yeah, they’re fucked.
Hell son, I’ll take em! Ain’t nothing in the constitution that says I can’t own an airforce.
To be fair we also offered 100s of armored vehicles, 155mm howitzers, tonnes of ammo, small arms, armour, missiles etc. gladly accepted by Ukraine.
They were long in the tooth. And I suspect they didn’t want the hassle of a less supported airframe when they’ve essentially already committed to the f16
They also wanted out mrh90 taipan helicopters. But I suspect we couldn’t give them away even if we wanted. As there were probably disposal agreements in place with airbus
Just a few years ago, Canada bought several used Australian Hornets to fulfill their needs until the new F-35s arrive, despite an internal report from the Auditor General that the idea was a waste of $$. They also needed upgrades, such as updated radar but the repairs are said to take 5 years and millions of $$, by which time they are ready, estimated in 2025, will become relatively obsolete and not needed. No mention of center barrel replacement.
Canada lost their place in F35 delivery though amd won't have F35's on line until the 2030's
Yes and we should have seriously considered the Gripen or Super Hornet rather than the over priced over tech boondoggle we bought
Most Australian F-18 parts stock were donated to Malaysia as it is the only other Legacy F-18 user within the FPDA if I remember correctly so even if both Ukraine and Australia agreed on it it'd be a major pain to get them remotely airworthy.
Yeah and the RCAF also went through some of them already. These left over hornets are the really fucked ones. There is no one to do the centre barrel replacement, nobody who can maintain them? Where are they gona get spare parts? It makes no sense to take them.
@@gamm8939 I believe PMA265 still can work on Legacy F-18s as they also helped on the current Malaysian life extension project but it's going to take ages. Giving F-16s to Ukraine is way easier.
Australia could've countered: "Its not the plane, its the pilot."
Brilliant 😂
That would require for the plane to be able to actually fly and not in a horrible state of disrepair
"Help them with something they can use." Meanwhile, sending bushmasters, tanks, and other ordinates to the Ukraine conflct. As an Australian that's kind of offensive.
From memory when this first came up, the Australians were up front with the state of the planes. Basically they were time expired and could not be flown in combat if at all. Fatigue of airframes is a real thing. Remember when even front line F15's had the airframe in front of the air intakes detach, and that was front line, inspected to hell aircraft. If the aircraft is expected to pull 9G, you do not want it if it is going to fail at 4G. Also as the airframe approaches time, the maintenance will tail off, and upgrades held back.
Yeah, the story keeps getting repeated as Ukraine saying "We don't want your trash.", but I heard story reported as the RAAF General saying "We don't want to give you our trash." which actually makes far more sense. Those 40 airframes are what's left over after the Canadians picked over the fleet and took the good ones for parts to keep their own Hornets flying.
@@JimOHalloran I bet it was rephrased like a game of telephone to clickbait headlines for the MSMs... they are thirsty if nothing...
This term springs to mind. " Beggars can't be choosers "
That only applies when there's an actual choice. In this case the term "you can't polish a turd" is more applicable.
@OmakeRemencool now get nothing.
News tomorrow will be "Draken International purchases entire former Air Force".
Who is going to get them ready to fly, who is going to maintain them, where are the spare parts going to come from, who is going to train the pilots? So I agree with the refusal.
Do you truly believe that the United States lacks pilot training for the F-18, the ability to maintain them, and access to parts? Such assertions by the Russian intelligence services make me question the expertise of the individuals behind this propaganda.
@@michaelkatz275 I'm American and former Military, so if you are implying I'm a Russian Bot you can go get stuffed. And who is talking about the United States? We are talking about Ukraine. Unless you think getting these worn-out airframes to the US to be completely overhauled then get them to a NATO training area to teach the Ukrainian pilots and ground crews on the system is cost effective. Which it isn't. Pretty sure they would rather spend that money on more SAM systems while getting their pilots and ground crews up to speed on the F-16s they are receiving.
@@shawnadams1965 Worn out airframes can be refurbished and up graded as required. Boeing can't wait to get their hands on those F-18's and go to work. As for the training, the Navy and the Marine Corp have an execellent facility at Lemoore, Califorina.
By the way, what was your MOS in the Marine Corp, or rate in the Navy?
@@michaelkatz275 With all due respect My former Army MOS is none of your business. 1) Boeing has enough issues getting their new civilian aircraft in line, they aren't super excited about old crapped out F/A-18s 2) Sure lets fly all the Ukrainian pilots and air crews out to California, I'm sure we can put the war on hold for it. I suggest you read Philistine47 and michaelrunnels7660 comments below this one.
@shawnadams1965 the civilian and military divisions are totaly separate and as for supply we have plenty of legacy hornet parts just sitting in the desert that we are having to pay taxes to keep. We can supply airframe and parts and save money.
A company local to me announced about 4-5 years ago they were going to be buying RAAF legacy Hornets to use as red-air operations, but something in the last year or two happened and it seems like that deal is off now. (Pretty sure this is the deal Mover's talking about around 4:00 in here)
And I think the number was reported to be around 40, so these might be the same exact planes.
Tender was Jan 2020. The company was Air USA and then Ravn bought Air USA. The C of A (Commonwealth of Australia) conditions of sale were fatally flawed and both companies never had the funds required. At least 18 of the "47" aircraft can be returned to flight, even in 2024 with a little love, all 18 had the 6,000 hr Mid Life done in 2010, which included "Barrel Rebuild, fresh F-404+ engines, new APG-73(V) radar and Link 16.
"according to a person present"... The articles just get more clicks this way.
'Anonymous sources' has become a catchphrase for 'based on the contents of my arse'
I do not recall Defence ever offering the Scrap Hornets to Ukraine, but also the public, who are generally uninformed about these matters, keep riling themselves up over these implausible scenarios.
If anyone is able to show me an article or an announcement from Canberra that we ever made this dumb offer, please feel free to show me.
I don't know what "center barrel" means. Does that refer to the core of the fuselage ?
The gun is directly center of the aircraft. I think its designed this way for better rotational performance by keeping all of the mass centered
Turn them into drones, for combat. Armed Decoys that way. Or make them low-level flying Un-manned Cruise Missiles (Tomahawk style) on a one-way trip. .... There is a long history of taking retired fighters and converting them to Un-Manned. I don't know if the F-18 has an American or Australian kit ready-to-go for the drone conversion. Maybe not, so they would have to take the QF-16 or QF-4 drone kit and mod it.
Or just spend the same money plane to buy 10,000 drones. That's TEN THOUSAND. Did you know that Ukraine has LIMTED resources, hence their revolutionary use of CHEAP drones which is now changing the face of modern warfare? Do you think it's smarter to take out one Russian at a cost of one million Dollars or $100? You seem to like the idea of spending millions to take out one soldier. I expect you love sitting on a thousand dollar toilet seat.
It's an interesting idea! But the USAF needs all the target drones it can get and I'd imagine its a lot cheaper and more straightforward to buy relatively inexpensive kamikaze drones than modify the target drone conversion process (itself a modification process) to create a new class of weapon system.
Now, if I'm wrong about the US stocks of target drones--if they are some to spare--then perhaps they can be sent over almost "as is." Although I don't think you'll ever find a US pilot who'll say "we don't need the target drones--we've done *enough* live air-to-air training engagements this year!"
Except, here we are only specifically talking about the Australian batch of worn-out F-18's (subject of the youtube video here), NOT airframes from the U.S. inventory.... And, notably, an F-18 drone can carry 12,000 lbs of explosives & fuel, much more than cheap small drones, which on a good day can maybe do 300 lbs worth. @@adamwsaxe
I think if the planes were offered into an environment where Ukraine were already flying the Hornets, or had a stream of them coming from other sources then perhaps as a spares source, or as means of filling out their forces they would have been acceptable. However if you consider the investment required to bring an arguably ageing platform up to full effectiveness + the time investment of converting pilots to fly them, (and only for a limited time - because you aren't going to replace combat losses of Hornets if all you have are the RAAF ones) - it's a tough sell to accept these aircraft, even as a gift.
I wonder if the "translation" was similar to what Ecuador is doing donating "scrap" inventory to Ukraine. But all those points are valid, training, time, resources, etc. to be okay with putting your already short staffed pilots in them
Its like the 5 old howitzers Spain offered or gave to Ukr early on. They were US surplus from WW2. Even if they were in Grade A condition they were not useable. Too few in number and worse yet they have MUCH shorter range. They would not last very long in a hot zone.
we have been doing COB replacement. cost about 3mil a bird at FRCSE and the the COB comes as a kit from Boeing.
I think they'd take time-expired F-16s, in otherwise OK condition, if they were offered
The A was rated for 8.000 hours
That's not some never exceed magical number
That means it'd have been tested to destruction beyond 12.000 hours or so
You could say "Let's put 1 or 2.000 more hours on them" and take the risk that some of them might break up
Beggars can't be choosers
but we want the flying pizza boxes....more of those please
Almost sounds like those would be more expensive than a new aircraft. Somethings are not worth rebuilding. Somethings were never designed to be rebuilt.
yes indeed 😊
Exactly.
r/choosingbeggars
I heard Ukraine asked for the F 18s from Australia in Australia, has not made a decision?
There's no loss in translation. Canadian here. In the RCAF we're still scraping by with the upgrades to the 18-aussie legacy hornets, namely the radars as the packaged ones were junk AN/APG-65s.
and 10 of are most likely the 10 with rebuilt frames and 8 of the lowest hours
and most likely the 18 F/A-18A that canada bought in 2019
It makes sense really. Ukraine is getting F16's. Introducing another western type with differing maintenance and spares requirements would only be a burden to Ukraine.
Metal fatigue in aluminum is a real deal.
Hard to believe the offer was even on the table
It never was an offer. The media in Oz made a beat up of it, thinking the RAAF were sitting on these mint jets doing nothing. Obviously getting them confused with the Super Hornets still in use. (The mainstream Media arent that smart).
The Ukranians asked to look at them. They were told that the Canadians had already cherry picked them and what was left was pretty much knackered. But if Ukraine wanted to take the cleanest of the dirty shirts, it could happen if the criteria were met.
Because they were going to landfill anyway.
@@l1a146 A version of the story I heard has the RAAF telling the Ukrainians "We don't want to give you our trash." not the other way around as is often repeated. And the story makes more sense that way too.
From what I remember they’re rusted out been store improperly and are basically best used for scrap at this point
Even if they can’t be used for CAP maybe they can be used for SEAD, that would take a lot of the work load of the F-16s
How can you buy a yacht with an old fa 18? (I have relatives in Ukraine and they know where the donations go)
Another factor to consider is that Ukraine would have to train pilots on the hornet, and if those hornets then came apart in a few months of flying, you now have a bunch of pilots trained on an airframe that you no longer have.
The only beneficial part of that is that the Ukrainians pilots have to be trained to fly western aircraft in general, like learning the language and those kind of things
So if the Hornet breaks (and in a good case doesn't break as it is evading a SAM 100 feet from the ground, which is not that rare in Ukraine) you at least have a pilot that can talk English and thus would be easier to train
@@JULIAN11. Ukraine gets working F16s from several countries
Well, in a few years Finland would have some more Hornets to give as they upgrade to F-35.
I was fairly skeptical on the article. RAVN bought the 41 and most are in Guam.
You think the F-16 has insane maitenance and logistics, now try the Hornet.
They don't have ashtrays that's why they didn't want them.
What's the cupholder situation?
That was a sticking point too.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD
The Australian Air Force doesn't want these F-18s even for parts, the Canadians don't want to replace their old F-18s with new F-18s, over a dozen countries passed up new F-18s for the F-35, and even aggressor contractors in the U.S. don't want the old F-18s. Of all the fighters being offered to Ukraine the Australian F-18s are the only ones not even remotely ready for combat and won't be ready without hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of man hours to train pilots and ground support. Despite the predilection of the F-18 pilots in this video, I really can't think of a worse deal for Ukraine than accepting Australian F-18s. I don't agree with Gonky that Ukraine is in such a desperate situation that it's a good idea to send their pilots off to combat with a jet that is not only not combat capable, but dangerous to fly. Ukraine kamikaze fighter pilots using an antiquated and unreliable jet isn't an option because, fortunately, Ukraine has another option (F-16) than to rely on a jet that most of the nations of the world have rejected as not being adequate for modern combat.
Sounded like the aircraft needed massive amounts of maintenance to make them tactically airworthy.
Canada purchased some the the RAAF F-18's.
@@gtpumps When these RAAF F-18s were purchased by Canada were they fully airworthy? Do you think Canada would have bought them if they were not combat capable? The Australian F-18s being offered are NOT combat capable unless you use the tactic proposed by Gonky of flying them in combat until they literally break apart, bail out, then get back to your base and do it again. I don't know how many ejections Gonky thinks someone can survive using this tactic.
@@michaelrunnels7660 yes actually some flew direct to Canada after participating in Red Flag 2019. The rest were transported. Obviously Canada purchased the lower air-frame hour aircraft. Canada got 12 X F/A-18A and six two-seat F/A-18B Hornets to keep flying and I think another 7 aircraft for parts.
You paint a really grim picture of the Legacy Hornets...The US (Marines Corps) still actively fly the legacy models. So they must be worth something.
Who exactly said this and when?
As far as I know Ukraine bought the offer up again recently but defence informed them the option was no longer possible as the aircraft had been scrapped. Even from an eye with little knowledge on the matter, it'd still be unrealistic to keep the aircraft flying as the airframes have been flying continuously since their introduction in the early 80s.
Strange since the F/A-18s are much better suited to operate from rough or short runways.
Exactly! Have you noticed that no one but you seems to know that on this channel.
@@michaelkatz275, if the airframes have structural problems and require an additional supply chain to support operations then it does not make sense for Ukraine.
In general the Hornet would be great for Ukraine. The Super Hornet would be spectacular but these will not be available.
@@michaelkatz275, I wonder what is meant by over hours 🤔 6K hours of operation from a carrier is very different from 6K hours of land based operations.
@@toddbrackett4277 So have the B-52's and they have been going strong for 70 plus years. I am sure Boeing can do the same for the F-18.
@@michaelkatz275 People know that but it’s not a practical option…… F-16’s have many more practical benefits…. It’s not even a real debate…..
Just quietly they'd make nice automated flying bombs ?
It doesn’t help that a significant portion of the equipment that has been sent from ADF stocks to Ukraine (particularly vehicles) have been either barely serviceable, utterly unserviceable, or sent purely as a means for the ADF to lobby for their replacement with newer and better kit
If Ukraine was getting AIM-120D, then they might be useful BVR, like the Mig-31. They could fly with F-16s leading, or upgrade a few of the radars so at least one out of a Hornet four ship or pair can see. $2.5m will get a good radar, which would be less than the the missile loads. If they were smart they would use the RAAF offer to pressure AIM-120D approvals.
Canada took the best of the fleet, theres a couple of complete jets stuck in a hangar in Guam, and whats left here in Oz has been christmas treed for parts and mostly dissassembled, theres no wings, engines, flight controls ect left on them. There are no "aircraft" left to give them unless a massive reassembly programme were to take place. While i would much rather see these aircraft recieve a full viking funeral in the hands of the Ukranians, sadly that time has passed and, like our F1-11s ,its a undignified burial that awaits.
Yip after telling the Aussie diplomats and military guys they didn’t want there flying trash F18s that’s a quote by the way they were stripped as they had prior to this already decided no one wanted to buy them so they were junked.
that rumor about jets in guam is rubbish. Its a media lie. All hornets returned to WLM for storage or disposal. Many are now museum exhibits.
As you've all touched on in parts, Ukraine likely doesn't have the maintenance infrastructure and the logistical flexibility to incorporate F-18 and F-16 at once, let alone the additional training requirements for both the pilots and the maintainers. That combined with the g-limits, and very likely low amount of sortie hours left available within the airframe, the cost to incorporate them is too much.
Even if they may be able to fly them balls to the wall for 6 months to a year, that's the possibility of 1 pilot not coming back (or needing a resource intensive rescue and recovery), or 1 critical mission failing at some point in that aircraft's life cycle, just due to how wrung out the airframes were when they got them.
The Aussie airframes are about 4200 hours use the early F18s had a life time max of 6000 depending on use these ones also don’t have the carrier gear so haven’t had the much harder life of carrier aircraft. Are they tired airframes likely yes but so are the F 16s they are getting and even those are having to have money spent to get them operational. How many hours do you expect your F16 to last in a war environment on rugged airfields with min experienced ground crew. I heard some of early F16s at a few don’t even have to up rated front gear add that chin sucker and they will have a lot of extra work to even use the F16, dispersing them to tiny airfields or roads good luck you need 5 to 8000 feet to run a fighter like that , you can dump a F18 onto a runway with no effects a F16 with those tiny tires and weak front gear good luck, add some green pilots (most are training from scratch) and you have disaster in the making if they try landing on a road 8 months of training isn’t enough to learn much at all.
@@Rob-vv5yn And the threat environment is LACED with Russian air defense systems so Ukraine won't be able to use them in large numbers or fly them very often.
@@Stinger522 that’s true if all there aircraft
Older F-18s could be a maintenance problem as well as parts supply.The F-16s are easier to get parts support for them.
I think given the option, even having these as targets consuming expensive ru missiles is worthwhile. Even if they never flew. If they could get 15 of them flying they have to be in better condition then most of the mig. Curious if they still had the weapon systems on them?
Maybe it’s easier to make this statement in Australia or however thousands of miles you are from Europe. But Ukrainians are not suicidal, and they will not intend to use aircraft as targets.
@@RRaymer they wouldn’t need to fly them. Just leave them on the apron. To draw missiles. The hornet is still a 4th gen fighter, and even if they didn’t have many hours left on them, they would be useful.
As Ukraine is getting a fleet of F-16 adding in the F/A-18 would be a logistical headache
Everything else about Ukraine has been a headache, why not this too?
First of all, thats absolute bullshit. Second of all, the Republicans wouldnt have spend the money on us and last of all, they literally just voted against a law that would significantly strengthen the border and said themselves that the only reason they did it was for campaign reasons. So please just fuck off. @@uwekonnigsstaddt524
@@uwekonnigsstaddt524 That is what the Russian propagandists want you to believe.
Most of what you're seeing in this video is propaganda from the Russian intelligence services. The F-18 can easily be transported to the United States, refurbished as needed, and updated with a new electronics package.
they are only telling them they will get them to shut them up. They will never see them.
Ukraine sees how Canada has fared with Australian hand-me-down wont-go-down submarines and planes that won't stay up
Canada spent a lot of money changing those to CF-18. Not exactly the best idea, but Canada has lots of bad defense ideas.
So much for furphies . To talk reality now , is there any news about the taipan helicopters?
F-16's airframe is still being manufactured as the updated F-16 Block 70/72. Classic F/A-18's airframe is not being manufactured. In logistics terms, classic F/A-18 is EoL (end of life).
As an Australian, this is an embarrassment. It's like offering someone a gun with a rusted out barrel, wtf are they gonna do with clapped out equipment?
repair?
Most of what you're seeing in this video is propaganda from the Russian intelligence services. The F-18 can easily be transported to the United States, refurbished as needed, and updated with a new electronics package. These are not low quality Soviet era aircraft.
@@ionpopescu3969 These are the planes the Canadians did not want for parts, they need massive overhauls, take a long time and lot of money. Even then these airframes do not have many hours left on them.
All things considered, Ukarine might be better off buying new Hornets.
better than no gun at all, beggars can't be choosers.
Most of what you're seeing in this video is propaganda from the Russian intelligence services. The F-18 can easily be transported to the United States, refurbished as needed, and updated with a new electronics package.
Before my fellow commenters think that Ukraine is ungrateful. I just want to let you konw that the article doesn't mention a single name. The source is unknown, "2 Australian" randos, and a "senior official" out of thousands. On the other hand Colonel Yuriy Ignat (spokesperson of the Ukrainian Air Force) said reflecting on the article that "Ukraine did not conclude an agreement with Australia on the transfer of F/A-18 Hornet fighters" also "We are following the only available path to the Western planes. As much as possible".
Take every article with anonimous sources with a huge chunk of salt!
News media, especially British and Australian news media also sensationalize things for clicks. Sadly, news media has become the equivalent of titktok and youtube clickbait.
I’m sure you guys know about opportunity cost; for a military that’s got more targets than ammunition they need to focus their efforts. If they are going to succeed in getting, fielding and maintaining the vipers, they can’t afford to be distracted by “free” stuff. They need their maintainers, air crews and funds directed towards something that can perform this week and next year.
A jet with no spare parts, obsolete avionics and limited G rating, that’s novel to your pilots is a liability not an asset.
It’s less a matter of need or want, but of practicality. If you’re going to field a new aircraft, no matter how good it is, you need more than just train the pilot. You have to ramp up an entire new logistics chain for support as well as training all the maintenance crew. Ukraine has its hands full bringing on board the F-16s. While the Hornet would be a fine addition at sometime, let’s see how they do with the Vipers.
Canada will pay good money for those hornets. Haha
Nah, the Hornets Australia has left are the ones Canada _didn't_ want.
Amateurs think tactics, professionals think logistics.
G'day,
The
"Hornets" in question are the
Old original version,
Before the Redesigned
Super-Hornets.
The Origidiginal Hornet featured
Shit like a Fueltank located in the rear-fuselage
Between the two Engines'
Hot Sections,
And
All-flying Stabilisors which double as Ailerons,
Hydraulically-actuated by a
Single-Piped System.
Old Hornets have
Zero ability to survive
Any
Combat damage to the Rear-Fuselage/Tail....
So I read in a feature article regarding the US DOD's Battle-Damage Test-Range set up following the celebrated "Blackhawk Down" incident in Somalia - to test the effect of shooting and hitting currently in-service Aircraft, mounted on a Pylon, in front of High-speed Cameras..., while running their Engines at cruise-power, in front of a Grid of Turboprop Fans - for Relative Airspeed....; in Air & Space Smithsonian magazine, back in the late 1990's.
Hornets & Harriers came out looking like Deathtraps.
The High Pressure Bydraulic Lines, made of soft Aluminium, running to the Rear Mainwheels' Brakes..., go down the outside of the Retractable Strut - so anyone with an Assault-Rifle shooting at one low-down, Transitioning into a Hover to land at a
"Forward Location on unprepared ground..." -
Only needs to puncture a Back Brake-Line to pump & spray
Flamable
Hydraulic Fluid into the
Twin
Hot Turbine Exhaust Streams -
Blowing straight down either side of the Undercarriage
Leg.
Which was why both
Harriers & early Hornets are not
Considered fit for shit,
Unless one is trying to train
Super-Hornet Pilots,
And wants a fleet of
Single-Seat Trainers for them to build hours in while trying not to fcuk up...
So, there is that.
Apparently the Ukrainians are keen on a fleet of Landfill-Grade EuroPeon HeligoFlopters which Oz has already dismantled ready for interrment.
I don't think the
Ukrainians know
What the fcuk they want,
Beyond
Unkle Spam turning on the
Military Assistance Tap
Again....
Such is life,
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
Finland's Hornets are analysed to have structural problems after average of 4500 hrs (they were originally expected to last 6000). They will last until replacement, but just. Of course war is war and you might just accept the aircraft breaking up under stress.
'One-way' drones for SEAD
They use anti-Radiation missiles for that, and not aircraft. Which air force did you serve in by the way??
@@michaelkatz275
Where'd he say he served, and yes. But those anti radiation missiles don't work on radars that are off. You fly useless, 1 way flight scrap drones, worth scrap prices. they get shot down first, you lose fk all money and you got the enemy to switch on the Radars.
That's a good day.
I doubt the Australians would have offered the Hornets if they had no tactical value.
LOL the RAAF just wants to get rid of these useless airframes that neither the Malaysians nor the Candians wanted FOR PARTS!
Don't know. However, Finland at one time was talking about sending some F-18. Maybe the Australians thought the USA would rebuild those. Lots of people think the USA has some magic powers to do things.
I can understand some factors here.
-The frames may be close to their end of service life.
-Time to train pilots.
-Time to train ground crew.
-Carrier Operations (if possible).
It would make for a good training aircraft though.
Why would they bother wasting valuable training time with anything related to CV ops? I see them doing short field ops, which is the whole point of asking for Hornets, but A-10s do that, and they're not CV rated, just beefed up for unimproved airfields, I think.
it's also all the training, logistics and support for airframes on their last legs. Is it worth the investment in human resources. It could create more troubles than good.
Nobody knows the actual state of those Hornets. Getting them even remotely ready, training pilots, ferrying them over only for the things to break down or crash, risking the valuable pilots? Then you get an iffy spares situation on top of that. Everyone and their dog flies F-16 and could provide various spares. Hornets? Not so much. Finland and Spain still fly theirs, Switzerland is sending fuck all, so they're SOL.
We may not know the exact state of the ex-RAAF Hornets, but we _do_ know that what they have left in inventory is what other Hornet users who've picked through them (including the RCAF) didn't even think were worth cannibalizing for parts. Those birds aren't just old and tired, they're old and _busted._
there are plenty of people that know and the $ and lead time would be too high to bother.
this was never a serious option. the reason for getting shornets was due to the fact that all the classic hornets were either suffering from or close to getting centre barrel fatigie. after we couldnt find suitable donors from the canadians and finns we decided to go to shornets and growlers, the ukrainians are better off without them as the likelyhood of them staying flightworthy in stressed situations was prob next to zero
I looked this up and apparently it's TWENTY-EIGHT THOUSAND (!!) man hours to change the centre barrel on the F-18 🤯
Accept the ten airframes that had the centre barrels changed (unless they're already gone to the Canuks)
I wonder if they’ve ever heard the saying don’t look a gift horse in the mouth?
Doesn’t work that way. Ukraine would need to invest too many resources keeping them maintained and operable.
How about gift certificates for Outback Steakhouse and a free Bloomin' Onion?
And shrimps on the barbeee..
@@Thunder_6278 no rules, just right
Outback Steakhouse is American. It was created in Tampa, after the whole Crocodile Dundee movie thing.
@willw8011 yeah I know. Just thought of it since it was the RAAF
That would bw Americas offer
I've heard from someone involved with maintenance off the F18 it was logistics of maintenance, Ukraine didn't want too maintain two new platforms, the logistics Ukraine believe that it would stretch their logistics to much. They are going to focus on the F16 only. And yes there are maintenance issues to have them fully serviceable to full combat capabilities.
I'll take one!
they take only cash....why would they need planes ?
Wrong. Most of the "money" sent was materiel.
This article seems total fake. No sources, no names mentioned, no timeline. Only source they mention is "according to a person present" basically "Trust me bro". xD I'm kinda disappointed Gonky, that you believed this.
Similar story of MRH-90 Taipan transport helicopters to Ukraine. This is how it happened in reality: Australia has blocked the transfer of MRH90 Taipan helicopters to Ukraine at the direction of the Australian Department of Defense
Regarding a question of why the Australian government did not hold a conversation with representatives of Ukraine, Foreign Minister Penny Wong said that the government acted on the advice of the Australian Department of Defense, which was against such a transfer of equipment.
She also noted that the Department of Defense had informed the government that helicopters of this type were not suitable for Ukraine and recommended that the government form its own opinion based on these facts.
Instead :
Vital systems, such as Rolls-Royce Turbomeca turbofan engines, avionics (including navigation systems, instruments and display panels), and subsystems common to the NH-90 will be transferred to other users. The airframes and unnecessary parts will be buried at a defense facility. Disassembly will be carried out by industry partners.
@@h.alfred5320 engine and parts aren’t transferred they are sold to off set the costs!!,
I have the impression that if a number of airframes/engines/sensors/spare parts combination had a reasonable amount of operational hours left in them, the Ukranians would even get F-4 Phantoms (modernized) for that matter. If they cannot even pull a hard turn to avoid A/A fire it really makes no sense to get something even if it's free. It's the definition of a flying coffin. They are fighting a war >right now
The Hornet fleet was already retired, Obviously in the lead up to retirement we aren't going to go over the fleet and spruce them all back up to warfighting standard. Instead we're going to use what's left of their lifespan to train our pilots before ditching them. Because that's the priority. Not who we can sell them to later.
We were frank and honest in telling Ukraine what condition these aircraft were in, and what work would be needed to get them to an acceptable standard. Clearly, that wasn't seen as good enough when Ukraine has limited resources.
Now onto the other issues.
One of Ukraine's less talked about issues right now is the desperate need to standardize on equipment in the long term. Bringing in Eurofighter, Gripen, Rafale Hornet and Viper might sound cool. But it'd be a nightmare. Long term standardization is key going forward.
Adding to that logistical issue is the fact that there is one, single operator of the old A/B hornets in the world. Canada. They've got their own Air Force problems I won't get into.
But suffice to say getting those thing back up and running isn't going to be easy when the production lines are only creeping along.
They just want cash and no questions on where it goes.
Most donations, and I mean MOST donations from the United States are military drawdown. So basically the US gives Ukraine old weapons and buys new ones with the money from the drawdown packages. This includes the 60 billion dollar package currently discussed.
The EU on the other hand HAS been providing Ukraine with cash. Not really the US.
It wouldn't matter if they sent F-35's it would take a year to train & be proficient with them. But the problem is, there is no one to fly them. And lastly, it's unlikely they could penetrate Russian air defenses anyway.
What? If they got and were proficient with F-35s they'd absolutely penetrate Russian Air defense. Russian air defenses can't hit the F-35 until it gets so close it could hit them with glide bombs. Our own air defenses can't really counter the F-35.
Ukraine literally filmed a S-400 getting blasted in Crimea with a overhead drone. Russian air defense is penetrated more often than a corn star.
I'm Australian. I dont want Australia having anything to do with Ukraine. This is a load of CRAP! They approached us by the way.
Would Ukraine have pilots,maintenance personnel and parts to make them usable?
People confuse being in need with being the rubish bin. Its a good call not to accept a second logistic line, for hardware that wont work and will take a lot of time to maintain. Why would I take these when nato is suporting me with f16? Its just good decision making.
So beggars can be choosers.
Actually they weren't ever offered the hornets. It was only the mainstream media which hyped that false information up.
I've got a couple of pairs of old socks with some holes in them Ukraine can have. They're clean. What's the postage from Australia to Ukraine? I've also got a new Slinger anti-drone gun they can have as well. Don't mention it.
As an Australian why are we supporting people O/S when we have homeless and vets living on OUR streets.
I don't understand why Ukraine would want to turn down an aircraft that may not be the best air superiority platform, but definitely could be a great affordable ground attack platform.
They are turning down boneyard grade jets rotting in Guam. Not something they can put in use without high cost of effort&resources. Well, except as decoys but plywood is always cheaper and more plentiful.
@@kognak6640 From what I understand, they do require some notable maintenance to get them up to snuff, but I'm honestly not sure what the cost would be. One certainly wouldn't want the airframes to be so stressed that they turn into exploding F-15's when they pull a hard g.
I agree, it's a nice thought, but all the associated costs and time make it a white elephant.
They all need a centre barrel replacements, and probably much more. These are the completely fucked airframes neither the Malaysians nor the Canadians wanted for fucking parts. Its just not worth the time, money and logistical hassle this would be. @@Condor1970
@@Thunder_6278 a lot like sending them f-16's too
Do your research the Legacy F18s were not even offered by the Australian Government
So you're telling me the Australian Financial Review publishes bogus stories?
@@reubensandwich9249 YES artificial intelligence contrived
@@Paul.PlaysGames And do you have anything to back this up?
@@Paul.PlaysGames Dude, I'm waiting... You said to "Do your reaserch" yet you aren't telling me why the Australian Financial Review is AI generated. Frankly, I hope you're from Australia so they can sue you for defamanation
@@reubensandwich9249 well sandwich I am from Potato Heaven , I'm sooo fingers glad I'm not from your country I am a potato 🥔 of God have you even studied law ⚖ .
They were probably advised not to take them. Because there was additional pressure on the back end to hold out for American models that the Defense Industry could than restock at premium pricing.
I’m Australian 🇦🇺 and I’m totally disgusted in my Government’s support of the Ukrainian Regime 🔥 🔥 🔥