Hornets And AMRAAM
Thread Starter
Hornets And AMRAAM
Curious as to where F18s can carry their AMRAAM missiles.
Every now and then, Downunder, you see them carrying AMRAAMs on underwing pylons. I haven't seen AMRAAMs on the old Sparrow fueselage stations.
What about a max load? A realistic mix?
Announced yesterday, Malaysia has ordered Flankers. It has one of everthing but more importantly will be interesting to see the mini arms race this may create-Singapore, Indonesia, V'nam, Thai and New Zealand( just kidding ).
Is the RAAF AMRAAM/ASRAAM mix a good counter to the Flanker?
Every now and then, Downunder, you see them carrying AMRAAMs on underwing pylons. I haven't seen AMRAAMs on the old Sparrow fueselage stations.
What about a max load? A realistic mix?
Announced yesterday, Malaysia has ordered Flankers. It has one of everthing but more importantly will be interesting to see the mini arms race this may create-Singapore, Indonesia, V'nam, Thai and New Zealand( just kidding ).
Is the RAAF AMRAAM/ASRAAM mix a good counter to the Flanker?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Gnadenburg
Answer to your last point - not as long as the RAAF persists with its Hornet (including the HUG). And electing to go with JSF will not cure the capability deficit either ----------- But then the ADF/RAAF has closed its mind to anything other than a US solution for some time now.
Answer to your last point - not as long as the RAAF persists with its Hornet (including the HUG). And electing to go with JSF will not cure the capability deficit either ----------- But then the ADF/RAAF has closed its mind to anything other than a US solution for some time now.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: under the stairs
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Boeing web site indicates that the fuselage stations are suitable for amraam.USAF uses wing tip stations on F-16's for amraam as it is only 120lbs heavier than a sidewinder.Don't know if the folding wing of a hornet could support this though.
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...fa18cdspec.htm
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...fa18cdspec.htm
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: N/A
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Hornet can carry AIM-120's on both hip stations (4 & 6) and all underwing stations (2,3,7,8). If the jet is carrying a FLIR then station 4 becomes unuseable.
Max Loadout is 10 AIM-120's.
Smartman - You are ill informed. The Hornet post HUG (Hornet Upgrade Program) with AMRAAM / ASRAAM will adequately counter the Flanker.
The JSF will certainly be more than a match for any A/C in the region.
Max Loadout is 10 AIM-120's.
Smartman - You are ill informed. The Hornet post HUG (Hornet Upgrade Program) with AMRAAM / ASRAAM will adequately counter the Flanker.
The JSF will certainly be more than a match for any A/C in the region.
Smartman,Guest
Posts: n/a
JSF (v Su35 or Typhoon or Rafale, to a lesser degree):
Less Range
Less Endurance
Less Payload
Lower Mach
Lower Turn Performance ('spec at high level in BVR conditions)
Less persistence
Similar stealth with full payload (which is still Less)
Reliant on off-board sensors (much higher cost variant may improve)
Single engine (I hear you! - but given a choice? 'Specially in Oz)
I acknowledge that these are 'noddy' factors - but put together with several other important 'scenario' factors', don't they tend to support my assertions? My misinformation comes from 12 years being paid to assess the pros 'n cons of what's value for money in the business - doesn't mean my views cut the mustard I know, but also doesn't imply that I'm anti US kit. Far from it - I'd be happiest with a Raptor any day; but then I can't afford a Ferrari either.
Still, I've a mind that is open to informed persuasion that the ADF/RAAF won't eventually catch a cold by putting all its offensive eggs into one basket, and that with JSF it will dominate the region (that indigenous word 'dreamtime' comes to mind). Meanwhile, I maintain that an apparently good financial deal (apparently/quizically!) today doesn't necessarily give tomorrow's boys the right toys.
Incoming -------------------
Less Range
Less Endurance
Less Payload
Lower Mach
Lower Turn Performance ('spec at high level in BVR conditions)
Less persistence
Similar stealth with full payload (which is still Less)
Reliant on off-board sensors (much higher cost variant may improve)
Single engine (I hear you! - but given a choice? 'Specially in Oz)
I acknowledge that these are 'noddy' factors - but put together with several other important 'scenario' factors', don't they tend to support my assertions? My misinformation comes from 12 years being paid to assess the pros 'n cons of what's value for money in the business - doesn't mean my views cut the mustard I know, but also doesn't imply that I'm anti US kit. Far from it - I'd be happiest with a Raptor any day; but then I can't afford a Ferrari either.
Still, I've a mind that is open to informed persuasion that the ADF/RAAF won't eventually catch a cold by putting all its offensive eggs into one basket, and that with JSF it will dominate the region (that indigenous word 'dreamtime' comes to mind). Meanwhile, I maintain that an apparently good financial deal (apparently/quizically!) today doesn't necessarily give tomorrow's boys the right toys.
Incoming -------------------
Smartman is absolutely spot-on in his assessment of the JSF, though he understates the type's formidable air-to-ground capability - and especially its very low RCS/first day of the war/'kicking down the door' capabilities.
But in almost any other scenario, the JSF (rigorously designed to cost as it is) is inferior to the next-block F-16 or F/A-18E/F, unless you have all of the airpower infrastructure (AWACS, JSTARS, F-22, Predator, U-2 etc.) available to the US forces.
There is a widespread lack of understanding about the Su-27/30/35 'Flanker' family. An RAAF Hornet would today certainly be at something of a disadvantage against an Su-27 if RoE dictated a close-in, turning visual engagement, because at low speeds the Su-27 can be phenomenally agile, and AA-11 'Archer' is a better weapon than 'Winder, with better off boresight capabilities. But only if the Su-27 wasn't taking advantage of its long range capability. The 'Flanker' does not carry external fuel, but instead has an internal 'auxiliary' tank for use in very long range missions. When this is in use however, the aircraft does not enjoy the turn performance and high Alpha capabilities which have dazzled airshow audiences.
Moreover, the aircraft (like the MiG-29) has a relatively modest BVR capability, and while it has the acceleration and missile reach, its radar and MMI are poor, and most analysts believe that AIM-120 and APG-65/73 would enjoy a significant advantage. The HUG might not be as impressive as an Su-27 in an airshow, but I think Smartman under-estimates the aircraft's real world capabilities, and over-estimates those of the 'Flanker'.
The helmet sight and ASRAAM will probably make even the RAAF's ancient F/A-18As more capable in a close-in engagement than any Su-27 variant likely to be deployed in the near future, though India's Su-30MKIs may eventually become quite capable aeroplanes.
But in almost any other scenario, the JSF (rigorously designed to cost as it is) is inferior to the next-block F-16 or F/A-18E/F, unless you have all of the airpower infrastructure (AWACS, JSTARS, F-22, Predator, U-2 etc.) available to the US forces.
There is a widespread lack of understanding about the Su-27/30/35 'Flanker' family. An RAAF Hornet would today certainly be at something of a disadvantage against an Su-27 if RoE dictated a close-in, turning visual engagement, because at low speeds the Su-27 can be phenomenally agile, and AA-11 'Archer' is a better weapon than 'Winder, with better off boresight capabilities. But only if the Su-27 wasn't taking advantage of its long range capability. The 'Flanker' does not carry external fuel, but instead has an internal 'auxiliary' tank for use in very long range missions. When this is in use however, the aircraft does not enjoy the turn performance and high Alpha capabilities which have dazzled airshow audiences.
Moreover, the aircraft (like the MiG-29) has a relatively modest BVR capability, and while it has the acceleration and missile reach, its radar and MMI are poor, and most analysts believe that AIM-120 and APG-65/73 would enjoy a significant advantage. The HUG might not be as impressive as an Su-27 in an airshow, but I think Smartman under-estimates the aircraft's real world capabilities, and over-estimates those of the 'Flanker'.
The helmet sight and ASRAAM will probably make even the RAAF's ancient F/A-18As more capable in a close-in engagement than any Su-27 variant likely to be deployed in the near future, though India's Su-30MKIs may eventually become quite capable aeroplanes.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jacko
No real contention.. And yes, I accept the 'near term' comments re-HUG and Su27. It is the medium/long term (2008+?) BVR scenario that I would challenge - the ASRAAM/HMS combo will probably become a kill/kill zone for all those that enter, but I'd always want to have it. Re JSF on day 1: agree that it will probably be highly effective - given the availability of those sensors! But in a prolonged Tier-2 conflict?
Am I still right in saying that there are many senior USAF officers who would like to see JSF funds allocated elsewhere?
No real contention.. And yes, I accept the 'near term' comments re-HUG and Su27. It is the medium/long term (2008+?) BVR scenario that I would challenge - the ASRAAM/HMS combo will probably become a kill/kill zone for all those that enter, but I'd always want to have it. Re JSF on day 1: agree that it will probably be highly effective - given the availability of those sensors! But in a prolonged Tier-2 conflict?
Am I still right in saying that there are many senior USAF officers who would like to see JSF funds allocated elsewhere?
Thread Starter
Smartman
With reference to our area of operations what would you consider a good mix? Has to be a mix because I don't see one aircraft on offer capable of all the jobs required.
Remembering our Sea-Air Gap doctrine and the important maritime strike role. Surely JSF would outperform all in this important area?
And I feel a buy British coming on. We should have stuck with the Yanks all along- dud Spitfires, Meteors, Lightning and TRS2 would have been a disaster compared Mirage/F111, Tornadoes instead of Hornets? Short range Eurofighters?
The Canberra was a stirling aircraft though.
With reference to our area of operations what would you consider a good mix? Has to be a mix because I don't see one aircraft on offer capable of all the jobs required.
Remembering our Sea-Air Gap doctrine and the important maritime strike role. Surely JSF would outperform all in this important area?
And I feel a buy British coming on. We should have stuck with the Yanks all along- dud Spitfires, Meteors, Lightning and TRS2 would have been a disaster compared Mirage/F111, Tornadoes instead of Hornets? Short range Eurofighters?
The Canberra was a stirling aircraft though.
Because of course the F-111 was such an outstanding success for the RAAF, right from the very beginning, and even more so for the Aussie taxpayer.
EF with conformals vs JSF in the RAAF context? No contest.
NB: When Australia got its Spits the US alternative was the P-40. When Australia got Meteors the US alternative was the P-80. When the RAAF procured Sabres, the UK alternative was the Hunter 6/9.
But you've already made your mind up, I guess.
EF with conformals vs JSF in the RAAF context? No contest.
NB: When Australia got its Spits the US alternative was the P-40. When Australia got Meteors the US alternative was the P-80. When the RAAF procured Sabres, the UK alternative was the Hunter 6/9.
But you've already made your mind up, I guess.
Thread Starter
Jackonicko
If only your sprit could be realised by your Ashes team!
The F111 has been a great success for the Australain taxpayer. The contigency plan in 1971 if the F111s problems persisted were as follows. Scrap the project and add another 24 Phantoms to the already 24 leased, aswell as 8 Recce Phantoms. In addition to the extra Phantoms, because of the range problems of the F4 in our defence context, 8 KC135s were to come with the package. Not sure if Mirage squadrons to be scrapped to facilitate the burden of manpower in doubling the bomber fleet.
So, forward to 2002. A force of F111s, still offering good capabilities( incoming ) as opposed to the Goliath F4 fleet above. The savings are in the billions! Could have done with the KC135s though.
Spitfires-huh. P40s had already turned the tide, in our time of need, before Churchill decided to send his clapped out Spitfires. Most were lost in engine failures. The foolish RAAF buy British almost cost us dearly. A fleet of P40s at the beginning of the war, the Yanks did offer, would have made a significant difference to theMalaya/Singapore campaign before they stemmed the tide in New Guinea.
Meteors- Yanks diddled us, we needed Sabres.
Hunter-worked out better having state of the art Mirages in the early sixties. Imagine being stuck with a fleet of Hunters in the seventies.
We don't see much of you in our part of the world, may be better to stick to American kit.
If only your sprit could be realised by your Ashes team!
The F111 has been a great success for the Australain taxpayer. The contigency plan in 1971 if the F111s problems persisted were as follows. Scrap the project and add another 24 Phantoms to the already 24 leased, aswell as 8 Recce Phantoms. In addition to the extra Phantoms, because of the range problems of the F4 in our defence context, 8 KC135s were to come with the package. Not sure if Mirage squadrons to be scrapped to facilitate the burden of manpower in doubling the bomber fleet.
So, forward to 2002. A force of F111s, still offering good capabilities( incoming ) as opposed to the Goliath F4 fleet above. The savings are in the billions! Could have done with the KC135s though.
Spitfires-huh. P40s had already turned the tide, in our time of need, before Churchill decided to send his clapped out Spitfires. Most were lost in engine failures. The foolish RAAF buy British almost cost us dearly. A fleet of P40s at the beginning of the war, the Yanks did offer, would have made a significant difference to theMalaya/Singapore campaign before they stemmed the tide in New Guinea.
Meteors- Yanks diddled us, we needed Sabres.
Hunter-worked out better having state of the art Mirages in the early sixties. Imagine being stuck with a fleet of Hunters in the seventies.
We don't see much of you in our part of the world, may be better to stick to American kit.
Last edited by Gnadenburg; 4th Dec 2002 at 01:37.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Gnadenburg ------
You're really just teasing aren't you!
If (like the thinking but silenced men in DoD/DSTO - and surprisingly there are more than you may think- who bothered to understand Typhoon's swing-role capabilites) you were to study that aircraft's spec, then you too will warm to Jackonicko's comments regarding EF v JSF. And to let you off the Pom-bashing hook, the jet has a European pedigree - so go on, treat yourself to a closer look. It's a pity that many Australians were prevented from so doing. Whatever happened to a 'fair go'? (Not a whinge - just an observation).
'Has to be a mix ----- ' ?? In that case, presumably you are at odds with Mr Howard's single JSF solution? But then I guess your PM (and Angus) were seduced by the offer of a good F15E deal when the Ardvark (sp?) finally falls apart which, despite DSTO's valiant efforts, is likely to be far earlier than expected. Wonder when they'll spring that on the Oz taxpayer?
I hear you're pleased with the Hawk though (and please don't have a rant about lousy support etc etc) ------
Now to a more important issue. I take it you're not a rugby union fan ??
You're really just teasing aren't you!
If (like the thinking but silenced men in DoD/DSTO - and surprisingly there are more than you may think- who bothered to understand Typhoon's swing-role capabilites) you were to study that aircraft's spec, then you too will warm to Jackonicko's comments regarding EF v JSF. And to let you off the Pom-bashing hook, the jet has a European pedigree - so go on, treat yourself to a closer look. It's a pity that many Australians were prevented from so doing. Whatever happened to a 'fair go'? (Not a whinge - just an observation).
'Has to be a mix ----- ' ?? In that case, presumably you are at odds with Mr Howard's single JSF solution? But then I guess your PM (and Angus) were seduced by the offer of a good F15E deal when the Ardvark (sp?) finally falls apart which, despite DSTO's valiant efforts, is likely to be far earlier than expected. Wonder when they'll spring that on the Oz taxpayer?
I hear you're pleased with the Hawk though (and please don't have a rant about lousy support etc etc) ------
Now to a more important issue. I take it you're not a rugby union fan ??
The Hunter was an alternative to your Avon Sabres, not the Mirage IIIOs (for which the UK alternative was the Lightning, which never had the legs for the RAAF, and would have been a poor choice).
Sabres/Meteors. Sabres weren't on offer before Korea, to you or anyone else.
And your Meteors did really rather well in the GA role, as I recall, and guys like George Hale proved that it was a better air-to-air aeroplane than some gave it credit for, though not in the high level 'over the Yalu' environment.
Spits? Tell your nonsense to Caldwell, Truscott et al. The Spit VIII in particular was a very successful aircraft in Aussie service. The P-40's record pales by comparison, while the Mustang (useful post War) was unsuited to fighter versus agile fighter combat. It did well in the long range escort role when the opposition was poor, or consisted of lumbering 109Gs, but was very handicapped by its violent and unpredictable departure characteristics and by the fact that gun tracking was so poor. (Go look at the SETP evaluation of the Mustang vs Thunderbolt vs Corsair vs Hellcat before you go repeating all the enthusiast nonsense about the P-51).
F-111 a success for the Aussie taxpayer? God save them from what you'd classify as a procurement failure then!
But then you're showing yourself to be just another typical whingeing Aussie (how amazing that you have the brass neck to accuse us of whingeing....!) with the usual anti-Brit chip on the shoulder. Still sore that your great grand-dad was transported for stealing that sheep, Bruce?
PS: I don't give a to$$ about Cricket (it's no longer played by or watched by gentlemen, and they seem to do it in coloured pyjamas now) but eagerly await your response on the rugby front.....
Sabres/Meteors. Sabres weren't on offer before Korea, to you or anyone else.
And your Meteors did really rather well in the GA role, as I recall, and guys like George Hale proved that it was a better air-to-air aeroplane than some gave it credit for, though not in the high level 'over the Yalu' environment.
Spits? Tell your nonsense to Caldwell, Truscott et al. The Spit VIII in particular was a very successful aircraft in Aussie service. The P-40's record pales by comparison, while the Mustang (useful post War) was unsuited to fighter versus agile fighter combat. It did well in the long range escort role when the opposition was poor, or consisted of lumbering 109Gs, but was very handicapped by its violent and unpredictable departure characteristics and by the fact that gun tracking was so poor. (Go look at the SETP evaluation of the Mustang vs Thunderbolt vs Corsair vs Hellcat before you go repeating all the enthusiast nonsense about the P-51).
F-111 a success for the Aussie taxpayer? God save them from what you'd classify as a procurement failure then!
But then you're showing yourself to be just another typical whingeing Aussie (how amazing that you have the brass neck to accuse us of whingeing....!) with the usual anti-Brit chip on the shoulder. Still sore that your great grand-dad was transported for stealing that sheep, Bruce?
PS: I don't give a to$$ about Cricket (it's no longer played by or watched by gentlemen, and they seem to do it in coloured pyjamas now) but eagerly await your response on the rugby front.....
Thread Starter
Smartman
Maritime strike is a primary RAAF role. Much more so than other air arms. I alluded to the sea-air gap doctrine so in light of this, what would offer a significant maritime strike option? What can Eurofighter offer? Would JSF not be an effective maritime strike platform?
Jackonico
Australians think of P40s and the Battle for Australia as the English think of Spitfires and the Battle of Britain. Nothing to do with relative capabilities, more an abandonment in our time of need!
This is not a chip on the shoulder, but the British have cost us dearly time and time again. The last is pertinent in our natural alignment with the Americans. Part of our defence relationship and alignment should be a bias toward their kit.
On Caldwell, I invite you to do some research. I know he would have prefered P40s to clapped out, hand me down MK 5 Spitfires with their worn out engines. We were getting pounded but the FW190 threat in Europe was more important to Churchill-all new builds Spits went to the RAF until we( and the US ) turned the tide- in late 43 we got the MK 8! The MK 5s cost us dearly in terms of engine failures. You are no doubt aware of Caldwell's first combat over Darwin.
On Bluey Truscott. He held the Japs at bay in New Guinea in P40s and tragically died in a famous P40 accident.
We foolishly stuck by a well entrenched British- RAAF doctrine at wars start. P40s offered but knocked back because British fighters would be made available. They of course were not made available. But oh what a difference a few hundred P40s would have made, especially in Malaya/Singapore.
Jacko, there is a generation gap between us, you may be surprised my great grandfather not a convict but lying in a war grave in France.
And on convicts, somebody who steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving English family, showing an initiative and commitment needed to tame this harsh and big brown land! Wasn't the English gentry who tamed it. Though the latter responsible for some spectacular military ineptitude.
Rugby, do Australains play rugby?
Aussie rules ( Bluey Truscott a famous footballer before a famous fighter pilot ) and cricket our primary sports.
Maritime strike is a primary RAAF role. Much more so than other air arms. I alluded to the sea-air gap doctrine so in light of this, what would offer a significant maritime strike option? What can Eurofighter offer? Would JSF not be an effective maritime strike platform?
Jackonico
Australians think of P40s and the Battle for Australia as the English think of Spitfires and the Battle of Britain. Nothing to do with relative capabilities, more an abandonment in our time of need!
This is not a chip on the shoulder, but the British have cost us dearly time and time again. The last is pertinent in our natural alignment with the Americans. Part of our defence relationship and alignment should be a bias toward their kit.
On Caldwell, I invite you to do some research. I know he would have prefered P40s to clapped out, hand me down MK 5 Spitfires with their worn out engines. We were getting pounded but the FW190 threat in Europe was more important to Churchill-all new builds Spits went to the RAF until we( and the US ) turned the tide- in late 43 we got the MK 8! The MK 5s cost us dearly in terms of engine failures. You are no doubt aware of Caldwell's first combat over Darwin.
On Bluey Truscott. He held the Japs at bay in New Guinea in P40s and tragically died in a famous P40 accident.
We foolishly stuck by a well entrenched British- RAAF doctrine at wars start. P40s offered but knocked back because British fighters would be made available. They of course were not made available. But oh what a difference a few hundred P40s would have made, especially in Malaya/Singapore.
Jacko, there is a generation gap between us, you may be surprised my great grandfather not a convict but lying in a war grave in France.
And on convicts, somebody who steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving English family, showing an initiative and commitment needed to tame this harsh and big brown land! Wasn't the English gentry who tamed it. Though the latter responsible for some spectacular military ineptitude.
Rugby, do Australains play rugby?
Aussie rules ( Bluey Truscott a famous footballer before a famous fighter pilot ) and cricket our primary sports.
Thread Starter
Smartass and Jacko- Eurofighter Sales Team.
What has Eurofighter got to offer in a maritime strike role?
And I asked around, some of our suburbs in Brisbane and Sydney play rugby. Are we not any good? Maybe the little interest factor.
Greatest sporting nation since the former East Germany. No drugs and no Stassi though.
What has Eurofighter got to offer in a maritime strike role?
And I asked around, some of our suburbs in Brisbane and Sydney play rugby. Are we not any good? Maybe the little interest factor.
Greatest sporting nation since the former East Germany. No drugs and no Stassi though.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't tell me Dr C Kopp's comments have infected the UK!! Has one of Australia's self-professed greatest military minds been ruffling a few feathers in the northern hemisphere?
After "flying" the F111 fixed base simulator:
Without doubt the smoothest and best handling large aircraft I have ever had the pleasure to fly. A predictable instrument platform, with crisp response in all axes, perfectly damped, with the best IFR instrument cluster layout I have ever seen. The aircraft rolls and pitches very nicely, and is very easy to fly precisely in basic aerobatic manoeuvres, and at low level. At no time is it obvious that you are handling a 100,000 lb gross weight strategic bomber, the aircraft exhibits fighter like handling through most of the envelope. Pig drivers tell me that the real thing is even nicer than the simulator.
Among others, the reason that the RAAF F/A-18 fleet (or the "Bug" as he prefers to call it) is experiencing fatique problems is because it is underpowered. Whaaat? How does this work??
After "flying" the F111 fixed base simulator:
Without doubt the smoothest and best handling large aircraft I have ever had the pleasure to fly. A predictable instrument platform, with crisp response in all axes, perfectly damped, with the best IFR instrument cluster layout I have ever seen. The aircraft rolls and pitches very nicely, and is very easy to fly precisely in basic aerobatic manoeuvres, and at low level. At no time is it obvious that you are handling a 100,000 lb gross weight strategic bomber, the aircraft exhibits fighter like handling through most of the envelope. Pig drivers tell me that the real thing is even nicer than the simulator.
Among others, the reason that the RAAF F/A-18 fleet (or the "Bug" as he prefers to call it) is experiencing fatique problems is because it is underpowered. Whaaat? How does this work??
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ex DD
This is not the place to pour scorn on such a fine analytical Lockheed-spopnsored brain; his recent piece on JSF is a fine example of his work. His PEng qualification has clearly improved an outstanding ability to muddle fact, theory and fancy, with neither objectivity or subjectivity featuring in his thought processes.
But then I'm a simple Oz-loving Pom - and that's another muddle.
Gnadenburg
Your question reveals a CK affinity. As I impled, your mind is set.
Rowing ?
For PEng, read PhD (stupid boy)
This is not the place to pour scorn on such a fine analytical Lockheed-spopnsored brain; his recent piece on JSF is a fine example of his work. His PEng qualification has clearly improved an outstanding ability to muddle fact, theory and fancy, with neither objectivity or subjectivity featuring in his thought processes.
But then I'm a simple Oz-loving Pom - and that's another muddle.
Gnadenburg
Your question reveals a CK affinity. As I impled, your mind is set.
Rowing ?
For PEng, read PhD (stupid boy)
While you base your opinion of UK products on a perception of the performance of the Spitfire V (!) and the Meteor, you seem strangely disinclined to pay any heed to Australia's recent record with the Kaman SH-2G(A), the C-130J and the SH-60. You then "Problem! What Problem?" us on the subject of the F-111.
And since you're so worried about the anti-shipping role, why do you prefer a design with two internal weapon's bays each of which is too small for a Harpoon or a Kormoran, and coming from a nation where the prime customers have no plans to use the type in a maritime attack role? Perhaps you think that Australia can easily, simply and cheaply integrate a suitable weapon as it did with AGM-142 on the F-111. That has been such a success, after all.....
Eurofighter, by contrast, can tote a pair of Storm Shadows a bloody long way, and with Italy and Germany looking hard at EF as a replacement for their maritime Tornados, a manufacturer-funded integration of even more suitable anti-ship weapons is not hard to predict.
Apart from range (and what are tankers for anyway?) Australia would have been better off buying Gripen than JSF - and certainly the advanced Gripens now on the drawing board with big conformal tanks and fuselage plugs would have presented a better match to more of the RAAF's requirements.
PS: If Hurricanes couldn't really cope against the Japs in 1941-42, what makes you think that P-40s could have done?
And since you're so worried about the anti-shipping role, why do you prefer a design with two internal weapon's bays each of which is too small for a Harpoon or a Kormoran, and coming from a nation where the prime customers have no plans to use the type in a maritime attack role? Perhaps you think that Australia can easily, simply and cheaply integrate a suitable weapon as it did with AGM-142 on the F-111. That has been such a success, after all.....
Eurofighter, by contrast, can tote a pair of Storm Shadows a bloody long way, and with Italy and Germany looking hard at EF as a replacement for their maritime Tornados, a manufacturer-funded integration of even more suitable anti-ship weapons is not hard to predict.
Apart from range (and what are tankers for anyway?) Australia would have been better off buying Gripen than JSF - and certainly the advanced Gripens now on the drawing board with big conformal tanks and fuselage plugs would have presented a better match to more of the RAAF's requirements.
PS: If Hurricanes couldn't really cope against the Japs in 1941-42, what makes you think that P-40s could have done?