And does anyone not think that the ABC selectively pulled short snippets..
Of course they did. Television interviews always do that. But are you suggesting that somehow we're not as bright, or prejudiced (?), as you that we're neither aware of the fact nor took it into account? Purveying that particular line also happens to coincide with your own "we didn't a fair opportunity to present our version of events" cover.
It didn't serve the supporting viewpoint any cred that certain people 'declined' the opportunity to appear to do just that. Also noted by those with a working synapse or three.
The same Air Commander that was sacked from his job as Air Commander; whose 2IC at the time just happened to be the current CAF
Please don't try and support your argument by smearing people This is the prevailing tenor of posts by yourself, ftrplt and some others presenting as somehow specially annointed by association with the service. Ad hominem only detracts from any semblance of validity you may be trying to establish. In effect it says, "I don't have any real or substantive message with which I can support my own argument, so let's attack the character of the messenger in the hope that unearthing a certain skeleton of human falliability will create the illusion by association the message must be false/invalid too". Like most jingoism, that tactic works well enough on the simpler people, but not on those intelligent enough to see through the mirage. And yes, I would like to hear what Roberton (sp?) had to say, as I would all parties, but on their own merit and without prejudicial edit or character assassination from either side.
Oh by the way, the Collins is now the best non nuclear sub in the world at the moment
Presumably in contradiction of what you were actually seeking to achieve with that statement, with it you've confirmed a predilection for willing self-delusion. Methinks you should exercise greater prudence before putting virtual pen to paper. Although you accuse others in your now so predictable style of exactly the same offense, you are clearly talking way outside either your area of expertise or knowledge, but in terms of what you would prefer to believe. An dangerously unaffordable indulgance in the profession of arms...if you wish to survive at the sharp end of events should the real shootin' start.
With my direct source someone close who is currently and has been actively involved at managment and trials levels in the Collins project since its very inception, a serving 'occifer' shall we say, formerly having spent 'a considerable period', in Oberon class submarines who has spent the entire time since involved in the project of trying to turn the Collins subs into the best silk purse they are capable of being for the sailors who have to fight in them, I can assure you that the fantasy you purport here doesn't quite represent 'the whole truth'.
Just because the process may have been flawed, doesn't automatically make the aircraft any less capable.
Although you will mind me saying so, that argument is infantile if it's supposed to somehow support either the Super Hornet's capability, which it doesn't, or suggest that bypassing the conventions formerly observed in the acquisition process should
ipso facto be sufficient evidence that it deserves an uncontested tacit nod of approval.
I comprehend your belief in and passion for Hornet considering you flew 'em for so long (implied). But don't let your closeness and understandable affinity close down perspective. And I'm not confusing with usual public romanticism re capability in a turning fight versus the contemporary realities of today's BVR battle either. Nor the fact that we're talking about the block II, although Super Hornet does
sound a lot more impressive.
Oh, and I may have missed it, but just how many Su-30M and Eurofighter hours did you say you had?
Although it goes beyond the scope of this thread, political indications are that the next 'fight' our Super Hornet engages in won't be against the same numerically inferior low calibre threats we have been engaging recently as an particpant state of the 'coalition of the willing'. BVR ordnance expended, bracketed by surviving numerically superior multiples, I know I'd want to be able to dictate the terms of disengagement, or if forced to engage, with at least something resembling performance parity. As for deep penetration AG strike capability? The concept of successful egress subsequently being dependent upon rendezvous with a probably terminated AA refueller?
As the drivers of a previous gen found out in Vietnam when the harsness of reality collided with what seemingly sound theory of the early '60's belief in a tactical superiority technology presented by advances in AA missile capability and supersonic design resulting in the 'we don't need no guns any more' concept conceived from an ideal, it was flawed in practice.
By all means present your case, but leave your prejudice behind and avoid ad hominem if swaying people to your perspective is truly your objective. Otherwise, it appears just a poorly camouflaged vendetta like vent.