I wasn't going to bother, but what the hell.
Quote:
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.
I wasn't inferring anything; I was responding to the quote by another poster. By inference, they (and many others on different sites) were implying that the message they got from Roberton was that 'doesn't matter if our aircraft is inferior, we will be OK because we can dogfight better'.
If you are smart enough to realise there is selective quoting, good for you. However, are you saying it's OK for 4 Corners to interview Roberton, have him provide his counter the their argument, and then not show it??
"we didn't a fair opportunity to present our version of events"
He was given a opportunity to present his version of events, they just didnt show it. I am led to believe his interview was around 90 minutes long.
Quote:
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
Not 'smearing' anyone; its fact and its relevant as 4 Corners (and 7:30 report and 60 minutes) have relied on his tenure as Air Commander to provide his credibility. If he was subsequently removed from this post because of his performance then that goes directly to his credibility. If 4 Corners knew this and ignored it, then that is a failure on their behalf. If they did not know this, then that is also a failure as the facts are in the public domain.
I am also quite sure the diplomats and strategic division guys spat their drinks when they showed us planning to bomb Jakarta; poor form by Pete Criss who should have known better; and 4 Corners not very clever also. Any guesses what led to him getting fired at the time??
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.
Well ask 4 Corners why they chose not to show it then?
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.
I don't have a passion for the Hornet; I just understands its strengths, and its (many) weaknesses. I also understand the progression of its development and am aware of the capability improvement present in the Block II. My point is that once again, 4 Corners chose to ignore this side of the RAAF's case.
Trotting out some American analyst to comment on the runt of the litter was irrelevant to the story - the 90's version of the Hornet bears no semblence to the Super Hornbet Block II.
For someone who is so fond of preaching, you're last comment in the quote above ticks all the boxes that you have just had a go at me for.
BVR ordnance expended, bracketed by surviving numerically superior multiples,
Oh really?? numerically superior -
As for deep penetration AG strike capability? The concept of successful egress subsequently being dependent upon rendezvous with a probably terminated AA refueller?
Your last name isn't Mills by any chance?
The rest of your stuff is just dribble.