RAAF Future Air Combat Capability Review

[Kraziman]

The Government (and the Opposition) was also offered some attractive and highly innovative purchase options, which would have made a 100-plus buy very affordable, at today's prices. At the time, there were more than a few senior players throughout the RAAF and DoD who were convinced that Typhoon might well have offered them a very viable multi-role solution, and in the right timescale. There was also a highly vocal element (mainly the US-centric and Pig fraternity - and how wrong the latter have been proved) that stuck their heads in the sand, and in some notable cases simply refused to listen. This latter group has done the ADF no favours, and I trust their like will be muted in the upcoming review process.

The "latter" wouldn't be the same people who tried to put ALR-2002 in the AF/A-18 would they? That worked well.

The F/A-18 wasn't fully cleared in 1980, but that's no surprise, since it didn't join the RAG until November of that year, and didn't complete the fleet acceptance process until 1981.

I guess it depends on what your definition of "full" is. It had A/G capability in 1980 with multiple weapons. Your beloved Eurofighter was marketed as a multi-role fighter when Pontius what a pilot. This lack of A/G (on time) is why many countries didn't buy it.

A couple of fairly credible sources suggest that in 1982, VX-5 recommended that the entire Hornet programme be suspended until MDD had sorted out various issues with the aircraft's range and bring-back capabilities (since this would've been terribly embarassing, they were ignored).

And your telling me because....The F/A-18 was developed from the YF-17 for carrier ops (it wasn't a carrier jet from the start). What do you expect and what does this have to do with a/g capability?

Oh, and the F/A-18 was cleared for A-G at the outset since its service entry pre-supposed replacement of the A-7 and the F-4 simultaneously. Service entry for Typhoon presupposed replacement of air-air types first, so it is nothing more than (a) logic and (b) funding that delayed the clearances for air-ground.

Other countries don't care about how the RAF plan to introduce it. You told us (possible customers) it would be multirole. It wasn't (block 5 in 07). Fact.

I'm going to stop winding up the Eurofighter fan club (which is fun and terribly easy). I will acknowledge my error on the gun and add some serious comment (I am capable of it).

I don't know why you guys separate the roles of CAS and Land Strike so much. Air to surface is as simple as find a target, ID IAW ROE and drop a bomb on it (fire a missile or gun at it). In land strike, targets are normally larger in size and in CAS (or any OAS mission) the targets are much smaller (tanks, troops, arty etc). As well as the targets sets being different, CAS also has the requirement for detailed integration with friendlies. At the end of the day if an aircraft can engage a target on the ground, it can perform any of the air to surface roles (land not maritime). Some are more efficient at CAS due to improved sensors and datalink but any modern jet we buy will have this. Most of the time (these days) it's the land forces that lack the equipment (they'd rather buy more tanks and arty).

If we get a new fighter in about the 2010 timeframe, I reckon F15E/K/S, Super Hornet or F22.

F35 was designed to own the air to surface roles (land) and hold it's own in A/A. Smaller countries can't afford to have dedicated aircraft types performing different roles (it costs too much). Many F35 operators will operate them as their sole A/A platform.