canonball1
29th Oct 2007, 11:22
Some good footage and an interesting argument for Australia!
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/20071029_hornets/hornets_hi.asx
canonball1
29th Oct 2007, 23:54
<H1>Four Corners claims RAAF F/A-18 Super Hornet may be a dud
By staff writers
October 29, 2007 09:13pm
Article from: http://www.news.com.au/images/sources/news_sourcelogo.gif</IMG> (http://www.news.com.au/?from=ni_story)
Font size: + (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22669524-421,00.html#) - (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22669524-421,00.html#)
Send this article: Print (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22669524-421,00.html#) Email (http://www.news.com.au/email/popup/0,23605,22669524-421,00.html)
ABC questions Government's choice of Super Hornet
Full review of options never happened, program claims
Defence strongly stands by choice of aircraft
THE Defence Department last night launched a stinging rejection (http://www.defence.gov.au/media/DepartmentalTpl.cfm?CurrentId=7222) of claims the Royal Australian Air Force (http://www.defence.gov.au/raaf/) is saddled with a dud warplane following the controversial and surprise $6.6 billion purchase of 24 Super Hornets.
The latest version of the Boeing-built F/A-18F Super Hornet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/A-18_Super_Hornet) ordered by Australia will more than meet the RAAF's bridging requirements until the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter becomes available in a decade or so, said senior pilots and aviation experts.
Their assurances follow serious questions on last night's ABC TV Four Corners program (http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/29/2074087.htm)about the capability and wisdom of the Super Hornet contract announced by Defence Minister Brendan Nelson in March.
Central to the program's allegations was a claim that the usual process of thoroughly investigating all options before making a multi-billion dollar decision on defence spending were not followed.
The program also claimed Mr Nelson did not discuss the Super Hornet with his department secreatary or the chief of the defence forces before bringing his recommendation to cabinet level.
The program heard expert criticism related to the Super Hornet's performance - a shorter range than the 30-year-old F-111 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-111) it is replacing and a lower speed compared to the Russian-built Sukhoi Su-30 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-30) and Mig-29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-29) fighters operated by India, Malaysia and Indonesia.
But according to RAAF Group Captain Steve Roberton, head of the Defence Air Combat Transition Office, the criticism is unfounded.
Claims of less speed and range miss the point entirely, he said yesterday. The aircraft had inbuilt 5th generation stealth characteristics designed to minimise chances of detection.
"The Super Hornet is quite clearly the best aircraft to meet our bridging air combat needs," Group Captain Roberton said.
"It is by far the most capable with all the modern weapons, the most robust integrated defensive counter measures. Even its most ardent detractors acknowledge it is not only highly networked, it's got the world's best multi-role radar strapped on the front of it.".
His comments were strongly backed by military aviation experts including Australian Defence Magazine's Gregor Ferguson.
Four Corners also claimed that decision to withdraw the F-111s from service was based on false concerns over a safety image.
Former RAAF air commander, retired Air Vice Marshal Peter Criss, said Defence Minister Brendan Nelson had cited the danger of a F-111 breaking up at high speed as a key reason for their early retirement and replacement by 24 Boeing Super Hornets.
Mr Criss said concern was based on a catastrophic F-111 wing failure during a test.
"I certainly talk to people, those that I can get access to without embarrassing them, and they acknowledge that they broke an F-111 wing in tests through a bad test spectrum," he said to Four Corners program.
"In other words, they set the wing up incorrectly."
Former F-111 project officer Peter Goon said the view that there was significant risk associated with the F-111 was nonsense.
"The testing that has been done post the failed test has shown quite clearly that the aircraft structurally is quite sound," he said.
The decision to retire the F-111s and acquire JSF and the Super Hornets have been strongly criticised by a group of former defence insiders and outside analysts.
Former defence analyst Chris Mills claims he was black-listed for his criticism of the proposed JSF acquisition.
He said he advised Defence head Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston that buying JSF would be like every other major acquisition.
"It would be late, under-capability and over cost," he said.
Mr Mills said he was subsequently advised that RAAF chiefs were unhappy and any future employment would have to be personally approved by the Chief of the Air Force, Air Marshal Geoff Shepherd.
"There's every indication that's the case," he said.
- with The Australian
</H1>
Bwatchful
30th Oct 2007, 05:05
F18 vs F111
Why is this important?
canonball1
30th Oct 2007, 05:49
It's Not! Just interesting for the ex-F111 drivers in CX.
canonball1
30th Oct 2007, 10:56
Yeah! Your posts are keeping it at the top! If you don't give a damn... ignore it and let it fade.