Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Problems with F/A-18 EWSP

Old 22nd Jul 2006, 00:26
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,217
Problems with F/A-18 EWSP

Aust missile-dodging system fails
From: AAP
July 22, 2006
A DEFENCE bungle could force Australia to scrap a missile-dodging system for its F/A-18 Hornet jet fighters because it cannot be integrated into the planes.

The failing electronic warfare system, at a potential cost of about $200 million, was chosen against the initial advice of an expert panel.
"It's a disaster,'' a Defence source said. "It's blowing up in their faces. This is putting people at risk."

The lucrative contract was awarded to the Adelaide-based BAE Systems, even though the firm's technology was unproven.

Now its ALR2002 system cannot be properly integrated into the Hornet's flight system, according to several sources close to the project.

Thr system was chosen over another model, made in the US by Raytheon, which has been successfully integrated with similar jets.

BAE Systems would not comment on the problems, but a spokeswoman, Shelley Mearns, said the technology was still in a "developmental test phase''.

She said any "formal acceptance from Defence will come later in the year".

A Defence spokeswoman said: "There was recognised to be an element of developmental risk involved in the selection of the ALR2002. However this was offset by the potential advantages in developing an indigenous electronic warfare capability within Australia and the employment benefits to Australian industry."

The spokeswoman declined to confirm or deny the problems, but said analysis of flight trials in recent weeks would be presented for Defence management "in the next few weeks".


-----------------------------------

We got for the local involvement but get a sh***ier system. Did I read that right??

Good old Project Echidna..

Last edited by Pass-A-Frozo; 22nd Jul 2006 at 01:43.
Pass-A-Frozo is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2006, 00:43
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,842
Another one bites the dust Frozo!

Aussie
Aussie is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2006, 02:01
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Eden Valley
Posts: 1,738
Someone should do a paper on where the RAAF would stand today, especially in view of upcoming JSF project risks, if procurement policy was along the lines of purchasing proven technology.

Debatably, the Singaporians, with the introduction of the Strike Eagle around the time we retire F111, will eclipse the RAAF in on paper capability. What is startling is their budget for their air combat group say, is a supposed fraction of what the RAAF spends and has spent. They have been operating assets such as tankers, AWACs and area SAM's for twenty years aswell.

In a few years, when the RAAF has under 40 operational F18's. Singapore will have 70 F16's and possibly 20 Strike Eagles. They are under no pressure to commit to JSF prematurely and maintain participation in the project.

If government believes the ADF needs 100 JSF's, air warfare destroyers and other high tech items for our defence needs 2015 plus. It must be a big oversight or strategic exposure, to leave us with under 40 Hornets for our defence for the next ten years.
Gnadenburg is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2006, 02:15
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Footlights College, Oxbridge
Age: 43
Posts: 225
This item is possibly one of the worst-written Australian media reports ever seen. These fcukwits have barely any idea of what they are reporting on.

"Missile-dodging systems"???????? Jezuz Christ. Please, won't these tragic tabloid media editors PLEASE exercise some semblance of their role over the reporters below them, and edit the reports before committing them to print.

I read this in the mainstream media and truly sick of reading the tragic, retarded standard of media in this country.
Lord Snot is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2006, 02:36
  #5 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,217
I think it highlights the need for a proper aviation / defence reporter at the major news agencies.. (bags not!)
Pass-A-Frozo is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2006, 04:17
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 197
The reporter who wrote this....drivel...called a colleague of mine looking for inside tidbits on HUG 2.3 a week or so ago.

Although most of us know the ALR-2002 has been a bit of a clusterf&#k from the get-go, the reporter was instead referred to the ADF media unit and to BAE Systems so he could talk to the people directly involved in the project. My colleague (who knows a fair bit about the project) was reluctant to provide any detailed info that this guy would probably take out of context and get wrong (2+2=5 etc).

When told this, the reporter said he was "only doing it because the tax payer has the right to know." Uh huh... If my colleague had believed the reporter truly meant that and would do the appropriate amount of research, he may have been more forthcoming.

Gives the rest of us a bad name...

Originally Posted by Pass-A-Frozo
I think it highlights the need for a proper aviation / defence reporter at the major news agencies
Agree Frozo, if only they actually took the subject seriously enough to recognise the need.

Magoo
Magoodotcom is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2006, 15:31
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Jandakot, WA
Age: 19
Posts: 84
This has been heartbreaking for ACG

Could have had the american system which was already integrated, but instead we incurr a MASSIVE overhead of trying to fix this shitfight.

We talk about maintaining superiority in the region, we are kidding ourselves!!! why not talk about getting it back.

The chogies with F-16 (on steroids, hate to think of whats in that spine) and now F-15 ARE/WILL BE the big stick in the region.

I need to find a bucket of water to stick my head in, this topic gets me fired up.
control snatch is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2006, 16:19
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,141
Just a differing viewpoint, but I think it is admirable the way some of the ADF money remains in Oz and promoting Oz skills and expertise. There are going to be some projects that blow up in our faces. That's an inevitable aspect of innovation. However, there must have been some property of the Raytheon equipment that the ADF felt required improvement or was unavailable to Australian ops.
Lodown is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2006, 20:25
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Footlights College, Oxbridge
Age: 43
Posts: 225
Originally Posted by control snatch
The chogies with F-16 (on steroids, hate to think of whats in that spine) and now F-15 ARE/WILL BE the big stick in the region.
Incorrect.

Airpower might have been a big factor in GWI and II but will not, alone, win any game in Australia or the SEA region.

Those Singaporeans will need a substantial land force of fit men with heart and motivation to prevail over anyone else, especially in the jungle environment, and this they do not have. The only SEA army force with any kind of backbone is Kopassus and then only when they're massacring some unarmed non-combatants.

The Singaporeans may (or may not) be okay with the stick and rudder but you have to go to Thailand or beyond to find an Asian grunt worthy of the title.
Lord Snot is offline  
Old 23rd Jul 2006, 02:50
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Eden Valley
Posts: 1,738
Welcome back Snot.

Airpower, mines & chogies in speed boats could close the Malacca Straits.

Airpower would do the bulk of the work to reopen them.
Gnadenburg is offline  
Old 23rd Jul 2006, 11:30
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 213
Airpower might have been a big factor in GWI and II but will not, alone, win any game in Australia or the SEA region.
That's just silly.

What if the "game" is inteferance with commercial air travel?
Point0Five is offline  
Old 23rd Jul 2006, 13:46
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Coal Face
Posts: 507
Lodown,
You wouldn't need to look far to find other countries deluding themselves that they have capability to produce indigenous solutions to their military's requirements. An admirable aspiration but one that rarely proves to be an ecomomic success.
The fact is the taxpayer foots the bill for irrational procurement decisions that loudly proclaim that 'off the shelf' was not good enough for Australian conditions or that our forces have some 'special requirements' which no other military in the world has a need for. In the case of developing indigenous capability, there will always be some successes but at what cost? Of all the defence industry capability paid for by the taxpayer, what has been the ROI? I don't know the answer, but I can't imagine it makes for positive reading. If it were a real business, and not subsidised by the defence budget, it would have gone bankrupt long ago.

(Disclaimer: I don't pretend to know exactly what has gone on with the ALR2002)
Chronic Snoozer is offline  
Old 23rd Jul 2006, 21:31
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Footlights College, Oxbridge
Age: 43
Posts: 225
Originally Posted by Gnadenburg
Welcome back Snot.
Airpower, mines & chogies in speed boats could close the Malacca Straits.
Airpower would do the bulk of the work to reopen them.
As always, you are quite the visionary, and of course I noticed, Mr. Burger, that you did me the courtesy of including such terms as "bulk," "mines," and "speed boats."

Feasible though your scenario may be, at least you got the gist of it.

Might be a pretty limited scenario, though. Maybe PAF or Magoo could hazard a guess at the size of the choges' stockpile of -9s/-7s/-120s?

Rearmament of any Eagle or Falcon-armed airpower involved in an engagement in the straits or elsewhere in SEA will be subject to the whims of the US who, as everyone knows, make decisions based on self-interests. Unless, of course, the French step in and offer Exocet and modified matra for fast choge cash...
Lord Snot is offline  
Old 23rd Jul 2006, 23:41
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sydney
Age: 50
Posts: 136
fish

Snot,

I'm curious - what exactly is a 'choge'? best definition I can find is:
Derogatory term similar to 'chink'. Used to describe person of chinese origin. Possibly originated Hong-Kong circa 1991.
from the Urban Dictionary

In which case, I would hazard a guess that perhaps you are referring to our Singaporean friends... although I have also met some fella's in the Malaysian and Indonesian forces of Chinese background, so could be them as well...

I would assume you have no problem with the all-encompassing Ang Moh Gui description being placed on yourself?
FishHead is offline  
Old 23rd Jul 2006, 23:50
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Footlights College, Oxbridge
Age: 43
Posts: 225
Well why don't you ask Control Snatch.....

I would assume you have no problem with the all-encompassing Ang Moh Gui description being placed on yourself?
To para-phrase Bob Mason (author of "Chickenhawk"), what do I care what a ***** calls me....??
Lord Snot is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2006, 01:10
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sydney
Age: 50
Posts: 136
Originally Posted by Lord Snot
Well why don't you ask Control Snatch.....
Because I was curious as to what nation you were referring to.

The fact that the term itself is offensive is incidental to the main thrust of my question...

Edit: Actually, re-reading my first post, perhaps the fact that the term was offensive was my main point.... but I am still curious as to which nation you referred to, as by using that term it doesn't make it clear

Last edited by FishHead; 24th Jul 2006 at 01:41.
FishHead is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2006, 04:42
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 197
Originally Posted by Lord Snot
Might be a pretty limited scenario, though. Maybe PAF or Magoo could hazard a guess at the size of the choges' stockpile of -9s/-7s/-120s?
I think your use of the term 'Choge' is pretty unnecessary, but I assume you mean the Singaporeans.

Re AIM-7/9 stocks - probably no AIM-7s as they haven't flown anything that could shoot them (F-5s, F-16s etc). Probably quite a few AIM-9s, mainly Limas and/or Mikes, but serviceability of the older ones would be questionnable.

Re AIM-120s, not sure sorry.

RAAF uses AIM-120C-5s now, whereas Singaporeans still have Bs I think - quite a different beast!

Magoo

Last edited by Magoodotcom; 24th Jul 2006 at 09:18.
Magoodotcom is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2006, 09:16
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 428
Deleted due no longer applicable
ftrplt is online now  
Old 24th Jul 2006, 10:17
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Footlights College, Oxbridge
Age: 43
Posts: 225
Probably quite a few AIM-9s, mainly Limas and/or Mikes, but serviceability of the older ones would be questionnable
Time for a yippee shoot........
Lord Snot is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2006, 03:41
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Eden Valley
Posts: 1,738
Originally Posted by Lord Snot
As always, you are quite the visionary
More reflective, than visionary. You can't fight on the Malayan Peninsula without control of the air. Been learn't the hard way by us before. Having two squadrons of Mirages at Butterworth for twenty years, treaty requirments aside, went some way in exorcising the demons of Singapore 1941.

But that wasn't my point anyway. Nor was there any suggestion we may fight Singapore. The point was, Singapore Inc has a procurement policy for it's defence force, that debatably and at a fraction of the cost, will see it eclipsing RAAF capabilities with the integration of the F15E into their present structure.

Granted, the RAAF may have access to novel items of technology not released to the Singaporians. But this may well have been made up with the distincly Singapore Inc policy of playing one against the other- in the case of the RSAF this involves Israeli technology and training.

As a further thought, wisely, Singapore Inc only looked at Israeli technology already successfully integrated onto platforms eg: F16. Whereas the RAAF, spends hundreds of millions of dollars on Israeli equipment, to discover it has to spend further resources on integrating the systems itself eg F111 missiles.

Twenty five years ago the RSAF had a handful of day fighters and day fighter pilots. The RAAF had a large fleet of tactical fighters and the all weather F111 bomber. Somehow, with the F111 retirement, Singapore Inc has turned the tables with smart procurement policy with a budget less than the RAAF's.

In two years the Singaporians will have F15E, late model F16's- both summing toward the 100 mark. It is giving away it's early model F16's to Thailand. But the RAAF will have around 40 upgraded F18's. Go figure?

And I didn't realise chogies a racial slur. I apologise to all. Choggie rhyms with "Noggie". I thought you had yourself muddled.
Gnadenburg is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.