Super Hornets For RAAF
Evertonian
The threat to our north, at present
I think Gnadenburg has hit the nail on the head here...they're replacing the F111, not the F18's. If we were replacing the F18's, then that's another matter entirely.
On a side note, I'm not convinced they are, indeed, the best option but, I'm sure the Defence Dept. know what they're doing...
The Defence Dept do in fact know they aren't the best option (which parameter defines best?); just the best option when time, availability, integration, manning, training etc etc are taken into account.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canberra Australia
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RAAF seems to find itself mostly out of phase with its sharp end fighter assets when it comes to their operational use.
The first Oz fighter pilots had to stumble around in BE-2Cs and Caudrons in the ME in WW1.
WW2 found us with Wirraways versus Zeros and an initial belief that Japs couldn't fly very well. Many paid a high price
We were out of phase with Mustangs and Meteors in Korea and many paid a high price again.
We were better prepared with Sabres in Malaya but there was no worth while opposition.
We didn't want to risk our fighters in Vietnam and could have performed well with our Hornets in the last century.
There was no fighter opposition in Iraq.
Now we are about to throw away our premium deterrent to those who have an eye on our country's resources or impose on us a crazy religion and plug a capability gap with fighters which won't know what hit them when confronted by Sukhois 30s or better. The only equaliser will be advanced weaponry
As for the CO of the Wirraway pilots in WW2, if we have to use the Hornets and Super Hornets without adequate stings, the CO will have to repeat that well known message. "We, who are about to die, salute you."
The first Oz fighter pilots had to stumble around in BE-2Cs and Caudrons in the ME in WW1.
WW2 found us with Wirraways versus Zeros and an initial belief that Japs couldn't fly very well. Many paid a high price
We were out of phase with Mustangs and Meteors in Korea and many paid a high price again.
We were better prepared with Sabres in Malaya but there was no worth while opposition.
We didn't want to risk our fighters in Vietnam and could have performed well with our Hornets in the last century.
There was no fighter opposition in Iraq.
Now we are about to throw away our premium deterrent to those who have an eye on our country's resources or impose on us a crazy religion and plug a capability gap with fighters which won't know what hit them when confronted by Sukhois 30s or better. The only equaliser will be advanced weaponry
As for the CO of the Wirraway pilots in WW2, if we have to use the Hornets and Super Hornets without adequate stings, the CO will have to repeat that well known message. "We, who are about to die, salute you."
Now we are about to throw away our premium deterrent to those who have an eye on our country's resources or impose on us a crazy religion and plug a capability gap with fighters which won't know what hit them when confronted by Sukhois 30s or better. The only equaliser will be advanced weaponry
Milt... horse poop...
Re "We didn't want to risk our fighters in Vietnam and could have performed well with our Hornets in the last century."... Australia had Sabres, out of Ubon in Thailand, flying along the Loatian border doing Combat Air Patrol with live ordnance, Canberras in theatre, plenty of fighter pilots doing Fwd Air Control and, were it not for the French refusal to supply spares for Mirages IF they were sent to SE Asia, Mirages would have been there too.
And re "There was no fighter opposition in Iraq."... Really? I bet the 20+ pilots of Iraqi aircraft dispensed by McDonnell Douglas products (ie F15s and F18s) in the first gulf war might disagree. I have seen footage of numerous engagements in that conflict. All very real!
AWACS, smart weapons, air refuelling, aircraft system upgrades (a la F18 with Helmet sights etc), and good training & proficiency are all very good insurance against a non-optimum solution (and btw F111 is nowhere near optimum any more) Get a grip.
And re "There was no fighter opposition in Iraq."... Really? I bet the 20+ pilots of Iraqi aircraft dispensed by McDonnell Douglas products (ie F15s and F18s) in the first gulf war might disagree. I have seen footage of numerous engagements in that conflict. All very real!
AWACS, smart weapons, air refuelling, aircraft system upgrades (a la F18 with Helmet sights etc), and good training & proficiency are all very good insurance against a non-optimum solution (and btw F111 is nowhere near optimum any more) Get a grip.
Last edited by Jetsbest; 12th Mar 2007 at 11:57.
We didn't want to risk our fighters in Vietnam
As Jetsbest said in his post, Sabres were involved operationally during the earlier stages of the conflict.
What is there to complain about? Replacing 40 yr old F111 with brand spanking new Super Hornets?
Isn't the Number one thing about the SH the multirole capablility. Surely whats good enough for the US Navy is good enough for us.
From Memory US Navy chose the Super to replace attack aircraft and the F-14 and declined on the F-22.
Isn't the Number one thing about the SH the multirole capablility. Surely whats good enough for the US Navy is good enough for us.
From Memory US Navy chose the Super to replace attack aircraft and the F-14 and declined on the F-22.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Jandakot, WA
Age: 24
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Super Hornet will be no match against the fighters that are becoming prolific to our north.
Here we go with the hordes of Carlo Kopp worshippers again!!!
Just which fighters are you referring to??
Can you say with a straight face that they are becoming "prolific"???
From what basis are you saying we will be out gunned by the Su-27/30? Let me guess...you've seen it do airborne thrust vectoring on youtube!!!
Is anyone else in the region (in the near future, and apart from the chogies) likely to have a fighter with an AESA, LINK16, NVG, Helmet, AEWACS, AMRAAM, ASRAAM/Aim9X, Well trainied aircrew combination???
I know which cockpit I would rather be sitting in!!!
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To those who are unhappy with this purchase, if we didn't order the super Hornets what aircraft should we have ordered?
This isn't supposed to be a sarcastic question as I'm interested in ideas.
Does anyone know the delivery time of the new Hornets?
I guess there are a number of variables to consider when looking at new aircraft.
This isn't supposed to be a sarcastic question as I'm interested in ideas.
Does anyone know the delivery time of the new Hornets?
I guess there are a number of variables to consider when looking at new aircraft.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 58
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by lowerlobe
Does anyone know the delivery time of the new Hornets?
Cheers
Magoo
P.S Mods - what happened to the quote option for replies???
a submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade; Defence Sub-Committee
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committe...subs/sub13.pdf
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committe...subs/sub13.pdf
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a question on the way that defence procurement operates, and am hoping that someone with more knowledge maybe able to answer.
Going forward, within the ADF the number of suppliers for major assest seems to be getting smaller and smaller.
Boeing - F18, F18F, Wedgetail, F111 while its still around, BBj, Chook, C17
EADS - A330-MRTT, NH90, Tiger
Lockhead - C130, F35
My question is are each of the purchase for type treated as a one off purchase? Or are discounts sort out for multiple purchase from the one supplier.
I know from my job (telco Indusrty), that if I order in bulk and have a single source for the equipment I require, then I can receive great discounts.
Going forward, within the ADF the number of suppliers for major assest seems to be getting smaller and smaller.
Boeing - F18, F18F, Wedgetail, F111 while its still around, BBj, Chook, C17
EADS - A330-MRTT, NH90, Tiger
Lockhead - C130, F35
My question is are each of the purchase for type treated as a one off purchase? Or are discounts sort out for multiple purchase from the one supplier.
I know from my job (telco Indusrty), that if I order in bulk and have a single source for the equipment I require, then I can receive great discounts.
Evertonian
Ah, but being a "public" institution, there can be all sorts of claims of impropriety if you stick with one supplier who is providing discounts to continue the business...as opposed to the current method, where there is ...umm...no way of proving it!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 58
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dragon79
I have a question on the way that defence procurement operates, and am hoping that someone with more knowledge maybe able to answer.
Going forward, within the ADF the number of suppliers for major assest seems to be getting smaller and smaller.
Boeing - F18, F18F, Wedgetail, F111 while its still around, BBj, Chook, C17
EADS - A330-MRTT, NH90, Tiger
Lockhead - C130, F35
My question is are each of the purchase for type treated as a one off purchase? Or are discounts sort out for multiple purchase from the one supplier.
I know from my job (telco Indusrty), that if I order in bulk and have a single source for the equipment I require, then I can receive great discounts.
Going forward, within the ADF the number of suppliers for major assest seems to be getting smaller and smaller.
Boeing - F18, F18F, Wedgetail, F111 while its still around, BBj, Chook, C17
EADS - A330-MRTT, NH90, Tiger
Lockhead - C130, F35
My question is are each of the purchase for type treated as a one off purchase? Or are discounts sort out for multiple purchase from the one supplier.
I know from my job (telco Indusrty), that if I order in bulk and have a single source for the equipment I require, then I can receive great discounts.
With US equipment, there would likely not be any discounts for different equipment from the same manufacturer, as you're dealing through the US Govt (FMS) and its various program offices.
With the Europeans, who knows? Anything's possible there I guess!
Cheers
Magoo
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 57
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not that this helps today's dismal choice .... but think back to the choices confronting the RAAF in 1979 - 81 to replace the Miracle:
McDonnell-Douglas; Dassault; SAAB; Lockheed; PANAVIA; General Dynamics; Grumman; Northrop.
Or go back 15-20 years prior to that, the choices were vast; add to the above list English Electric; Republic; North American; Chance-Vought; Convair; North American; Hawker; etc etc
Consolidation in the industry might have been unavoidable, but one could argue it's gone too far.
McDonnell-Douglas; Dassault; SAAB; Lockheed; PANAVIA; General Dynamics; Grumman; Northrop.
Or go back 15-20 years prior to that, the choices were vast; add to the above list English Electric; Republic; North American; Chance-Vought; Convair; North American; Hawker; etc etc
Consolidation in the industry might have been unavoidable, but one could argue it's gone too far.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "public" institution didn't mind going sole source for the C17 (Great example I think) or the F18F(Undecided here) , and wasn't the competition non-existent for the F35 decision.
I have no issue with sole source as long as there is some form of oversight, independent or government, and most importantly the right equipment ends up in the right hands.
When dealing with the FMS do they simply act as sales agent, or do they act on behalf of the supplier in negations?
I have no issue with sole source as long as there is some form of oversight, independent or government, and most importantly the right equipment ends up in the right hands.
When dealing with the FMS do they simply act as sales agent, or do they act on behalf of the supplier in negations?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Canberra
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe i'm being a tad naive here but if your going to replace a mud mover with a potential high tech mud mover,shouldnt the 'stop gap' a/c be a superb example of current mud moving and a have the capability for a secondary role as a A2A missle carrier?
I.e. the Super (B)Eagle? F15R(AAF), i'm sure the Singaporeans & Korean contests were both different to our own requirements but it wouldnt hurt to operate an aircraft in line with some of our supposed allies. And who knows the RAAF may get to keep them after the lease expires and end up with a top notch F16A-B,SU-27 Killer.
Then again i guess Boeing may not be able to supply said a/c in our required price/timeline due to USAF requirements and our own Governments predilection for supplicanting themselves before the alter of Boeing/LockMart.
I.e. the Super (B)Eagle? F15R(AAF), i'm sure the Singaporeans & Korean contests were both different to our own requirements but it wouldnt hurt to operate an aircraft in line with some of our supposed allies. And who knows the RAAF may get to keep them after the lease expires and end up with a top notch F16A-B,SU-27 Killer.
Then again i guess Boeing may not be able to supply said a/c in our required price/timeline due to USAF requirements and our own Governments predilection for supplicanting themselves before the alter of Boeing/LockMart.
A related press release
L-3 Communications Link Simulation and Training to Build F/A-18 Tactical Readiness Trainers for Royal Australian Air Force
(Arlington, Texas, March 13, 2007) -- L-3 Communications Link Simulation and Training (L-3 Link) announced today that it has received a contract from Raytheon Australia to build three F/A-18 Tactical Readiness Trainers for the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF).
The F/A-18 Tactical Readiness Trainers are integrated with simulated controls, avionics, weapons and a flat panel display to view out-the-window visual scenes. These part task training devices operate on the same software as the three high fidelity F/A-18 Tactical Operational Flight Trainers that L-3 Link delivered during 2006 as part of the RAAF's Hornet Aircrew Training System.
"The Tactical Readiness Trainers will provide a low-cost, complementary training capability to the F/A-18 Hornet Aircrew Training System's Tactical Operational Flight Trainers," said Mike Wallace, Vice President of Air Force and Navy Programs at L-3 Link Simulation and Training. "These systems will offload some of the procedural training now being conducted on F/A-18 Tactical Operational Flight Trainers, enabling the high fidelity devices to support more complex warfighting scenarios. The Tactical Readiness Trainers have the potential to be integrated with the Tactical Operational Flight Trainers in support of larger scale simulation exercises."
The three Tactical Readiness Trainers will be delivered to the RAAF's two Hornet Aircrew Training System installations in late 2008.
Source : L-3 Communications
(Arlington, Texas, March 13, 2007) -- L-3 Communications Link Simulation and Training (L-3 Link) announced today that it has received a contract from Raytheon Australia to build three F/A-18 Tactical Readiness Trainers for the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF).
The F/A-18 Tactical Readiness Trainers are integrated with simulated controls, avionics, weapons and a flat panel display to view out-the-window visual scenes. These part task training devices operate on the same software as the three high fidelity F/A-18 Tactical Operational Flight Trainers that L-3 Link delivered during 2006 as part of the RAAF's Hornet Aircrew Training System.
"The Tactical Readiness Trainers will provide a low-cost, complementary training capability to the F/A-18 Hornet Aircrew Training System's Tactical Operational Flight Trainers," said Mike Wallace, Vice President of Air Force and Navy Programs at L-3 Link Simulation and Training. "These systems will offload some of the procedural training now being conducted on F/A-18 Tactical Operational Flight Trainers, enabling the high fidelity devices to support more complex warfighting scenarios. The Tactical Readiness Trainers have the potential to be integrated with the Tactical Operational Flight Trainers in support of larger scale simulation exercises."
The three Tactical Readiness Trainers will be delivered to the RAAF's two Hornet Aircrew Training System installations in late 2008.
Source : L-3 Communications
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Central Coast, NSW, Australia
Age: 35
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think there has been much or any speculation about purchasing the STOVL variant. However the first JSFs are supposed to be operational by 2014.
What does LHD stand for?
Regards
Ben
What does LHD stand for?
Regards
Ben