Super Hornets For RAAF
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For anyone that thinks the JSF will be better than the F22 you are deluded.
The F35 will be to the F22 what the F16 is to the F15. Manufactured by the thousand and expendable.
The only reason you may hear stats and figures that may lead you to think otherwise is because they are trying to sell the JSF. They are not trying to sell the F22.
The F35 will be to the F22 what the F16 is to the F15. Manufactured by the thousand and expendable.
The only reason you may hear stats and figures that may lead you to think otherwise is because they are trying to sell the JSF. They are not trying to sell the F22.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manufactured by the thousand and expendable.
Do you honestly think Australia's defence leadership is dumb enough to get sucked into buying an "expendable" aircraft?
I've flown the sim, I've seen the numbers, and I'm excited.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really would't worry. It would seem that most in the ADF will be out of a job in the not too distant future, and we will have a New Zealand style defence force.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...467452248.html
THE Federal Government will launch a major cost cutting assault on multi-billion dollar defence projects established by the Howard government, with the controversial $6.6billion Super Hornet jet fighters first in its sights.
Other defence white elephants in the Government's target include the Abrams tank, three massively expensive air warfare destroyers, two huge amphibious carrier ships, dud Seasprite helicopters, unnecessary flying drones and $16billion worth of undeveloped F-35 joint strike fighters.
Work will begin this week on the 2008 defence white paper, the biggest review of Australia's defence priorities since the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the US. It will reassess the Howard government's policy of spending $50billion to build a defence force that fits seamlessly into the US military machine.
Also just getting under way is a month-long inquiry into whether Australia needs 24 F/A-18 Super Hornets to plug a gap between the retirement of the F-111s and the arrival of the F-35s in 2014. It could cost $400million to cancel the order.
Professor Hugh White, head of Australian National University's Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, said many of these "white elephants were designed for major battles that Australia was unlikely to be involved in".
"The Abrams tank was designed to battle Soviet tanks pouring across Europe," Professor White said. "We are paying $2billion for two big amphibious transport ships which carry helicopters, 1000 troops, the Abrams tanks and were designed to invade with massive force. Where would we use them? We would do much better with four smaller vessels."
Paul Dibb, a former defence department chief, warned recently that defence chiefs had got what they wanted far too easily and big savings could be made in the projects.
"The only time a nation's defence budget should be untouchable is when there is a clearly and imminent military threat to the country. Evidently that is not the case now," Mr Dibb said.
The first multibillion-dollar white elephant to get the axe could be an $8.1billion navy plan to build three air warfare destroyers. They are designed to protect fleets, and Australia doesn't have one.
A similarly complex project to upgrade four Adelaide class guided missile frigates was labelled a "nightmare" by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. After four years and $1.4billion, the ships still can't be cleared fit for active service and have not been allowed to be deployed to risky zones such as the Middle East.
The two amphibious transport ships costing $1billion each could also be heading for the chop. The Rudd Government believes neighbouring nations would feel threatened as the ships could hold an invasion force.
[email protected]
Source: The Sun-Herald
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...467452248.html
THE Federal Government will launch a major cost cutting assault on multi-billion dollar defence projects established by the Howard government, with the controversial $6.6billion Super Hornet jet fighters first in its sights.
Other defence white elephants in the Government's target include the Abrams tank, three massively expensive air warfare destroyers, two huge amphibious carrier ships, dud Seasprite helicopters, unnecessary flying drones and $16billion worth of undeveloped F-35 joint strike fighters.
Work will begin this week on the 2008 defence white paper, the biggest review of Australia's defence priorities since the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the US. It will reassess the Howard government's policy of spending $50billion to build a defence force that fits seamlessly into the US military machine.
Also just getting under way is a month-long inquiry into whether Australia needs 24 F/A-18 Super Hornets to plug a gap between the retirement of the F-111s and the arrival of the F-35s in 2014. It could cost $400million to cancel the order.
Professor Hugh White, head of Australian National University's Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, said many of these "white elephants were designed for major battles that Australia was unlikely to be involved in".
"The Abrams tank was designed to battle Soviet tanks pouring across Europe," Professor White said. "We are paying $2billion for two big amphibious transport ships which carry helicopters, 1000 troops, the Abrams tanks and were designed to invade with massive force. Where would we use them? We would do much better with four smaller vessels."
Paul Dibb, a former defence department chief, warned recently that defence chiefs had got what they wanted far too easily and big savings could be made in the projects.
"The only time a nation's defence budget should be untouchable is when there is a clearly and imminent military threat to the country. Evidently that is not the case now," Mr Dibb said.
The first multibillion-dollar white elephant to get the axe could be an $8.1billion navy plan to build three air warfare destroyers. They are designed to protect fleets, and Australia doesn't have one.
A similarly complex project to upgrade four Adelaide class guided missile frigates was labelled a "nightmare" by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. After four years and $1.4billion, the ships still can't be cleared fit for active service and have not been allowed to be deployed to risky zones such as the Middle East.
The two amphibious transport ships costing $1billion each could also be heading for the chop. The Rudd Government believes neighbouring nations would feel threatened as the ships could hold an invasion force.
[email protected]
Source: The Sun-Herald
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: ADELAIDE
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I too do not believe the F-35 will be expendable. Depending on whom you listen to the cost is either in then year 2002 dollars of $40 or $50 million dollars or north of $100 million per aircraft. Serious amounts in anyone's language.
It is true that the technology in the F-22 is older than the F-35. However if what I have read about the computing modules in the F-22 they are swap out in design. I would assume that the F-35 will use similar technology. So depending on upgrades some F-22's in the future may very well have higher capacity computing power than some F-35's and of course vice versa. I would imagine that the F-22 is being built in blocks and thus would have design changes and upgrades incorporated as the build progresses.
As far as numbers go the F-22 line is going to produce South of 200 Raptors. No more have been authorised and the current US administration have not as yet authorized further numbers for the USAF or any foreign country. Interestingly the line has not had money set aside for closure with one article speculating that the current administration is leaving the decision whether to close it or not up to the next administration. Complicating matters is the grounding of some F-15 models due to a manufacturing fault that lead to a mid air break up of one F-15. Not the sort of thing that one would expect to occur in the worlds pre eminent air force. So politically their may be pressure building to order more Raptors to replace ageing F-15's?
Gordon England wants the F-35 to fill this roll and of course that may be a prudent course of action excepting the fact that the F-35 is still a long way off being ready for squadron service. Politically having to wait a further 5 or so years before the F-35 starts appearing in any numbers is an eternity in politics. So as the previous writer stated, their are no further orders for the Raptor but I wouldn't be entirely certain that this wont change.
The MAIN risks still for the F-35 and of course all previous modern fighter bomber projects and no doubt all future ones as well are...
- POLITICAL- will a new administration fully fund the continuing development of the project?
- TECHNICAL- the software codex is huge due to the complexity, integration and highly advanced nature of the on board systems in the F-35. The F-35 has allready had its fair share of problems as all procurements do. It will be quite simply unheralded if Lockheed Martin can get the F-35 to squadron service without their being all sorts of issues and problems to sort through. This is normal. For me it was really strange that that the F-35 was chosen so early in its development by defence?
I am sure the previous writers experience of the F-35 and his flight on the simulator are genuine. I would say however that until RAAF air crew can fly the F-35 for real, test the claims of the manufacturer and fly aircraft with fully useable and operational software suites will I have my concerns allayed.
As a note the CDF mentioned recently that a RAAF exchange pilot is about to transition onto the Raptor. The impressions of one of our highly trained and experienced flight crew is one of the kind's of impression that we should base our procurement decisions upon. Hopefully this pilot will be a little more politically correct than one Raptor pilot was when describing ACM with other legacy fighters. He described it as similar to "clubbing baby seals".
So should we have the Raptor. Well that is a decision for the strategic leaders. These leaders set the priorities for the war fighters. The war fighters and civilian experts then decide what system or weapon can do the job. Where possible a tender process is followed with full competition of bids. If it is restricted or unavailable for export than political pressure is applied. The paperwork is correctly filled out and submitted.
My take on things is that the RAAF with a couple of squadrons of Super Hornets and a couple of Raptor squadrons is a very nasty future fighting force. Plus we then have aircraft from both US manufacturers rather than just one. If the Americans wont sell the Raptor then my hope is that the new Australian government will put this massive acquisition out to full tender.
The complication for the new Defmin is that if he cancels the Super Hornet contract then he burns $400 million for termination fees. He may be in quite the grumpy mood considering that it would appear that nearly a billion dollars needs to be re spent to purchase helicopters to replace the Super Sea Sprite fleet. I'm glad, I'm just a blogger.
It is true that the technology in the F-22 is older than the F-35. However if what I have read about the computing modules in the F-22 they are swap out in design. I would assume that the F-35 will use similar technology. So depending on upgrades some F-22's in the future may very well have higher capacity computing power than some F-35's and of course vice versa. I would imagine that the F-22 is being built in blocks and thus would have design changes and upgrades incorporated as the build progresses.
As far as numbers go the F-22 line is going to produce South of 200 Raptors. No more have been authorised and the current US administration have not as yet authorized further numbers for the USAF or any foreign country. Interestingly the line has not had money set aside for closure with one article speculating that the current administration is leaving the decision whether to close it or not up to the next administration. Complicating matters is the grounding of some F-15 models due to a manufacturing fault that lead to a mid air break up of one F-15. Not the sort of thing that one would expect to occur in the worlds pre eminent air force. So politically their may be pressure building to order more Raptors to replace ageing F-15's?
Gordon England wants the F-35 to fill this roll and of course that may be a prudent course of action excepting the fact that the F-35 is still a long way off being ready for squadron service. Politically having to wait a further 5 or so years before the F-35 starts appearing in any numbers is an eternity in politics. So as the previous writer stated, their are no further orders for the Raptor but I wouldn't be entirely certain that this wont change.
The MAIN risks still for the F-35 and of course all previous modern fighter bomber projects and no doubt all future ones as well are...
- POLITICAL- will a new administration fully fund the continuing development of the project?
- TECHNICAL- the software codex is huge due to the complexity, integration and highly advanced nature of the on board systems in the F-35. The F-35 has allready had its fair share of problems as all procurements do. It will be quite simply unheralded if Lockheed Martin can get the F-35 to squadron service without their being all sorts of issues and problems to sort through. This is normal. For me it was really strange that that the F-35 was chosen so early in its development by defence?
I am sure the previous writers experience of the F-35 and his flight on the simulator are genuine. I would say however that until RAAF air crew can fly the F-35 for real, test the claims of the manufacturer and fly aircraft with fully useable and operational software suites will I have my concerns allayed.
As a note the CDF mentioned recently that a RAAF exchange pilot is about to transition onto the Raptor. The impressions of one of our highly trained and experienced flight crew is one of the kind's of impression that we should base our procurement decisions upon. Hopefully this pilot will be a little more politically correct than one Raptor pilot was when describing ACM with other legacy fighters. He described it as similar to "clubbing baby seals".
So should we have the Raptor. Well that is a decision for the strategic leaders. These leaders set the priorities for the war fighters. The war fighters and civilian experts then decide what system or weapon can do the job. Where possible a tender process is followed with full competition of bids. If it is restricted or unavailable for export than political pressure is applied. The paperwork is correctly filled out and submitted.
My take on things is that the RAAF with a couple of squadrons of Super Hornets and a couple of Raptor squadrons is a very nasty future fighting force. Plus we then have aircraft from both US manufacturers rather than just one. If the Americans wont sell the Raptor then my hope is that the new Australian government will put this massive acquisition out to full tender.
The complication for the new Defmin is that if he cancels the Super Hornet contract then he burns $400 million for termination fees. He may be in quite the grumpy mood considering that it would appear that nearly a billion dollars needs to be re spent to purchase helicopters to replace the Super Sea Sprite fleet. I'm glad, I'm just a blogger.
Evertonian
The only time a nation's defence budget should be untouchable is when there is a clearly and imminent military threat to the country
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 57
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only time a nation's defence budget should be untouchable is when there is a clearly and imminent military threat to the country
And as for Professor White ....
he really ought to know better. The M1A1 wasn't bought for playing Rommel and he should bloody well know that.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you honestly think Australia's defence leadership is dumb enough to get sucked into buying an "expendable" aircraft?
I've flown the sim, I've seen the numbers, and I'm excited.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Are you telling me that aussie defence leadership has been on the money WRT major aquisitions.......come on dude, now you are taking the piss!"
Let me see:
AWACS: Late but will be the best capability in the region. Not such a bad decision.
C17: Had to bypass the system to get them but a bit of a no brainer given our current ops, a capability that was denied by the white paper process.
A330 TANKERS: Late but once again will be a fantastic capability and a better buy over the 767 tanker.
JSF: Only serious option. F22, Raphael, Burofighter all have serious flaws as a long term buy.
Super Hornet: If your serious about what capability you want available from 2010-2014 this a great buy and the only serious option. Will also be a useful capability until 2020.
Looks like the problems are in the project management side rather than the capability decisions. So tell how have the RAAF screwed up? Other than in the uniformed opinions expressed in this thread. The government of the day should look closely at all decisions, but once informed don't expect any huge change on the blue suit side of the show.
Yes in 20 years time we might look back and second guess all the decisions but right now things don't look to bad.
Let me see:
AWACS: Late but will be the best capability in the region. Not such a bad decision.
C17: Had to bypass the system to get them but a bit of a no brainer given our current ops, a capability that was denied by the white paper process.
A330 TANKERS: Late but once again will be a fantastic capability and a better buy over the 767 tanker.
JSF: Only serious option. F22, Raphael, Burofighter all have serious flaws as a long term buy.
Super Hornet: If your serious about what capability you want available from 2010-2014 this a great buy and the only serious option. Will also be a useful capability until 2020.
Looks like the problems are in the project management side rather than the capability decisions. So tell how have the RAAF screwed up? Other than in the uniformed opinions expressed in this thread. The government of the day should look closely at all decisions, but once informed don't expect any huge change on the blue suit side of the show.
Yes in 20 years time we might look back and second guess all the decisions but right now things don't look to bad.
Need To Speed
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Australia (Brisbane)
Age: 56
Posts: 114
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Australia could buy US fighter jets
Sunday Feb 24 18:37 AEDT
United States Defence Secretary Robert Gates says he will investigate whether Australia will ever be able to buy the Lockheed F-22 Raptor jet fighters.
Currently an Act of US Congress bars any foreign sales of what is believed to be the most advanced combat plane in the world.
Mr Gates said he did not know if the Raptor would require design changes to make it suitable for export.
That would only be an issue for Australia should the current review of future air combat needs concludes the RAAF needs the Raptor to maintain air superiority.
Mr Gates, in Canberra for the annual Australia-US Ministerial (AUSMIN) talks held Saturday, said because of the sale ban, he had never delved into the matter.
"It is an issue, given the importance that our Australian friends attach to it," he told reporters in Canberra.
"It is in an issue that I intend to pursue when I get back, first of all in terms of conversations with our own people in the Department of Defence, and also with the Secretary of State, and see what the prospects are and what would be involved if we decided that we needed to go to the congress and get a change in the law."
The F-22 Raptor is US Air Force's most advanced fighter which is specifically barred from sale to any foreign country under a 1998 amendment to a budget bill moved by Wisconsin Democrat Congressman Dave Obey.
That reflects a view of some US politicians that the US should jealously protect its military advantage by not exporting its best technology, even to trusted allies.
Asked how realistic it was to expect Congress to change the law to permit exports, Mr Gates said he did not know.
"I just need to go back and get myself better educated on this, in concert with the Secretary of State, and decide whether this is a matter that we should pursue with the Congress," he said.
Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon said on Saturday he would write to Congressman Obey to gauge his views on a change in his law.
He said the government had no view on whether Australia should or should not buy this aircraft.
"It simply expresses the Australian government's determination that when we make these very important decisions that every area of capability available is part of that mix," he said.
Under current plans the RAAF's ageing F-111 will retire from 2010, with the new Lockheed F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) entering service about 2015.
To fill any capability gap in the period 2010-15, the former Coalition government opted to buy 24 Boeing Super Hornets as an interim capability.
Mr Gates said he believed JSF would arrive on time.
"Everything that I have been told indicates to me that the Joint Strike Fighter is now pretty much on schedule and is proceeding," he said.
"So I think that the timetable that we have been talking about is one that probably can be met."
Mr Gates said the Australia-US trade agreement, designed to facilitate sales of sensitive US military equipment to Australia, was now in its final stages before approval.
He said the Defence Department had been paring down the list of exclusions and exemptions.
"We now have a list that is essentially the same as exists for the United Kingdom and the Congress has asked that both of these treaties be submitted together," he said.
"It is our hope that it will go to the Congress for ratification perhaps in early March."
Sunday Feb 24 18:37 AEDT
United States Defence Secretary Robert Gates says he will investigate whether Australia will ever be able to buy the Lockheed F-22 Raptor jet fighters.
Currently an Act of US Congress bars any foreign sales of what is believed to be the most advanced combat plane in the world.
Mr Gates said he did not know if the Raptor would require design changes to make it suitable for export.
That would only be an issue for Australia should the current review of future air combat needs concludes the RAAF needs the Raptor to maintain air superiority.
Mr Gates, in Canberra for the annual Australia-US Ministerial (AUSMIN) talks held Saturday, said because of the sale ban, he had never delved into the matter.
"It is an issue, given the importance that our Australian friends attach to it," he told reporters in Canberra.
"It is in an issue that I intend to pursue when I get back, first of all in terms of conversations with our own people in the Department of Defence, and also with the Secretary of State, and see what the prospects are and what would be involved if we decided that we needed to go to the congress and get a change in the law."
The F-22 Raptor is US Air Force's most advanced fighter which is specifically barred from sale to any foreign country under a 1998 amendment to a budget bill moved by Wisconsin Democrat Congressman Dave Obey.
That reflects a view of some US politicians that the US should jealously protect its military advantage by not exporting its best technology, even to trusted allies.
Asked how realistic it was to expect Congress to change the law to permit exports, Mr Gates said he did not know.
"I just need to go back and get myself better educated on this, in concert with the Secretary of State, and decide whether this is a matter that we should pursue with the Congress," he said.
Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon said on Saturday he would write to Congressman Obey to gauge his views on a change in his law.
He said the government had no view on whether Australia should or should not buy this aircraft.
"It simply expresses the Australian government's determination that when we make these very important decisions that every area of capability available is part of that mix," he said.
Under current plans the RAAF's ageing F-111 will retire from 2010, with the new Lockheed F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) entering service about 2015.
To fill any capability gap in the period 2010-15, the former Coalition government opted to buy 24 Boeing Super Hornets as an interim capability.
Mr Gates said he believed JSF would arrive on time.
"Everything that I have been told indicates to me that the Joint Strike Fighter is now pretty much on schedule and is proceeding," he said.
"So I think that the timetable that we have been talking about is one that probably can be met."
Mr Gates said the Australia-US trade agreement, designed to facilitate sales of sensitive US military equipment to Australia, was now in its final stages before approval.
He said the Defence Department had been paring down the list of exclusions and exemptions.
"We now have a list that is essentially the same as exists for the United Kingdom and the Congress has asked that both of these treaties be submitted together," he said.
"It is our hope that it will go to the Congress for ratification perhaps in early March."
Need To Speed
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Australia (Brisbane)
Age: 56
Posts: 114
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And again today in news.com.au
AUSTRALIA could be trusted with the United States' Lockheed F-22 Raptor fighter, US defence secretary Robert Gates says.
Currently an Act of the US Congress bars any foreign sales of the Raptor.
The aircraft is the US Air Force's most advanced fighter and its sale is prohibited to any foreign country, under a 1998 amendment to a budget bill moved by Wisconsin Democrat Congressman Dave Obey.
Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon said last week he would write to Congressman Obey to gauge his views on a change in the law.
Last night, Mr Gates, who was in Canberra for the annual Australia-US Ministerial (AUSMIN) talks at the weekend, said it was inappropriate for Australia to make its case directly to Congress.
"I think it probably is at the end of the day not appropriate for Australia to make its case directly to the Congress, to change the law. I think that's my job and the job of the administration," he told ABC Television.
"The reality is we have a law that prohibits the United States from selling F-22 to any country.
"Others, such as Japan, want the F-22 and we are in a position - we can't sell them the F-22 either.
"So I think it's up to us to try and see if we can get this statute changed."
When asked if there was any reason why Australia could not be trusted with the F-22, Mr Gates replied: "Absolutely not."
Currently an Act of the US Congress bars any foreign sales of the Raptor.
The aircraft is the US Air Force's most advanced fighter and its sale is prohibited to any foreign country, under a 1998 amendment to a budget bill moved by Wisconsin Democrat Congressman Dave Obey.
Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon said last week he would write to Congressman Obey to gauge his views on a change in the law.
Last night, Mr Gates, who was in Canberra for the annual Australia-US Ministerial (AUSMIN) talks at the weekend, said it was inappropriate for Australia to make its case directly to Congress.
"I think it probably is at the end of the day not appropriate for Australia to make its case directly to the Congress, to change the law. I think that's my job and the job of the administration," he told ABC Television.
"The reality is we have a law that prohibits the United States from selling F-22 to any country.
"Others, such as Japan, want the F-22 and we are in a position - we can't sell them the F-22 either.
"So I think it's up to us to try and see if we can get this statute changed."
When asked if there was any reason why Australia could not be trusted with the F-22, Mr Gates replied: "Absolutely not."
Evertonian
When asked if there was any reason why Australia could not be trusted with the F-22, Mr Gates replied: "Absolutely not." "Its nothing that a US base in Australia wouldn't fix!" 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Greg Sheridans piece in Mondays Australian captures the situation nicely. It appears he may have been speaking to people who actually know whats going on. If your interested it's still available in the defence section of the Australians website.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: mascot
Age: 57
Posts: 473
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the problem is that if we get the nod to buy the 22's then israel will want em and then pakistan will want a squadron or 2 then south korea and before you know it nz will want one or maybe 2 plus a trainer to keep up with the mates across the pond (or in kiwi , the 'dutch' ).
the yanks will have trouble breathing if that happens but maybe we could play hardball with the yanks and tell em we will buy the latest vodka powered aircraft if they don't paint a few 22's with roo's on em,
the yanks will have trouble breathing if that happens but maybe we could play hardball with the yanks and tell em we will buy the latest vodka powered aircraft if they don't paint a few 22's with roo's on em,
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Canberra
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An amazing aircraft, must of been a tight squeeze to get into that cockpit though, i'm 6'4 and wince whenever i see photos of some of the taller chaps sitting in them.
God knows what an ejection would have done to them, i guess saying that there would have obviously been height/weight limits to potential drivers.
Anyone remember the figure?
my punt on height would be around 5'8 Max.
God knows what an ejection would have done to them, i guess saying that there would have obviously been height/weight limits to potential drivers.
Anyone remember the figure?
my punt on height would be around 5'8 Max.
Evertonian
NFI on the actual figures. All I know is that I was also too tall (6'5") and was told by the RAAF recruitment chap that I was above the minimum clearance for the canopy...
I was shattered that day.
I was shattered that day.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MASSIVE Thread creep
I'm 6' and fit ok (just).
In the RNZAF potential A4 Pilots were given a 'rail ride' before being posted to 14 Sqn, in other words the Gunnies disconnected the seat, attached a crane to the top of it, got you to strap in and then hauled you out of the cockpit (obviously the canopy was removed). It was supervised by an AVMED Doc who had to sign off on it and would stop the crane at various points to see how close things got.
Having said that the top of my helmet and left shoulder touched the canopy and the 'HUD stoop' pretty much screwed my back for a couple of years but it was the a effen great jet to fly!
ps a 6'2 ish Kiwi who must have gusted 90KGs punched out OK...left his seat pan somewhere in the Manawhatu but he was fine.
In the RNZAF potential A4 Pilots were given a 'rail ride' before being posted to 14 Sqn, in other words the Gunnies disconnected the seat, attached a crane to the top of it, got you to strap in and then hauled you out of the cockpit (obviously the canopy was removed). It was supervised by an AVMED Doc who had to sign off on it and would stop the crane at various points to see how close things got.
Having said that the top of my helmet and left shoulder touched the canopy and the 'HUD stoop' pretty much screwed my back for a couple of years but it was the a effen great jet to fly!
ps a 6'2 ish Kiwi who must have gusted 90KGs punched out OK...left his seat pan somewhere in the Manawhatu but he was fine.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
extra big thread creep
here is some of the RAN's A-4G / TA-4G's with the boys squeezing in!!!(in the day)
Pics via ex RAN A-4G driver John Bartels.
Now, what was it you guys were saying about super hornets???
Last edited by wessex19; 17th Mar 2008 at 23:40.