Australian Fighter options
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jwcook. SH itself has been used in combat over Iraq and Afghanistan. Block 2 isn't that different. Whatever problems AGP79 AESA is having, it's a lot further along in its development than the Typhoon AESA, and indeed is in series production. From the pilot's POV, SH is pretty similar to F18A-D, certainly a lot more similar than Typhoon is.
But you know, I sense that whatever I say, you've already decided on Typhoon, so I'll just leave it at that.
But you know, I sense that whatever I say, you've already decided on Typhoon, so I'll just leave it at that.
Block 2 SH is pretty different from Block 1, with very, very much improved avionics. That said, a lot of that is not obvious to the pilot and non-avionics aspects are pretty much identical.
The Kopp/Goon gang have done a good job of laying a smokescreen by talking about upgraded F-111s (a potentially wonderful aircraft but a potentially horrible program to execute) and F-22s (not versatile enough, not long range enough, too expensive and unreleasable).
The real problem is the termination of the competition. Hell, at this point Australia could realize some serious gains by pretending there was a competition, just in order to get better terms. At the moment they are committed to buying something with a very uncertain price tag and no firm offset commitments.
The Kopp/Goon gang have done a good job of laying a smokescreen by talking about upgraded F-111s (a potentially wonderful aircraft but a potentially horrible program to execute) and F-22s (not versatile enough, not long range enough, too expensive and unreleasable).
The real problem is the termination of the competition. Hell, at this point Australia could realize some serious gains by pretending there was a competition, just in order to get better terms. At the moment they are committed to buying something with a very uncertain price tag and no firm offset commitments.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The real problem is the termination of the competition. Hell, at this point Australia could realize some serious gains by pretending there was a competition, just in order to get better terms. At the moment they are committed to buying something with a very uncertain price tag and no firm offset commitments.
Yesterday 23:47
Yesterday 23:47
I've made my mind up - I'd love to see the Typhoon in Oz, but I think having a competitive tender process is much more important!.
We don't want to make a Seasprite of this
Cheers
You mean the decision to buy JSF?
I think they were offered a chance to get in at the ground floor of a 4000-plus-jet program and to get F-111-like range and stealth for $40 million a pop. I'd do that too... if it was real.
I think they were offered a chance to get in at the ground floor of a 4000-plus-jet program and to get F-111-like range and stealth for $40 million a pop. I'd do that too... if it was real.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: sydney
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jwcook,
Do you think it is possible that the people working on this acquisition may be smart guys that have some experience in the field? I don't know who you are or what you know, and I don't give a $hit, because the people that matter DO know what they are doing and are well respected within the appropriate community.
There's no conspiracy theory here, so why don't you run off and take down your poster of Carlo Kopp. See you at Avalon - I guess you'll be the one with the hand-held scanner and logbook of tail numbers.
Do you think it is possible that the people working on this acquisition may be smart guys that have some experience in the field? I don't know who you are or what you know, and I don't give a $hit, because the people that matter DO know what they are doing and are well respected within the appropriate community.
There's no conspiracy theory here, so why don't you run off and take down your poster of Carlo Kopp. See you at Avalon - I guess you'll be the one with the hand-held scanner and logbook of tail numbers.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm.. your not very friendly señor.
They may be smart people,and I would think staff in that position would be smart, Just wondering why this particular group of smart people have come to a very different conclusion to all the other groups of smart people charge with a similar task...?
(Did some one say Seasprite
)
As for my poster boy Carlo, LOL you couldn't have got me more wrong, I've never been a fan of his... and as to who I am, I'm a nobody who just happened to be in Logistics and Purchasing in a previous life, so my understanding of the processes is a little better than the laymans
especially in regard to how long things take to do correctly.
I don't think theres a conspiracy, just an odd decision that seems rushed... (it was only last year the government of Australia asked Defence for a backup plan for the JSF if it was late, You'd think Defence would have at least asked around re price/availability from various manufacturers etc!!).
I posted here precisely because of the knowledge and experience of people here, in the hope of getting an understanding of whats were the reasons for SH, your post doesn't help me one bit.
and BTW I don't have a scanner/notepad or even an anorak..
Cheers
They may be smart people,and I would think staff in that position would be smart, Just wondering why this particular group of smart people have come to a very different conclusion to all the other groups of smart people charge with a similar task...?
(Did some one say Seasprite
)As for my poster boy Carlo, LOL you couldn't have got me more wrong, I've never been a fan of his... and as to who I am, I'm a nobody who just happened to be in Logistics and Purchasing in a previous life, so my understanding of the processes is a little better than the laymans
especially in regard to how long things take to do correctly.I don't think theres a conspiracy, just an odd decision that seems rushed... (it was only last year the government of Australia asked Defence for a backup plan for the JSF if it was late, You'd think Defence would have at least asked around re price/availability from various manufacturers etc!!).
I posted here precisely because of the knowledge and experience of people here, in the hope of getting an understanding of whats were the reasons for SH, your post doesn't help me one bit.
and BTW I don't have a scanner/notepad or even an anorak..
Cheers
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Typhoon v SH
JWCook
I think that you have missed much of the point of the problem for the RAAF. The purchase of SH is to fill a capability gap with an aircraft that will fit into the RAAF relatively easily and provide instant and proven capability.
I have a deep knowledge of Typhoon, I am also a big fan - it really is a great airframe and will be an outstanding combat aircraft, but it has some way to go still. In the timeframes that the RAAF need this capability (2010 operational) getting Typhoons is not going to be an option from just a purely manufacturing point of view let alone infra-strusture in Oz etc etc. Rafale is expensive, and I just would not consider it in the same sentence - buying anything off the French can be a minefield (just ask the Oz army about the Tiger programme). Gripen is simply not as good as the other options.
The Aussies are doing the pragmatic and sensible thing - despite your allusions to the Seasprite fiasco, my impression of the Oz procurement system is that they generally get value for money. This buy does smack a little of panic, but what can they do with the F111 becoming so expensive and unserviceable and F35 heading right at a rate of knots.
You could compare this a little to the good old UOR process where the performance/cost/time triangle suddenly becomes much more heavily weighted in the 'time' corner. SH will be available and operational for the RAAF in 2010, the rest won't.
I think that you have missed much of the point of the problem for the RAAF. The purchase of SH is to fill a capability gap with an aircraft that will fit into the RAAF relatively easily and provide instant and proven capability.
I have a deep knowledge of Typhoon, I am also a big fan - it really is a great airframe and will be an outstanding combat aircraft, but it has some way to go still. In the timeframes that the RAAF need this capability (2010 operational) getting Typhoons is not going to be an option from just a purely manufacturing point of view let alone infra-strusture in Oz etc etc. Rafale is expensive, and I just would not consider it in the same sentence - buying anything off the French can be a minefield (just ask the Oz army about the Tiger programme). Gripen is simply not as good as the other options.
The Aussies are doing the pragmatic and sensible thing - despite your allusions to the Seasprite fiasco, my impression of the Oz procurement system is that they generally get value for money. This buy does smack a little of panic, but what can they do with the F111 becoming so expensive and unserviceable and F35 heading right at a rate of knots.
You could compare this a little to the good old UOR process where the performance/cost/time triangle suddenly becomes much more heavily weighted in the 'time' corner. SH will be available and operational for the RAAF in 2010, the rest won't.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"(it was only last year the government of Australia asked Defence for a backup plan for the JSF if it was late, You'd think Defence would have at least asked around re price/availability from various manufacturers etc!!)."
And what's to say they didn't?
I know they did not go through the "massive PR blitz/press conferences with chest-beating, self-flaggellation, ashes & sackcloth-type very public angst/recriminations/everybody get their two-pence worth in" kind of freak show that so many expect with any procurement decision, but why should they?
I expect that they quietly called up each applicable manufacturer of suitable aircraft (Lock-Mart for F-16F, Boeing for F/A-18F & F-15E, EADS for Typhoon [is there a two-seat attack-oriented version... I think not], Dassault for Rafale [see Typhoon comments]... I doubt they even bothered with Sukhoi), asked them "If we ordered 24, when could we get them and for how much (with 15 years support & operations included)" and reported the results to the Defense Chief along with their assessment of relative performance (lots of real-world data is available without a formal competition).
The Defense Chief then talked to the RAAF senior staff, then he made his decision and contacted the PM, etc.
And what's to say they didn't?
I know they did not go through the "massive PR blitz/press conferences with chest-beating, self-flaggellation, ashes & sackcloth-type very public angst/recriminations/everybody get their two-pence worth in" kind of freak show that so many expect with any procurement decision, but why should they?
I expect that they quietly called up each applicable manufacturer of suitable aircraft (Lock-Mart for F-16F, Boeing for F/A-18F & F-15E, EADS for Typhoon [is there a two-seat attack-oriented version... I think not], Dassault for Rafale [see Typhoon comments]... I doubt they even bothered with Sukhoi), asked them "If we ordered 24, when could we get them and for how much (with 15 years support & operations included)" and reported the results to the Defense Chief along with their assessment of relative performance (lots of real-world data is available without a formal competition).
The Defense Chief then talked to the RAAF senior staff, then he made his decision and contacted the PM, etc.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DESPERADO
The original plan was for the JSF to be delivered 2012 time frame, the SH procurement is to be operational in 2010, looks to me like someone is now playing with the 'time' corner making it a lot tighter. capability overlap instead of gap!, I wonder what requirement was stated in the brief.
I do know the Typhoon would have problems meeting the 2010 for 24 airframes, barring unexpected surprises they could possible squeeze ~15 from the process by 2010, but I'm equally sure some members would give up 9 delivery slots for an order from a well respected procurement agency. AIUI no ones asked, I'd certainly like to hear otherwise as my curiosity would be totally satisfied...
As I see it there was a big opportunity for Oz in offsets that may have been missed.
Mentioning Seasprite was a bit harsh, I suppose Abrahms M1's would have been a bit better than mentioning the Collins class This bits is a joke so everyone take it easy! and back away from the keyboard slowly.
GK121 see PM's
The original plan was for the JSF to be delivered 2012 time frame, the SH procurement is to be operational in 2010, looks to me like someone is now playing with the 'time' corner making it a lot tighter. capability overlap instead of gap!, I wonder what requirement was stated in the brief.
I do know the Typhoon would have problems meeting the 2010 for 24 airframes, barring unexpected surprises they could possible squeeze ~15 from the process by 2010, but I'm equally sure some members would give up 9 delivery slots for an order from a well respected procurement agency. AIUI no ones asked, I'd certainly like to hear otherwise as my curiosity would be totally satisfied...
As I see it there was a big opportunity for Oz in offsets that may have been missed.
Mentioning Seasprite was a bit harsh, I suppose Abrahms M1's would have been a bit better than mentioning the Collins class
This bits is a joke so everyone take it easy! and back away from the keyboard slowly.GK121 see PM's
Two months prior to the possible Super Hornet deal made public, RAAF brass were in the media stating there will be no capability gap with the F111 retirement, JSF is on track and there is absolutely no need for an interim fighter.
Has Nelson lost faith and overrided senior RAAF officials with the Super Hornet? Seems a wise move. Though let's not forget, this is the first of many probable cost blowouts in providing RAAF with 100 fighters and it's desired capability to operate on concurrent operations.
Has Nelson lost faith and overrided senior RAAF officials with the Super Hornet? Seems a wise move. Though let's not forget, this is the first of many probable cost blowouts in providing RAAF with 100 fighters and it's desired capability to operate on concurrent operations.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Australian Fighter options
What about the conspiracy theory option?
Australian government is intent on increasing the capability of all arms of the ADF. Instead of trying to sell the voting public on increasing the size of the fighter fleet in the absence of a stated threat, they introduce an 'interim capability', in the form of an additional SQN worth of Super Hornets. If they can find lateral recruits, they can not only introduce the JSF without a capability 'dip' but also, through the back-door, increase the size of the fighter group by continuing to operate the SH through the transition and then replace the SH frames with an add-on buy of JSF at the end of the program.
Australian government is intent on increasing the capability of all arms of the ADF. Instead of trying to sell the voting public on increasing the size of the fighter fleet in the absence of a stated threat, they introduce an 'interim capability', in the form of an additional SQN worth of Super Hornets. If they can find lateral recruits, they can not only introduce the JSF without a capability 'dip' but also, through the back-door, increase the size of the fighter group by continuing to operate the SH through the transition and then replace the SH frames with an add-on buy of JSF at the end of the program.
Join Date: Oct 1998
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a lighter note; there is one thing the minister forgot to do before he hade a decision....
http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_sounds/hg/arms.wav
http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_sounds/hg/arms.wav
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grapability Cap
Dammit I missed the bit where he said:-
You have to wonder if Carlo was involved in that threat assessment!.
"Pointed stick? Oh, oh, oh. We want to learn how to defend ourselves against pointed sticks, do we? Getting all high and mighty, eh? Fresh fruit not good enough for you eh? Well I'll tell you something my lad. When you're walking home tonight and some great homicidal maniac comes after you with a bunch of loganberries, don't come crying to me! Now, the passion fruit. When your assailant lunges at you with a passion fruit..."
You have to wonder if Carlo was involved in that threat assessment!.
Australia went thru the same predicament toward the end on the Mirage 111 service, keep the Mirage 111 in service a bit longer and hope the F-16/F-18/ Mirage 2000 generation A/C were not delayed to much or buy the Mirage F1 as a stop gap , they took the chance and waited, the Mirage 111 got new Matra missiles to keep them going and good luck they were not needed in anger and the F/A-18 A/B's arrived in an acceptable time scale. Now 30 years later the world is not as stable and rather than taking the chance as Australia did in the late 70's will get a stopgap in the F/A-18F S/Hornet,just as the Mirage F1 was looked at as a stopgap and would have been ordered without going to tender because of similarity to the Mirage 111 in spares,maintenance and training etc, the F/A-18F wil be ordred as a stop gap for the same reason - ease of intergration into service with minimal cost,training and infurstructure of a completely new type.
Australian Defence procurement has had its ups and downs in the last couple of years:
The good ones- Collins class subs (eventually!!),ANZAC Class frigates, ASLAV 25,Abrams Tanks (the Armour boys love them both),Tanker for Navy (HMAS Sirius), C-17's, Air Warfare Destroyer, A330 Tanker(Eventually),737 Awacs (eventually)and hopfully choose the Spanish Helicopter Carriers
The sh*t ones- Tiger Helicopters (should have been Apache),Seasprite Helicopters (more SeaHawks),NH90 Helicopters (UH-60 M's) , Steyr Rifles (M4/M16), John Deere Bulldozers( should have been Caterpillar).
Australian Defence procurement has had its ups and downs in the last couple of years:
The good ones- Collins class subs (eventually!!),ANZAC Class frigates, ASLAV 25,Abrams Tanks (the Armour boys love them both),Tanker for Navy (HMAS Sirius), C-17's, Air Warfare Destroyer, A330 Tanker(Eventually),737 Awacs (eventually)and hopfully choose the Spanish Helicopter Carriers
The sh*t ones- Tiger Helicopters (should have been Apache),Seasprite Helicopters (more SeaHawks),NH90 Helicopters (UH-60 M's) , Steyr Rifles (M4/M16), John Deere Bulldozers( should have been Caterpillar).
Last edited by Blackhawk9; 18th Feb 2007 at 18:14.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Paradise
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deja Vu anyone???
Seems someone raised this issue a while ago:http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...light=AIR+6000
I like the particularly prophetic (and equally sarcastic) "...course we all know there won't be costs or delivery time blowouts with the JSF!!!".
Perhaps we should continue with Poll to see who's right re: interim jet, even though the government at the time stated there "...will be no capability gap OR interim type"?!?
Booger where are you now?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No never a pilot... not even close... wrong material.
1 x Dodgy retina plus crappy hand eye coordination. Oh and a risk taker, In fact I'm soo bad I drive a Volvo..
OK the Volvo is close to having an anorak/scanner/logbook.
Cheers
1 x Dodgy retina plus crappy hand eye coordination. Oh and a risk taker, In fact I'm soo bad I drive a Volvo..
OK the Volvo is close to having an anorak/scanner/logbook.
Cheers
<<Do you think it is possible that the people working on this acquisition may be smart guys that have some experience in the field? I don't know who you are or what you know, and I don't give a $hit, because the people that matter DO know what they are doing and are well respected within the appropriate community.>>
Item one, Mr Jones, anyone who has been in or near this business for more than six months knows that smart guys with some experience in the field have been responsible for a whole lot of massive c**kups. It happens. The second part of the quote is both a classic example of argumentum ad hominem and an example of the insularity and arrogance that protects bad choices from challenge. Onward the Light Brigade!
Maybe you should consider that there is something happening here and you don't know what it is, do you, Mr Jones?
Item one, Mr Jones, anyone who has been in or near this business for more than six months knows that smart guys with some experience in the field have been responsible for a whole lot of massive c**kups. It happens. The second part of the quote is both a classic example of argumentum ad hominem and an example of the insularity and arrogance that protects bad choices from challenge. Onward the Light Brigade!
Maybe you should consider that there is something happening here and you don't know what it is, do you, Mr Jones?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heres a couple of Australian articles that are Anti F18/ pro f-22, one from Carlo (suprise surprise), they do make some interesting comments..
Link Carlo
Link Canberra
Looks like this story has legs, the choices are on extending the F111 lives or Buying the F18, but with an election at the end of the year it looks like the options are limited.
Cheers
(suprise surprise), they do make some interesting comments..Link Carlo
t this point the minister's claims become bizarre. A news release issued the same day contained the statement that "the Government has not asked the United States for access to the F-22 Raptor", thereby confirming that the minister had not requested that the LOEXCOM process be performed to establish whether export is permitted. Another incongruity is that Gordon England, known as an outspoken advocate of the Joint Strike Fighter, is not the party responsible for managing this process. This task falls to the US Air Force.
Air Marshal Shepherd is, of course, right. It's all in the definition, you see. The Super Hornet is not as good as either the F-15 or the SU 30, the jets that our neighbours in the region are buying. But these are the so-called 4.5-generation fighters. What a fine little linguistic distinction. He should have been a lawyer.
Cheers