RAAF Orders 24 Super Hornets?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Suitcase
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=ScottyDoo;3029051]They found a billion dollars to give away, pretty easily after the tsunami a couple of years ago.
Perhaps it saved us many more times this number in defence spending?
Perhaps it saved us many more times this number in defence spending?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Somewhere near here
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gnadebrg - wow, some big, and pretty bloody interesting thoughts there - nice work.
F/A-18A to F/A-18 E/F conversion? 4 hours. Half spent practicing saying," mate, stop touching my sh*t. I'll tell you when I want you to press the buttons" to the pax.
3...2...1 aaaaand bite!!!
F/A-18A to F/A-18 E/F conversion? 4 hours. Half spent practicing saying," mate, stop touching my sh*t. I'll tell you when I want you to press the buttons" to the pax.
3...2...1 aaaaand bite!!!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Jandakot, WA
Age: 24
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SJM111: No need to get defensive dude. I was just prompting speculation about the training requirements required to convert two squadrons of dudes over. I was implying nothing about the relative merits of pilots from either wing.
Its not a pissing match dude. We can turn it into one if you like though....
In the USN i believe the conversion from the classic to the super is 5 hours on type and an IRT.
Its not a pissing match dude. We can turn it into one if you like though....
In the USN i believe the conversion from the classic to the super is 5 hours on type and an IRT.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Above the Gay Bar
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too many 'dudes' dude
Control Snatch,
With a "Dude per Sentence" rate of 50% in your last post, you sound like a septic!!!!
Don't be too harsh on SJM111 - deep down, they all know we're better than they are!! (I've got the reel ratchet on, just in case I'm snoozing when the bait is taken!!).
With a "Dude per Sentence" rate of 50% in your last post, you sound like a septic!!!!
Don't be too harsh on SJM111 - deep down, they all know we're better than they are!! (I've got the reel ratchet on, just in case I'm snoozing when the bait is taken!!).
Thread Starter
Evertonian
If only they could hook up a "ping-pong" ball delivery system to an underwing pylon on those Flankers! My word, what a weapon!!!!
Thread Starter
Yes. One of the finest feats of marksmanship I have ever witnessed, was in Bangkok. This young lass, beat all of us in darts, and we were throwing them.......
And only one of her darts went off the side of the boot- so to speak.
And only one of her darts went off the side of the boot- so to speak.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with buying expensive and ultra sophisticated fighters is that in the end they are still limited to how many you have.If you have a technologically advanced fighter which can lock on and shoot down “X” number of enemy aircraft at once it is great for the academic argument.However what happens when the enemy has more than “X” number of aircraft it can put into the fight at the one time.
You might have a superior fighter but they might have more “cannon fodder” aircraft they are willing to sacrifice to achieve victory.
We should be looking at aircraft that we can afford to buy a larger number of rather than a few ultra capable weapon platforms that are so expensive we can only afford a handful.
You might have a superior fighter but they might have more “cannon fodder” aircraft they are willing to sacrifice to achieve victory.
We should be looking at aircraft that we can afford to buy a larger number of rather than a few ultra capable weapon platforms that are so expensive we can only afford a handful.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Above the Gay Bar
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
number of fighters
Lowerlobe:
You can either get a small number of fighters that are capable of shooting down 'x' number of aircraft, or a large number which, due to their limited capability, are also only capable of shooting down the same 'x' number.
Also, the RAAF will struggle to fully man the number of JSFs they are proposing anyway............we've always found it hard to maintain the required manning in the squadrons, and that trend will certainly continue with JSF.
Apart from the standard retention issues, there are recruiting problems - believe it or not, it's hard to recruit the quality and numbers required. There seems to be less kids knocking down the doors who are willing to sign on for the RAAF package (almost 15 years service, below par pay and conditions etc)
lmh
You can either get a small number of fighters that are capable of shooting down 'x' number of aircraft, or a large number which, due to their limited capability, are also only capable of shooting down the same 'x' number.
Also, the RAAF will struggle to fully man the number of JSFs they are proposing anyway............we've always found it hard to maintain the required manning in the squadrons, and that trend will certainly continue with JSF.
Apart from the standard retention issues, there are recruiting problems - believe it or not, it's hard to recruit the quality and numbers required. There seems to be less kids knocking down the doors who are willing to sign on for the RAAF package (almost 15 years service, below par pay and conditions etc)
lmh
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
luvmuhud,
I understand what you are saying about actual numbers of people in the armed services but my main point was that if you have an sophisticated weapons platform that we have 22 of and they are capable of knocking down 250 enemy fighters and the opposition puts up 350 fighters we lose.
If they have a cheaper and less sophisticated fighter but have more of them that we can shoot down then all the money we have spent is in vain.
If the we keep developing more and more sophisticated and complex systems that are by their very nature more expensive then by the year 2050 or whatever we will have an airforce consisting of 10 fighters.
I think during one of the many middle eastern conflicts involving Israel the average life expectancy of a fighter was such that our entire RAAF would be lost in less than one day.
I understand what you are saying about actual numbers of people in the armed services but my main point was that if you have an sophisticated weapons platform that we have 22 of and they are capable of knocking down 250 enemy fighters and the opposition puts up 350 fighters we lose.
If they have a cheaper and less sophisticated fighter but have more of them that we can shoot down then all the money we have spent is in vain.
If the we keep developing more and more sophisticated and complex systems that are by their very nature more expensive then by the year 2050 or whatever we will have an airforce consisting of 10 fighters.
I think during one of the many middle eastern conflicts involving Israel the average life expectancy of a fighter was such that our entire RAAF would be lost in less than one day.
Evertonian
At the outbreak of WW2, the Germans most definately had the edge in technology but the sheer weight of Allied numbers eventually won through. Notwithstanding the quality of equipment such as the Spitfire, Hurricane & P51...to name a few. If the Germans had the Me262 in greater numbers & designed for fighting, not bombing, one can only wonder what affect it would've had on the outcome.
Of course, it wasn't just limited to airpower. The sheer weight of numbers in the infantry also had an effect on their war effort.
I agree with your point Lowerlobe but, how many millions of Wirraways & Boomerangs would we have needed to beat those Zero's???
Of course, it wasn't just limited to airpower. The sheer weight of numbers in the infantry also had an effect on their war effort.
I agree with your point Lowerlobe but, how many millions of Wirraways & Boomerangs would we have needed to beat those Zero's???
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Above the Gay Bar
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Numbers of Fighters
lowerlobe,
Your logic is correct, however, the Government doesn't go shopping for fighters with a certain amount of money in it's wallet, and then trade off numbers for quality.
The numbers of fighters required (for a myriad of scenarios) is carefully analysed, and Defence will look at the various capabilities out there and make a case for each one, with a recommendation. It wouldn't matter if we were buying JSF, F-15E or Rafael - the numbers we'd end up with would be fairly similar to provide Defence with the required flexibility and capability to carry out the possible forecast operations. We are lucky that in the present environment, the Government generally takes Defence's advice on the best capability and writes the check for it. (Obviously the Government has to be satisfied we're getting value for money).
If we bought 300 fighters, it wouldn't make any difference - we'd still only fly the same number due to personnel numbers. I guess you could make a case for war stocks, but I think you'd be drawing a pretty long bow in trying to convince Government that we need to account for the mass attrition of fighters in a protracted air war!
Your logic is correct, however, the Government doesn't go shopping for fighters with a certain amount of money in it's wallet, and then trade off numbers for quality.
The numbers of fighters required (for a myriad of scenarios) is carefully analysed, and Defence will look at the various capabilities out there and make a case for each one, with a recommendation. It wouldn't matter if we were buying JSF, F-15E or Rafael - the numbers we'd end up with would be fairly similar to provide Defence with the required flexibility and capability to carry out the possible forecast operations. We are lucky that in the present environment, the Government generally takes Defence's advice on the best capability and writes the check for it. (Obviously the Government has to be satisfied we're getting value for money).
If we bought 300 fighters, it wouldn't make any difference - we'd still only fly the same number due to personnel numbers. I guess you could make a case for war stocks, but I think you'd be drawing a pretty long bow in trying to convince Government that we need to account for the mass attrition of fighters in a protracted air war!
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buster and luvmuhud,
I agree with both of you but I didn't mean to buy 300 fighters especially poor ones at that.
All I meant was that maybe we should look at a cheaper alternative so that we can buy more if the need arises as you pointed out with normal attrition for example or accident repacement .
Buster I know what you mean with how many Wirraways we would have needed but there should be a compromise between numbers and most advanced.
I just get the feeling now and again that little Johhny is buying the best things from his favourite shop becasue his uncle George owns it.
I agree with both of you but I didn't mean to buy 300 fighters especially poor ones at that.
All I meant was that maybe we should look at a cheaper alternative so that we can buy more if the need arises as you pointed out with normal attrition for example or accident repacement .
Buster I know what you mean with how many Wirraways we would have needed but there should be a compromise between numbers and most advanced.
I just get the feeling now and again that little Johhny is buying the best things from his favourite shop becasue his uncle George owns it.
Thread Starter
Quality vesus Quantity?
A small air force like Australia's should opt the quality option. And it traditionally has. 24 F111's for example.
In terms of numbers, Defence is running with a concurrent operations concept for the RAAF. The ability to deploy and contribute to a number of air campaigns simultaneously- say fighting on the Korean Peninsula and contributing to a coalition effort in the Middle East. This is the thinking behind a 100 aircraft fleet of fifth generation fighters.
This seems more a misguided foreign policy, than a realistic force structure for Australia. How do you crew a one hundred fighter fleet? Maintenance? Munition war stocks? Tankers?
The Arab-Israeli wars was raised as an argument for large numbers of fighters. The most relevant lesson of those wars for the RAAF, were the instances of very high Israeli attrition ( despite having American equipment and veteran pilots ) due inadequete electronic self-protection. A modern air campaign ( and ground war ) was almost lost within days, before the Americans could fly in the neccessary gear.
A small air force like Australia's should opt the quality option. And it traditionally has. 24 F111's for example.
In terms of numbers, Defence is running with a concurrent operations concept for the RAAF. The ability to deploy and contribute to a number of air campaigns simultaneously- say fighting on the Korean Peninsula and contributing to a coalition effort in the Middle East. This is the thinking behind a 100 aircraft fleet of fifth generation fighters.
This seems more a misguided foreign policy, than a realistic force structure for Australia. How do you crew a one hundred fighter fleet? Maintenance? Munition war stocks? Tankers?
The Arab-Israeli wars was raised as an argument for large numbers of fighters. The most relevant lesson of those wars for the RAAF, were the instances of very high Israeli attrition ( despite having American equipment and veteran pilots ) due inadequete electronic self-protection. A modern air campaign ( and ground war ) was almost lost within days, before the Americans could fly in the neccessary gear.
Evertonian
It seems we are in heated agreement! I guess we could always but Flankers at the equivalent price & end up with, perhaps, double the fleet & double the manning issues. At least then we'd know it would be sheer airmanship that would see them through!
Anyway, a safe & happy Christmas all!
I guess we could always but Flankers at the equivalent price & end up with, perhaps, double the fleet & double the manning issues. At least then we'd know it would be sheer airmanship that would see them through!Anyway, a safe & happy Christmas all!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the following clip although not super hornets is still impressive!!! A re-jigged version from an old A-4 clip. Enjoy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUDPjsvjRkA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUDPjsvjRkA
Thread Starter
My point was that the 100 JSF fleet seems to be a folly. Crewing issues- both air & ground- was one factor of a Defence Force facing personnel and financial resource constraints.
Does anyone seriously believe the following will occur for the RAAF politically? In 2010, the F111 retires. The RAAF operational Hornet fleet will be between 30 and 40 aicraft. Until 2015+ this small, tired fleet will have all bombing and air fighting responsibilities- why no missile on the P3 BTW?
If lucky, JSF will be in numbers of around 50 toward 2018. So between now & 2018 the RAAF is nowhere near a 100 number fleet of fighters.
But government and the brass have us believe the RAAF will ramp up in 12 years time toward a 100 aircraft fleet! Doubling numbers, crews, flying hours etc. Based on what threat assessment or budget?
It's Pie in the Sky!
I don't understand why we don't have a more compact structure for the RAAF. Two aircraft, overlapping roles to avoid the capability gap of 2010. Smaller numbers, but with all the add ons to go to war with.
A small purchase of F22's now. And JSF; when it's evolved and mature enough to replace the F18. Say 24 F22's & 40 JSF's.
Nobody in Asia is going to want to fight a RAAF equiped as such. So deterrence, waivers a requirement for a concurrent campaign capability.
And if we want to play expeditionary Crusaders with America. Those numbers are sufficient to provide the traditional RAAF contribution since 1950's Korea- never more than a squadron.
Last edited by Gnadenburg; 30th Dec 2006 at 22:05.