RAAF Orders 24 Super Hornets?

[control snatch]

Yes I agree. It would be awesome for airshows!

And every western air force would be wanting to come to exercises in Aust

[control snatch]

Also according to Dr Kopp their weapons are heaps better. The AMRAAM is clearly outclassed by the Alamo

[ozbiggles]

Sage, sorry about the late reply...took a long time to recover from the hangover.
Standby MY original thoughts.
Everyone anti government, anti RAAF....sorry anti super hornet had an axe to grind. Libel laws probably prevent me from saying what I believe they are but most people in the company know what they are.
Note, except the American guy, don't know where he came from but probably the same idea as the French guy. Good excuse to go to Paris and Washington for a 10 second grab on the show....and the ABC has a go at defence for wasting money?
Rule 1, annoy the boss and you won't be invitied back....GOOD!
I thought ftrplt gave a good run down on most of the points.
The war gaming wasn't rigged at all either was it.
OFs are reserved for people who haven't been in the know for years but pretend they do when they have other agendas because they believed they have been wronged. What grates is that instead of tending to that they embark on attempts to discredit the whole organisation.
And they wonder why they got the flick?

[scran]

ftrplt - to give you the background on Chris Mills - he is an ex Mirage pilot - but having said that, I never saw him fly during my time involved with Mirages (1976-1985) - so somewhat dated.

[ftrplt]

yeah, heard he last flew very early 80's???

Which just makes me even more angry at 4 Corners - nothing like even querying the credibility of your so called experts.

I thought he must have been an F111 guy, but almost choked when I saw him wearing a 3SQN hat.

I have heard that he has now definitely been 'blackbanned'

[Bobster]

Almost as bad as seeing the ex-engineer PG with old style flying jackey complete with ARDU crest.

[sage]

And does anyone not think that the ABC selectively pulled short snippets..

Of course they did. Television interviews always do that. But are you suggesting that somehow we're not as bright, or prejudiced (?), as you that we're neither aware of the fact nor took it into account? Purveying that particular line also happens to coincide with your own "we didn't a fair opportunity to present our version of events" cover.

It didn't serve the supporting viewpoint any cred that certain people 'declined' the opportunity to appear to do just that. Also noted by those with a working synapse or three.

The same Air Commander that was sacked from his job as Air Commander; whose 2IC at the time just happened to be the current CAF

Please don't try and support your argument by smearing people This is the prevailing tenor of posts by yourself, ftrplt and some others presenting as somehow specially annointed by association with the service. Ad hominem only detracts from any semblance of validity you may be trying to establish. In effect it says, "I don't have any real or substantive message with which I can support my own argument, so let's attack the character of the messenger in the hope that unearthing a certain skeleton of human falliability will create the illusion by association the message must be false/invalid too". Like most jingoism, that tactic works well enough on the simpler people, but not on those intelligent enough to see through the mirage. And yes, I would like to hear what Roberton (sp?) had to say, as I would all parties, but on their own merit and without prejudicial edit or character assassination from either side.

Oh by the way, the Collins is now the best non nuclear sub in the world at the moment

Presumably in contradiction of what you were actually seeking to achieve with that statement, with it you've confirmed a predilection for willing self-delusion. Methinks you should exercise greater prudence before putting virtual pen to paper. Although you accuse others in your now so predictable style of exactly the same offense, you are clearly talking way outside either your area of expertise or knowledge, but in terms of what you would prefer to believe. An dangerously unaffordable indulgance in the profession of arms...if you wish to survive at the sharp end of events should the real shootin' start.

With my direct source someone close who is currently and has been actively involved at managment and trials levels in the Collins project since its very inception, a serving 'occifer' shall we say, formerly having spent 'a considerable period', in Oberon class submarines who has spent the entire time since involved in the project of trying to turn the Collins subs into the best silk purse they are capable of being for the sailors who have to fight in them, I can assure you that the fantasy you purport here doesn't quite represent 'the whole truth'.

Just because the process may have been flawed, doesn't automatically make the aircraft any less capable.

Although you will mind me saying so, that argument is infantile if it's supposed to somehow support either the Super Hornet's capability, which it doesn't, or suggest that bypassing the conventions formerly observed in the acquisition process should ipso facto be sufficient evidence that it deserves an uncontested tacit nod of approval.

I comprehend your belief in and passion for Hornet considering you flew 'em for so long (implied). But don't let your closeness and understandable affinity close down perspective. And I'm not confusing with usual public romanticism re capability in a turning fight versus the contemporary realities of today's BVR battle either. Nor the fact that we're talking about the block II, although Super Hornet does sound a lot more impressive.

Oh, and I may have missed it, but just how many Su-30M and Eurofighter hours did you say you had?

Although it goes beyond the scope of this thread, political indications are that the next 'fight' our Super Hornet engages in won't be against the same numerically inferior low calibre threats we have been engaging recently as an particpant state of the 'coalition of the willing'. BVR ordnance expended, bracketed by surviving numerically superior multiples, I know I'd want to be able to dictate the terms of disengagement, or if forced to engage, with at least something resembling performance parity. As for deep penetration AG strike capability? The concept of successful egress subsequently being dependent upon rendezvous with a probably terminated AA refueller?

As the drivers of a previous gen found out in Vietnam when the harsness of reality collided with what seemingly sound theory of the early '60's belief in a tactical superiority technology presented by advances in AA missile capability and supersonic design resulting in the 'we don't need no guns any more' concept conceived from an ideal, it was flawed in practice.

By all means present your case, but leave your prejudice behind and avoid ad hominem if swaying people to your perspective is truly your objective. Otherwise, it appears just a poorly camouflaged vendetta like vent.

[ftrplt]

could you get any more big words and convoluted phrasing in there sage? <yawn>

[ftrplt]

I wasn't going to bother, but what the hell.

Quote:
And does anyone not think that the ABC selectively pulled short snippets..

Of course they did. Television interviews always do that. But are you suggesting that somehow we're not as bright, or prejudiced (?), as you that we're neither aware of the fact nor took it into account? Purveying that particular line also happens to coincide with your own "we didn't a fair opportunity to present our version of events" cover.

I wasn't inferring anything; I was responding to the quote by another poster. By inference, they (and many others on different sites) were implying that the message they got from Roberton was that 'doesn't matter if our aircraft is inferior, we will be OK because we can dogfight better'.

If you are smart enough to realise there is selective quoting, good for you. However, are you saying it's OK for 4 Corners to interview Roberton, have him provide his counter the their argument, and then not show it??

"we didn't a fair opportunity to present our version of events"

He was given a opportunity to present his version of events, they just didnt show it. I am led to believe his interview was around 90 minutes long.

Quote:
The same Air Commander that was sacked from his job as Air Commander; whose 2IC at the time just happened to be the current CAF

Please don't try and support your argument by smearing people

Not 'smearing' anyone; its fact and its relevant as 4 Corners (and 7:30 report and 60 minutes) have relied on his tenure as Air Commander to provide his credibility. If he was subsequently removed from this post because of his performance then that goes directly to his credibility. If 4 Corners knew this and ignored it, then that is a failure on their behalf. If they did not know this, then that is also a failure as the facts are in the public domain.

I am also quite sure the diplomats and strategic division guys spat their drinks when they showed us planning to bomb Jakarta; poor form by Pete Criss who should have known better; and 4 Corners not very clever also. Any guesses what led to him getting fired at the time??

And yes, I would like to hear what Roberton (sp?) had to say, as I would all parties, but on their own merit and without prejudicial edit or character assassination from either side.

Well ask 4 Corners why they chose not to show it then?

I comprehend your belief in and passion for Hornet considering you flew 'em for so long (implied). But don't let your closeness and understandable affinity close down perspective. And I'm not confusing with usual public romanticism re capability in a turning fight versus the contemporary realities of today's BVR battle either. Nor the fact that we're talking about the block II, although Super Hornet does sound a lot more impressive.

I don't have a passion for the Hornet; I just understands its strengths, and its (many) weaknesses. I also understand the progression of its development and am aware of the capability improvement present in the Block II. My point is that once again, 4 Corners chose to ignore this side of the RAAF's case.

Trotting out some American analyst to comment on the runt of the litter was irrelevant to the story - the 90's version of the Hornet bears no semblence to the Super Hornbet Block II.

For someone who is so fond of preaching, you're last comment in the quote above ticks all the boxes that you have just had a go at me for.

BVR ordnance expended, bracketed by surviving numerically superior multiples,

Oh really?? numerically superior -

As for deep penetration AG strike capability? The concept of successful egress subsequently being dependent upon rendezvous with a probably terminated AA refueller?

Your last name isn't Mills by any chance?

The rest of your stuff is just dribble.

[ftrplt]

P.S: My 'sources' tell me the Minister was willing to be interviewed, but he would only do it live.

He was not willing to be subjected to an edited interview; and I don't blame him.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Almost as bad as seeing the ex-engineer PG with old style flying jackey complete with ARDU crest.

It's my understanding that 'sage' knows PG VERY well indeed. In fact, he sees him in the mirror every morning!

P.S: My 'sources' tell me the Minister was willing to be interviewed, but he would only do it live.

He was not willing to be subjected to an edited interview; and I don't blame him.

This is correct, especially after what 60 Minutes did to him back in March.

Do these shows write the catchy title first, and then shoot/edit the story to match the title?

[OhForSure]

An innocent question from an intrigued observer (and wannabe ):


I do understand the merits of the Block II Super vs older generations, and understand it to be a GREAT all-rounder. But is there a logical reason why the government bypassed the usual tender process? What of the F-15E/I/K??? I realise that others (Euro/Grippen/Su etc) were never gonna get a look in for obvious reasons... but why not the F-15? I would have thought that as far as range/payload/performance capability it would exceed the Super II (standing by to be corrected!). Perhaps apart from AESA, what other advantages would the Super II have over the F-15, being a purpose-built long range fighter/bomber? Slightly newer tech? Costs (either acquisition or operating)? As alluded to earlier, I'm personally not convinced with the notion of "commonality" being responsible for reducing costs, as the baby hornet and Rhino IIs are vastly different.


Is it likely that the Super II was chosen due to being the best deal available on very short notice and that the US have being trying to export them to every man and his dog for the last few years?


Interested in your insights...

[ftrplt]

my opinions only as an outsider:

F15E (variants)

- is a fantastic acft and does a lot of things better than the F18E/F; however doesn't have a pure maritime strike capability (can be done but not optimised)

- USAF is putting its development funds into JSF and is only maintaining its F15E capability; possible support and development issues???

F18E/F

- I don't believe it would have been a go-er in its original form, however Block II makes it viable

- 5 day conversion for F/A-18A pilots; if F/A-18 serviceability becomes a problem (I am in no way saying it is or will be) then the logistics for a surge capability are there

- as you alluded to; it meets the timeframe. 3 years is not a long time to introduce a new capability in an organisation that is extremely tight for manpower.

Yes, the acft systems are different (A and E model) but there are still economies of scale in operating two different versions of the same airframe from a logistics, manpower and weapon system employment

Trying to introduce soviet acft; impossible in less than 3 years and expect it to integrate into RAAF Command and Control; i.e AEW&C. The logisitics would be horrendous and the RAAF doesn't have the manpower to get its head around a totally foreign acft type, systems and support structures. How easy do you think it would be for the aircrew to learn completely new systems and weapons?? It is just ludicrous that people even believe this is a valid option for an INTERIM capability, or for that matter a permanent capability.

As far as the politics of the acquisition; I can't comment as I don't know. However, as I tried to say previously, just because the acquisition may or may not have been flawed, it doesn't automatically make the acft any better or worse.

My only comments on the process; if you want the acft in service starting mid 2010; you probably are behind the time-line already in 2007. Can you afford a tender process??

Also, as the acft is only an interim capability, can you argue there are grounds to bypass the tender process also?? Maybe.

I don't believe the fact that US have been trying to export them previously, and been unsuccessful, would have had any influence on the decision.

[Flyingblind]

Understand i am treading water out of my depth here, but didn't Switzerland hold a peoples vote/referendum to chose their fighter/interceptor many moons ago and come up with the F-18C?

I am aware that their style of Government differers greatly from our own, but should in a democracy like Australia's (snigger) let the people choose?

Anybody who can get up off the floor after hearing such a daft question may care to answer, after all, we all have to make quite complected choices in our daily lives, why not be presented with the facts and let the tax payers decide?

Any takers?

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Understand i am treading water out of my depth here, but didn't Switzerland hold a peoples vote/referendum to chose their fighter/interceptor many moons ago and come up with the F-18C?

I am aware that their style of Government differers greatly from our own, but should in a democracy like Australia's (snigger) let the people choose?

According to the book 'Hornets Down Under', the Swiss government chose the F-18C as the most appropriate aircraft in 1988, and announced the downselection. There was subsequently a reassessment over Switzerland's security situation but the choice of the F-18C was re-affirmed. The referendum was over whether or not to spend the money, rather than on the actual choice of aircraft.

[Buster Hyman]

The referendum was over whether or not to spend the money, rather than on the actual choice of aircraft.

Thank gawd for that! Could you imagine what we'd get if the tree huggers got in & did that? We'd be relying on the RNZAF for air defence!!!

[control snatch]

Some of you guys write way too much crap, do you honestly think the average reader actually gets past the third line? If you are going to write 10 paragraphs and want your point to be heard then write an executive summary.

And WTF is ad hominem?

Just a bunch of literary wanking...

[Going Boeing]

F15E - AESA radar?

OhForSure

Perhaps apart from AESA, what other advantages would the Super II have over the F-15, being a purpose-built long range fighter/bomber?

Your question is valid

Boeing Selects Raytheon to Provide AESA Radar for U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles

(St. Louis, November 1, 2007) -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] has selected Raytheon to provide a next-generation Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar for U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagle multi-role aircraft.

Boeing selected Raytheon following a rigorous source selection competition. The Air Force plans to develop and incorporate the AESA radar under the F-15E Radar Modernization Program (RMP).

Boeing and Raytheon share more than 35 years of success on numerous generations of F-15 radar, beginning with the delivery of the first APG-63 radar in 1972 and the incorporation of the world's first operational fighter AESA radar with the APG-63(v)2. This legacy, along with shared experiences on the F/A-18E/F APG-79, ensures the AESA-equipped F-15E will remain a force multiplier for decades to come.

"Raytheon's AESA radar is the best choice for the F-15E Eagle," said Mark Bass, Boeing F-15 vice president and program manager. "The AESA radar greatly improves the F-15E crew's situational awareness, targeting range and accuracy. The AESA radar will ensure that the combat-proven F-15E continues its multi-role supremacy for decades."

Source : Boeing

[ftrplt]

F15 and AESA: the question is when will it be in service?

[Like This - Do That]

Boeing and Raytheon share more than 35 years of success on numerous generations of F-15 radar, beginning with the delivery of the first APG-63 radar in 1972 and the incorporation of the world's first operational fighter AESA radar with the APG-63(v)2. This legacy, along with shared experiences on the F/A-18E/F APG-79, ensures the AESA-equipped F-15E will remain a force multiplier for decades to come.

Gawd they go on with some crap, these corporate marketing depts, don't they?