RAAF Orders 24 Super Hornets?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 57
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Track Coastal
Don't bring up ADATS, Collins Subs, Abrams Tanks or Sea Sprite helicopters.
here we go again .....With what would YOU have replaced the Leopards? You're on top of HNA are you? C'mon Track, you can do better than that ....
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: All over the place
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A tendering and bidding process as opposed to a just an "I'll have those ones"?
I'm not an ex-tankie but maybe the Leopard 2 could have been examined?
Its mainly the tendering and bidding thing - $50K+ leaves my house (never gets in the house really) a year in taxes and defence leaves a bit on the nose for transparency and bang for my buck IMHO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams
I'm not an ex-tankie but maybe the Leopard 2 could have been examined?
Its mainly the tendering and bidding thing - $50K+ leaves my house (never gets in the house really) a year in taxes and defence leaves a bit on the nose for transparency and bang for my buck IMHO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 57
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK cheers gents .... I thought we were heading down that "they're too heavy; there aren't any bridges; they've bought them so we can help invade Iran; etc etc" horsepoop.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: OZ
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While we are at it, can we put tiger and MRH90 onto the list behind the seasprite?
All I want for Xmas is a Mike model Blackhawk! looks like an S70, easy for tradies and aircrew to transition too and at least battle proven.
Please uncle Kevin, it's not too late
All I want for Xmas is a Mike model Blackhawk! looks like an S70, easy for tradies and aircrew to transition too and at least battle proven.
Please uncle Kevin, it's not too late
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Jandakot, WA
Age: 24
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A tendering and bidding process as opposed to a just an "I'll have those ones"?
"I have an idea......no, wait..... hear me out on this......lets put an american missile on a french helicopter!" Alarm bells anybody?
Singapore is pretty good at "I'll have those ones" and as a result of not piss-farting around they now have the capability edge in the region. (Although we will never admit it).
Thread Starter
I can't see a problem with the Super Hornet as an interim capability or insurance policy.What else was there ? Only one aircraft comes to mind and that would be the F15E.
Wouldn't the RAAF be urgently needing a capability to drop bombs? With the age of the F111 and its debatable ability ( in the public forum ) to operate independantly- I thought it was hamstrung way back in the first Gulf War due a lack of electronic defences.
But sure. A great platform for spanking those in the Third World. But aren't we being told there is a third world Flanker threat so significant we will potentially lose air superiority? F111 is vulnerable.
Anyway. What happend to Labor's F22 promise?
Wouldn't the RAAF be urgently needing a capability to drop bombs? With the age of the F111 and its debatable ability ( in the public forum ) to operate independantly- I thought it was hamstrung way back in the first Gulf War due a lack of electronic defences.
But sure. A great platform for spanking those in the Third World. But aren't we being told there is a third world Flanker threat so significant we will potentially lose air superiority? F111 is vulnerable.
Anyway. What happend to Labor's F22 promise?
We decided to purchase the F111 in the mid to late '60s. They were delayed due to centre-wing box failures. We rented 24 F-4s until our F111s could be rebuilt and then delivered.
We decided to purchase the F-18 Hornet in the early '80s. We took delivery over the next decade.
The F111s are pretty well stuffed after 40 years and mega-expensive to keep flying. The F-18s have been used in two Gulf Wars and are pretty well worn out after 20 years and we don't have the replacement F-35s yet, nor are they on the foreseeable horizon.
It would be hugely irresponsible and a tremendous threat to the nation not purchase a replacement fighter-bomber to fill the gap until the long-term solution replacement arrives.
And already the new socialist Government is talking about reducing numbers of the F-35 to defend our country.
Thank heavens we have something in the form of the Super Hornet order to maintain the balance of power and maintain some semblance of peace in our part of the planet until commonsense once again reigns supreme (but don't hold your breath).
We need highly skilled fighter pilots in modern fighter aircraft right NOW and ready to deal with any situation that the our elected politicians land us in. Not some air-head's wet dream about some paper aircraft fighting distant wars somewhere in the future on cloud-nine!
We decided to purchase the F-18 Hornet in the early '80s. We took delivery over the next decade.
The F111s are pretty well stuffed after 40 years and mega-expensive to keep flying. The F-18s have been used in two Gulf Wars and are pretty well worn out after 20 years and we don't have the replacement F-35s yet, nor are they on the foreseeable horizon.
It would be hugely irresponsible and a tremendous threat to the nation not purchase a replacement fighter-bomber to fill the gap until the long-term solution replacement arrives.
And already the new socialist Government is talking about reducing numbers of the F-35 to defend our country.
Thank heavens we have something in the form of the Super Hornet order to maintain the balance of power and maintain some semblance of peace in our part of the planet until commonsense once again reigns supreme (but don't hold your breath).
We need highly skilled fighter pilots in modern fighter aircraft right NOW and ready to deal with any situation that the our elected politicians land us in. Not some air-head's wet dream about some paper aircraft fighting distant wars somewhere in the future on cloud-nine!
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: All over the place
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hang on a minute.
I'm not going into your veiled anti-Rudd inference.
The Libs came to power in 96 so no one told them we need something credible in 10 years? No one told them that the life-of-type of the pig is limited?
A mere handful of years ago, the Tassie GP (hi Mrs Smith is your foot hurting again?) pumps 9 figures of tax payer money into a cardboard fighter/bomber, the JSF. Memories of the Collins.
I'm not going into your veiled anti-Rudd inference.
The Libs came to power in 96 so no one told them we need something credible in 10 years? No one told them that the life-of-type of the pig is limited?
A mere handful of years ago, the Tassie GP (hi Mrs Smith is your foot hurting again?) pumps 9 figures of tax payer money into a cardboard fighter/bomber, the JSF. Memories of the Collins.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Where are the news reports that Labor is planning to reduce air capabilities? Can anyone give me a link to read? Thanks
And without wanting to defend any individual, there have been a number of defence ministers who were not previously members of the services.
If you could only rise up your silo, then given the job description of the GG,it's always be filled by a constitutional lawyer. It sometimes is; but the incumbent is doing a pretty decent job.
We've had PMs who have been in previous jobs ranging from engine driver to lawyer to farmer (and indeed fighter pilot). Likewise defence ministers (and other ministers) have had diverse backgrounds. It's their job to make sure the advice they get is the best available.
And without wanting to defend any individual, there have been a number of defence ministers who were not previously members of the services.
If you could only rise up your silo, then given the job description of the GG,it's always be filled by a constitutional lawyer. It sometimes is; but the incumbent is doing a pretty decent job.
We've had PMs who have been in previous jobs ranging from engine driver to lawyer to farmer (and indeed fighter pilot). Likewise defence ministers (and other ministers) have had diverse backgrounds. It's their job to make sure the advice they get is the best available.
Music Quizmeister
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Can'tberra, ACT Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Control Snatch:
We do have occassional "I'll have those ones" moments.
That's how we managed to buy F-111G's..............
and ABRAMs M-1 tanks
We do have occassional "I'll have those ones" moments.
That's how we managed to buy F-111G's..............
and ABRAMs M-1 tanks
Thread Starter
So what are the Super Hornet nay-sayers suggesting ? Worn out F18's with complicated structual upgrades and F111's which without a risky upgrade are facing obsolescence. What was the options ?
RAAF Brass and government took a high risk decioson to build the future of the RAAF around a JSF fleet. With a requirement, which seems ridiculous to me in our foreign policy context, to fight in concurrent campaigns. Evidenced by the mooted 100 number JSF requirment.
The 100 aircraft 'dream fleet' plan is in tatters.
Where to from here ? A treaty here and there, a foreign policy shift here and there, a financial slowdown containing military expansion of our neighbours. We could end up with more Super Hornets and a small fleet of JSF's.
RAAF Brass and government took a high risk decioson to build the future of the RAAF around a JSF fleet. With a requirement, which seems ridiculous to me in our foreign policy context, to fight in concurrent campaigns. Evidenced by the mooted 100 number JSF requirment.
The 100 aircraft 'dream fleet' plan is in tatters.
Where to from here ? A treaty here and there, a foreign policy shift here and there, a financial slowdown containing military expansion of our neighbours. We could end up with more Super Hornets and a small fleet of JSF's.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buster probably has the best idea.
They can have Learmonth and it's money we don't need to spend.
Really, why don't we do this??
and
Might offer some of the local population some gainful employment. The locals will never be as "friendly" as the Phillipinos...
Mind you, it'd be cheaper to give the Yanks a base in the Top end (new Subic Bay?) & let them worry about the Flankers!
Really, why don't we do this??
and
And Darwin/ Katherine become whore and drug houses like Angeles City.
Super Hornets
Lads, isn't there a more fundemental issue here?
Modern air combat is all about engaging BVR.
With good AESA and a high speed long range lethal missile, surely you can kill just about anything.
The Flanker's superior high alpha performance, off boresight shoot and thrust vectoring don't mean jack if it gets whacked by something that's over the horizon?
My point being... if the F18F has enough grunt to carry a good BVR missile or two, and has a nice upto date AESA and targetting suite for the wizzo to use... then what's the issue?
It's not about trying to get on the other chaps tail any more...
Modern air combat is all about engaging BVR.
With good AESA and a high speed long range lethal missile, surely you can kill just about anything.
The Flanker's superior high alpha performance, off boresight shoot and thrust vectoring don't mean jack if it gets whacked by something that's over the horizon?
My point being... if the F18F has enough grunt to carry a good BVR missile or two, and has a nice upto date AESA and targetting suite for the wizzo to use... then what's the issue?
It's not about trying to get on the other chaps tail any more...
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: All over the place
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Pig is a mud mover, The Super Hornet is mean't to be a stop gap replacement for the said Pig until the JSF is going to be ready to be all things to all men. Its about craters in the ground not Air to Air.
Pentagon to push sale of fighter
Cameron Stewart | December 05, 2007
THE Pentagon is expected to pressure the Rudd Government for an early commitment to buy the controversial Joint Strike Fighter, despite the project being plagued by rising costs and technical problems.
Alarm is growing in US military circles about the cost of the JSF, or F-35, and the reluctance of any US allies, including Australia, to commit to early orders.
Australian and US officials have held talks on reducing costs, including a reduction of test flight aircraft and greater use of ground-based testing.
No country wants to purchase the early batches of the F-35s, due to start in 2009, because they will be prohibitively expensive compared with those sold in later years, when larger-scale production runs will reduce unit costs by more than half.
The Howard government's $15billion plan to place an order for up to 100 F-35s late next year for delivery in 2013 is now on hold, as the Rudd Government conducts a review of options for the air force.
The review will examine all alternatives in replacing Australia's aged F-111 strike bombers and F/A-18 fighters, including the feasibility of the world's most potent but expensive fighter, the F-22 Raptor.
However, the US is likely to seize the opportunity of a newly elected government to step up the pressure on Canberra to place early orders for the F-35.
Media reports this week from Fort Worth, Texas, where the F-35 is being built by Lockheed Martin, suggest the rising cost of the F-35 is deterring US allies from placing orders.
According to the Star-Telegram newspaper, Lockheed and the Pentagon have been talking with Australian officials and other JSF partner nations about placing orders.
However. a spokesman for the Defence Department in Canberra said that so far "there has been no pressure on Australia to buy earlier than 2013".
The review of military air power, under new Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon, comes at a time when the F-35 project is facing fresh problems. The 2008 US defence budget passed by Congress last month imposed a$US267 million ($305 million) cut in the program's already dwindling research and development fund.
The fund has been drained by major technical problems in the F-35's electrical system, which have caused the only test aircraft to be grounded since May. The test plane is due to make its first flight since then tomorrow.
Australia is one of eight partner nations that have invested millions in the development of the F-35, but if the first batches of the planes are too expensive, Canberra might be tempted to delay the purchase until later in the production cycle.
At present, the flyaway cost for Australia is estimated at $80million per plane, averaged over the planned purchase years of 2013-20.
But the early batches will cost substantially more, with the US air force estimating that the F-35s in 2013 - the year of planned delivery to the RAAF - will cost $US100 million each.
"Nobody is interested in getting their airplanes early unless we can help them mitigate the fact that the earlier airplanes cost more," the US F-35 program manager, Tom Burbage, said recently.
The F-35 was marketed as anaffordable fifth-generation fighter, but unless costs can be controlled the Pentagon risks a reduction in orders from its own military and from overseas buyers - a situation that would force costs up even more.
However, Defence maintains that despite all the recent setbacks, the F-35 project remains largely on track.
THE Pentagon is expected to pressure the Rudd Government for an early commitment to buy the controversial Joint Strike Fighter, despite the project being plagued by rising costs and technical problems.
Alarm is growing in US military circles about the cost of the JSF, or F-35, and the reluctance of any US allies, including Australia, to commit to early orders.
Australian and US officials have held talks on reducing costs, including a reduction of test flight aircraft and greater use of ground-based testing.
No country wants to purchase the early batches of the F-35s, due to start in 2009, because they will be prohibitively expensive compared with those sold in later years, when larger-scale production runs will reduce unit costs by more than half.
The Howard government's $15billion plan to place an order for up to 100 F-35s late next year for delivery in 2013 is now on hold, as the Rudd Government conducts a review of options for the air force.
The review will examine all alternatives in replacing Australia's aged F-111 strike bombers and F/A-18 fighters, including the feasibility of the world's most potent but expensive fighter, the F-22 Raptor.
However, the US is likely to seize the opportunity of a newly elected government to step up the pressure on Canberra to place early orders for the F-35.
Media reports this week from Fort Worth, Texas, where the F-35 is being built by Lockheed Martin, suggest the rising cost of the F-35 is deterring US allies from placing orders.
According to the Star-Telegram newspaper, Lockheed and the Pentagon have been talking with Australian officials and other JSF partner nations about placing orders.
However. a spokesman for the Defence Department in Canberra said that so far "there has been no pressure on Australia to buy earlier than 2013".
The review of military air power, under new Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon, comes at a time when the F-35 project is facing fresh problems. The 2008 US defence budget passed by Congress last month imposed a$US267 million ($305 million) cut in the program's already dwindling research and development fund.
The fund has been drained by major technical problems in the F-35's electrical system, which have caused the only test aircraft to be grounded since May. The test plane is due to make its first flight since then tomorrow.
Australia is one of eight partner nations that have invested millions in the development of the F-35, but if the first batches of the planes are too expensive, Canberra might be tempted to delay the purchase until later in the production cycle.
At present, the flyaway cost for Australia is estimated at $80million per plane, averaged over the planned purchase years of 2013-20.
But the early batches will cost substantially more, with the US air force estimating that the F-35s in 2013 - the year of planned delivery to the RAAF - will cost $US100 million each.
"Nobody is interested in getting their airplanes early unless we can help them mitigate the fact that the earlier airplanes cost more," the US F-35 program manager, Tom Burbage, said recently.
The F-35 was marketed as anaffordable fifth-generation fighter, but unless costs can be controlled the Pentagon risks a reduction in orders from its own military and from overseas buyers - a situation that would force costs up even more.
However, Defence maintains that despite all the recent setbacks, the F-35 project remains largely on track.