EA/18G Growler
- Thread starter Malayali
- Start date
-
- Tags
- boeing northrop grumman
Just a couple of observations about the Criss article:
How on earth is the performance of developmental model SHs in 2000 relevant to that of developed versions in 2007?
What would the Minister gain from misleading us about his concerns of catastrophic failure with an F111? No government is going to spend $A6Bn on a defence project (3 times the cost of the navy's 2 LHDs) unless it is convinced it is necessary.
And finally, if we were to accept Peter Criss's assertions, we would have to accept that both the USN, and in particular it aviation branch, and the RAAF, are totally incompetent organisations. I for one don't accept that.
Cheers
How on earth is the performance of developmental model SHs in 2000 relevant to that of developed versions in 2007?
What would the Minister gain from misleading us about his concerns of catastrophic failure with an F111? No government is going to spend $A6Bn on a defence project (3 times the cost of the navy's 2 LHDs) unless it is convinced it is necessary.
And finally, if we were to accept Peter Criss's assertions, we would have to accept that both the USN, and in particular it aviation branch, and the RAAF, are totally incompetent organisations. I for one don't accept that.
Cheers
To be fair here. ( And I don't know whatshisname complaining in the article above ) as for raw airframe performance of the jet, nothing really has changed. It is in fact a bit sloathy. There are a gob of other minor fixes that have been long cleaned up in the process when it came out; canopy problems, early ATFLIR integration, some with the bad barrels, the band aid fixes to the wings etc.
However the avionics in it's now Block II form are about as good as it gets for that class of fighter jet. Maintainers will tell you it is the best jet there is. Pilots seem to like it. It got an F-22 kill, with photo
even if that was unsafe, The strike warfare stuff would take a whole page to fill in how good that is. Hey, the downsizing of the 1990s was hard on the USN. The shipbuilding lobby still demanded their fief. F-14 was running out of life and getting too expensive... here we are. Life goes on.
However the avionics in it's now Block II form are about as good as it gets for that class of fighter jet. Maintainers will tell you it is the best jet there is. Pilots seem to like it. It got an F-22 kill, with photo
even if that was unsafe, The strike warfare stuff would take a whole page to fill in how good that is. Hey, the downsizing of the 1990s was hard on the USN. The shipbuilding lobby still demanded their fief. F-14 was running out of life and getting too expensive... here we are. Life goes on.Well, I learned much about the block II capabilities of the Super Bug in these threads here covering the Australian purchase.
Here is something that covers the actual capabilities of the APG 79:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/SHORN03127.xml&headline=Super%20Hornet%20Radar%20Not%20Ready%20For%20Combat
And on a lighter note:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21369439-38940,00.html
Here is something that covers the actual capabilities of the APG 79:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/SHORN03127.xml&headline=Super%20Hornet%20Radar%20Not%20Ready%20For%20Combat
And on a lighter note:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21369439-38940,00.html
TV Report on FA-18F Purchase
I just watched the 7:30 Report on ABC TV and, as predicted it canned the FA-18F decision.
Peter Crisp did trot out the 2000 report on developmental SHs to demonstrate that there were areas of concern. The seven years' development work since then was conveniently forgotten. Along with a retired Air Commodore he labelled the SH as a Super Dog and they claimed that even the USN is unhappy with it! It was claimed that the Super Hornet is already outclassed by the fighters of other air forces in our region. They didn't specify who or what!
They then went on to suggest that the F111 could fly on safely and effectively well after 2010 and scoffed at the Defence Minister's concerns that there is a real possibility of catastrophic failure after that time.
To cap it off the recommendation that came forward was to ditch not only the Super Hornet but the F-35 as well and buy the F-22. The fact that the F-22 is unavailable to purchase was conveniently not mentioned. Incidentally they described the F-22 as the "best bomber in the world."
I thought the Defence Minister defended both the FA-18F and F-35 decisions reasonably well.
Cheers
I just watched the 7:30 Report on ABC TV and, as predicted it canned the FA-18F decision.
Peter Crisp did trot out the 2000 report on developmental SHs to demonstrate that there were areas of concern. The seven years' development work since then was conveniently forgotten. Along with a retired Air Commodore he labelled the SH as a Super Dog and they claimed that even the USN is unhappy with it! It was claimed that the Super Hornet is already outclassed by the fighters of other air forces in our region. They didn't specify who or what!
They then went on to suggest that the F111 could fly on safely and effectively well after 2010 and scoffed at the Defence Minister's concerns that there is a real possibility of catastrophic failure after that time.
To cap it off the recommendation that came forward was to ditch not only the Super Hornet but the F-35 as well and buy the F-22. The fact that the F-22 is unavailable to purchase was conveniently not mentioned. Incidentally they described the F-22 as the "best bomber in the world."
I thought the Defence Minister defended both the FA-18F and F-35 decisions reasonably well.
Cheers
Last edited:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Actually I thought Brendan Nelson wasn't all that impressive to my mind, but his "opponents" were worse.
Calling the aircraft a "dog" and making blanket statements about it being "outclassed" by "other aircraft" in our region are sheer nonsense.
Anyone who wishes can go to the 7.30 Report website to comment about this.
I'm going to smash em...
I watched a tape of the program and the Minister should have mentioned the non availability of the F-22, but didn't. Of course he might have done so but had it edited out because it didn't 'fit the story,' but perhaps I'm being kind to him!
Responding on the website seems a good idea. I'll do the same.
Cheers
abramsteve
New Member
I didnt catch the 7:30 report, but just wathching the footy show and have seen an add for 60 Minutes showing a bunch of RAAF aircraft, the voice over asking 'what are they spending our money on now?' and then images of the F-35 and SH. Looks like another dodgy story coming up.
well,ive said it before and ill.....should have waited for the typhoon,then they wouldnt have had to worry about not being able to buy the f22!....(lol).....australians,huh,you'd think their head of state was american not british for all they buy off us!
(and we even let you beat us at cricket,but you still wont take the hint!)
(and we even let you beat us at cricket,but you still wont take the hint!)
Yes it looks like the media think they've uncovered a defence scandal about the government wasting money on an aircraft (the Super Hornet) because:
1. 'Everyone knows' that the ADF says we don't need it!
2. It doesn't have any hope of surviving in combat against the 'superior' aircraft flown by our 'neighbours' (I guess they're talking about Indonesia because it sure isn't New Zealand!).
3. It is replacing an aircraft (the F111C) that doesn't need to be replaced because (contrary to the advice the Defence Minister says he has been given) it's evidently safe to operate for many years after 2010.
4. Its present operator (the USN) is unhappy with its performance!
The other part of the 'scandal' is that Defence, apparently against the advice of its senior pilots, is going to buy a 'hopeless' aircraft (the F-35) when it should be buying the F-22. Of course that part of the story conveniently fails to mention that the F-22 is not actually for sale!
I expect next week the same media will question why the navy needs the LHDs when 'all the experts in Defence' say we should be buying cheaper high speed catamarans and the following week they will question why the army has bought the M1A1 Abrams when 'all the experts' say it should have purchased 'fast lightly armoured highly mobile vehicles' that are 'more suitable' for Australia!
I wonder how long it will be before someone will suggest that we could learn from New Zealand and save money and worries about the air combat force by just scrapping it altogether?
I think I might be getting just a little bit cynical!
Cheers
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Misrepresentation like that does annoy me. :mad2
DoD didn't help themsevs when they stated that the F111 would be viable untill the F35 was introduced though. It just gave the doubters ammo.
DoD didn't help themsevs when they stated that the F111 would be viable untill the F35 was introduced though. It just gave the doubters ammo.
You think the 7:30 Report was bad, wait till you see 60 Minutes on Sunday night!!! They've cooked up a beaut!!!Yes it looks like the media think they've uncovered a defence scandal about the government wasting money on an aircraft (the Super Hornet) because:
1. 'Everyone knows' that the ADF says we don't need it!
2. It doesn't have any hope of surviving in combat against the 'superior' aircraft flown by our 'neighbours' (I guess they're talking about Indonesia because it sure isn't New Zealand!).
3. It is replacing an aircraft (the F111C) that doesn't need to be replaced because (contrary to the advice the Defence Minister says he has been given) it's evidently safe to operate for many years after 2010.
4. Its present operator (the USN) is unhappy with its performance!
The other part of the 'scandal' is that Defence, apparently against the advice of its senior pilots, is going to buy a 'hopeless' aircraft (the F-35) when it should be buying the F-22. Of course that part of the story conveniently fails to mention that the F-22 is not actually for sale!
I expect next week the same media will question why the navy needs the LHDs when 'all the experts in Defence' say we should be buying cheaper high speed catamarans and the following week they will question why the army has bought the M1A1 Abrams when 'all the experts' say it should have purchased 'fast lightly armoured highly mobile vehicles' that are 'more suitable' for Australia!
I wonder how long it will be before someone will suggest that we could learn from New Zealand and save money and worries about the air combat force by just scrapping it altogether?
I think I might be getting just a little bit cynical!
Cheers
Cynical would be an understatement for the way I feel at the moment!!!
: Magoo
'Interesting" article in the SMH (Sydney Morning Herald) alluding to the "sci-fi ability" of the APG-79
Quote: Australia's new Super Hornets will come equipped with a science fiction-like capability to steer enemy missiles onto false targets and to feed hostile radars with erroneous information...
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/New-Super-Hornets-to-gain-scifi-ability/2007/03/16/1173722719385.html
Quote: Australia's new Super Hornets will come equipped with a science fiction-like capability to steer enemy missiles onto false targets and to feed hostile radars with erroneous information...
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/New-Super-Hornets-to-gain-scifi-ability/2007/03/16/1173722719385.html
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Doesn't matter. Doesn't have the T/R module count of a Flanker and is therefore outclassed...
nfloorl:
Well at least that's positive!
Incidently the ABC is slack getting the transcript of the FA-18F report and responding to letters on its website. It still wasn't there 30 minutes ago, almost 24 hours after the program.
I can't wait Magoo! Maybe I'll fortify myself with a stiff drink first.
nfloorl: Cheers
Last edited:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I think they may still be editing my post over there. I didn't show the normal restraint I do here... :nutkickWell at least that's positive!
Incidently the ABC is slack getting the transcript of the FA-18F report and responding letters on its website. It still wasn't there 30 minutes ago, almost 24 hours after the program.
abramsteve
New Member
Well Im not alone! This sort of thing makes me so mad!I think I might be getting just a little bit cynical!
Cheers
Im glad its a friday night, dont think I could have handled it on a Monday!
knightrider4
Active Member
Sydney Moring Herald
I just cant hide my hatred for this toilet paper masquerading as a national paper. The erroneous twattle that is printed with incredible regularity concerning all things defence is nothing but a disgrace.
I just cant hide my hatred for this toilet paper masquerading as a national paper. The erroneous twattle that is printed with incredible regularity concerning all things defence is nothing but a disgrace.
abramsteve
New Member
Same problem with the Adelaide Advertiser. Apparently the 'price of the JSF is fast aproaching the cost of the F-22 supersonic jet bomber'. Clearly an article full of facts...
Sounds like the same article in the Hobart Mercury. See copy in the thread Aussie JSF to outcost F-22s? , Post 462.
Cheers