LOL! I can assure you that Nurrunger was not closed down A DECADE ago!
F/A-22: To Fly High or Get its Wings Clipped
- Thread starter LancerMc
- Start date
Its not about how many troops we have deployed to support the US,or whether they are kicking down doors or building kids playgrounds, its about the Big bad Yanks bullying the world...or the world community banding together to fight the good fight. Thats why you have sooo many nations "fighting" these conflicts. The US is doing most (by a large margin) of the dirty work. But a lot of the western world is waving the we,re with you flag as well. This makes it easier to justify...the US can then say "its not just us,look, the Aussies,Brits,Dutch,Japs,etc etc are here to!" Rich,i hope this dosnEt bring the wrath of Rich dwon upon me,ive done my beSt with the spelliNg adn tha GraMMa.And what if we "quietly suggest" we need to "downgrade the importance of our Alliance with Australia"? What then ? What would, whats left of ANZUS, do? Besides save the whales?
You still dont understand do you riskshaw? That you need us far, far more then we need you. Pulling out your 800 troops from Iraq wouldn't cause a ripple. Its not like they are actually fighting anyways. How many are in Afghanistan? 500? With most helping the Dutch build houses?
You still seem to think that this deployment should automatically give you the right to buy any Yank weapons system you want. Including our most precious air asset, yeah, right.
You dont see the big picture yet do you? You need us. But, we dont need you! Why should we even give a damn about Asia?
Boy it would just be just a disaster for us if ANZUS folded.nfloorl: Who knows? The end game might be our defense expenditures might fall to 2.5% while yours rose to 4.5% Aint Life funny?
Where to next with the JSF/F-22 debate?
The reality is that it is almost certain that no further decisions about the RAAF air combat force will be made until after the election late this year. Once we know who is in government we will know if the present plan is likely to continue or if the whole air combat plan will be reviewed.
If the government is returned it will still be 2008 before second pass approval for the JSF is due. By that time the performance of the F-35 and US production plans for both this aircraft and the F-22 should be clearer. The SH purchase has also given the government time to push back second pass approval to an even later date should they wish to do so.
If there is a change of government it seems certain that the program will be reviewed, given comments made by the Opposition Defence spokesman on both the FA-18F and the JSF, together with comments pushing the case for the F-22. At the very least I would imagine that a Labor government would officially request access to the F-22 program. I know the present government has the 'England letter' but I am not convinced that this was more than an attempt to be 'politically helpful' to a supportive government in the War against Terror. Perhaps I'm being cynical here, and I know many of you will not agree, but, IMO, an official request would at least clear the air once and for all.
Hopefully, whilst this is happening, the RAAF will maintain a close watching brief on the developing capabilities of regional air forces to ensure that the advice they give to government will ensure that Australia continues to maintain a qualitative edge. Hopefully the government, whichever political party is in power, will listen to the advice given and not be driven by preconceived ideas. Hopefully too, there will be more transparency in the way in which these decisions are reached.
At least at the present time we are debating the merits of the JSF and the Raptor. My fear is that this debate could change to one where we end up choosing between the JSF and the Super Hornet. I think the Super Bug is an excellent late fourth generation aircraft which will provide valuable capability but I worry about the possibility of the RAAF ending up with an all FA-18F force if something goes wrong with the JSF program. In particular, I will be concerned if our nearest neighbour to the NW actually acquires a reasonable number of advanced air combat aircraft and achieves operational status with them.
Cheers
The reality is that it is almost certain that no further decisions about the RAAF air combat force will be made until after the election late this year. Once we know who is in government we will know if the present plan is likely to continue or if the whole air combat plan will be reviewed.
If the government is returned it will still be 2008 before second pass approval for the JSF is due. By that time the performance of the F-35 and US production plans for both this aircraft and the F-22 should be clearer. The SH purchase has also given the government time to push back second pass approval to an even later date should they wish to do so.
If there is a change of government it seems certain that the program will be reviewed, given comments made by the Opposition Defence spokesman on both the FA-18F and the JSF, together with comments pushing the case for the F-22. At the very least I would imagine that a Labor government would officially request access to the F-22 program. I know the present government has the 'England letter' but I am not convinced that this was more than an attempt to be 'politically helpful' to a supportive government in the War against Terror. Perhaps I'm being cynical here, and I know many of you will not agree, but, IMO, an official request would at least clear the air once and for all.
Hopefully, whilst this is happening, the RAAF will maintain a close watching brief on the developing capabilities of regional air forces to ensure that the advice they give to government will ensure that Australia continues to maintain a qualitative edge. Hopefully the government, whichever political party is in power, will listen to the advice given and not be driven by preconceived ideas. Hopefully too, there will be more transparency in the way in which these decisions are reached.
At least at the present time we are debating the merits of the JSF and the Raptor. My fear is that this debate could change to one where we end up choosing between the JSF and the Super Hornet. I think the Super Bug is an excellent late fourth generation aircraft which will provide valuable capability but I worry about the possibility of the RAAF ending up with an all FA-18F force if something goes wrong with the JSF program. In particular, I will be concerned if our nearest neighbour to the NW actually acquires a reasonable number of advanced air combat aircraft and achieves operational status with them.
Cheers
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
The thought of an all F18F force is indeed woriesome. However given the level of testing, R&D, and investment in the JSF programe, a total failure of the programe is unlikely. However with smaller levels of annual production being orderd by the US the numbers of F35's that may be affordable may not fulfill the RAAF's needs. If this is the case, and the F22 is still unavailable for aqusition, then the choices are indeed bleak. The evolved F15 Family, F18F, or EF 2000 seem to be the only viable options, and although all are exellent example of 4th generation fighter, the F18F being an exellant strike platform (by 4th gen standard) but a poor airodynamic performer, the EF 2000 being an exellant air to air combat platform (by 4th gen standards) but a poor strike platform, and the F15 family being capcable at both. However the F35 is much more capable than all of these fighter aircraft in nearly all peramiters. Allthough the F35 may not have the airodynamic performance of the F15 family its stealth, avionics and sensor package make it a formidable multi reole aircraft. However advanced SU XX variants that will achieve supercrise in the near future and although 4th generation fighers, are arguably the best in terms of raw airodynamic performance. This by itself does not mean they are more capable aircraft than the F35, however they do pose a significant threat. If a 4th generation aircraft is aquired because of the absance of the F35 then the threat will be exaserbated. In that case the RAAF's qualitative edge in the area will have been forfieted, IMO that is indeed unaccpetable.
Another question I would love answered is what is the security clearance of Occum and co. A number of signifcant claims are made about the JSF and the F-22 to supprot their arguements, however, if they are not in the positon to analyse the data coming out of the Opeval of the F-22 or the development and test programm of the JSF it is all just speculation.Sure. agree ...... . I would love to hear other sujestions though. I look foreward to your reply and your opinions on the capability of the F35 vs Su XX in the BVR (in particular) + WVR enguagements (including factors such as missiles and airbourne radar).
Combined with the fact that the main players in Air Power Australia could benefit from the F-111 developemt they are pushing would suggest that they are not entirely capable of giving an objective view.
To be honest Air Power Australia do propose a means that they state will enable the F-111 to defeat the IADS threat by re-engining the Pig with a variant of the F119 with a JSF nozzel (to limit relaince onreheat) combined with RAM, tuned radome, repalcing the radar (the APG-80 is suggested for the F-111 'missiler'), conductive canopy, EW upgrade etc ....... basically changing almost everything except the airframe which will still have a massive RCS and is already over 40 years old (built in the 60's introduced in 1973). Does not seem to be worth the risk to me (echos of Sea Sprite).
Consistency in Argument
See -
Volume II - APA-2005-01
The Root Cause of What Ails Defence Today (PDF)
Annex 1 - Annex 2
found on -
http://www.ausairpower.net/apa-analyses.html
As for the F-22/Evolved F-111S Proposal and associated submissions, the portrayal in this post would be hilarious, if it were not so wrong.
Unless the poster (Alexsa) is in Defence and has clearance to read these and the associated working papers provided to Defence back in 2001/02, the poster would not be in a position to comment. It would appear, from what is being claimed, the poster has little knowledge or understanding of the F-22/Evolved F-111S Proposal et al and is, therefore, unlikely to be in such a position. However, if Alexsa is in Defence and/or in such a position then:
1. This post misrepresents the contents of the F-22/Evolved F-111 Proposal by a significant and, disappointingly, quite inappropriate degree; and, if the latter,
2. The poster has breached Defence/Industry commercial confidentiality along with a couple of other somewhat more onerous regulations depending on whether civilian or uniformed.
Sigh.
See - Seasprite Helicopters to be Scrapped Post # 87:
Would it be fair to say that 'program management' and maybe even 'management' in general being so 'dismal', as this poster so stridently asserts, could possibly be the common denominator. One only has to take a look at the incumbents in the appointments involved in making the decisions at the time to see just how common this denominator really is across those projects that have serious woes and are carrying equally serious risks.
See -
Volume II - APA-2005-01
The Root Cause of What Ails Defence Today (PDF)
Annex 1 - Annex 2
found on -
http://www.ausairpower.net/apa-analyses.html
As for the F-22/Evolved F-111S Proposal and associated submissions, the portrayal in this post would be hilarious, if it were not so wrong.
Unless the poster (Alexsa) is in Defence and has clearance to read these and the associated working papers provided to Defence back in 2001/02, the poster would not be in a position to comment. It would appear, from what is being claimed, the poster has little knowledge or understanding of the F-22/Evolved F-111S Proposal et al and is, therefore, unlikely to be in such a position. However, if Alexsa is in Defence and/or in such a position then:
1. This post misrepresents the contents of the F-22/Evolved F-111 Proposal by a significant and, disappointingly, quite inappropriate degree; and, if the latter,
2. The poster has breached Defence/Industry commercial confidentiality along with a couple of other somewhat more onerous regulations depending on whether civilian or uniformed.
Sigh.
Last edited:
Tassie, I'm generally not a conspiracy theory person, but I too have a sneaking suspicion in that direction.
Apologies if this has already been posted.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/02/19/1171733680380.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
"Nelson tries stealth to win jet fighter debate
Carlo Kopp
February 20, 2007
Last week Defence Minister Brendan Nelson issued a story to the media about a letter from US Deputy-Secretary of Defence Gordon England, which is alleged to state that the US would not supply the advanced F-22 Raptor fighter to Australia. With the highest stealth, agility and high-speed performance available in the global fighter market, the F-22 is the world's best fighter-bomber aircraft.
This report ignited a firestorm in defence analysis and media circles, as the US has never before denied Australia access to a major weapon system. The US practice to date has always been to supply such systems to trusted allies, sometimes with less than full capabilities, an example being the Joint Strike Fighter.
During the late 1990s, the US Government established, at the behest of congressman David Obey, a formal four-step process to assess systems such as the F-22 and determine what configuration if any could be supplied to a particular allied nation. Under a robust scheme known as the LOEXCOM protocol, multiple government agencies, the US Air Force and contractors audit every component in the aircraft to produce a recommendation to Congress and the president so they can make a decision on what can be exported.
Because much effort is involved in performing the LOEXCOM, it is usually only done if an allied nation makes a formal request for access.
At 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.
The minister thus used a letter from a party who is not authorised to decide on export to argue that export of the F-22 to Australia is not permitted. This while the formal US process for export approval has not been completed.
Unless the minister can present good reasons why Australia would fail the LOEXCOM assessment, this looks much like speculation presented as fact. Is this a diversion to shift attention away from criticism aimed at the proposed Joint Strike Fighter and F/A-18F Super Hornet purchases by numerous experts?
What the minister did not disclose is that during the 1999-2001 period, the US did initiate the F-22 LOEXCOM protocol for its trusted ally Australia, but our Defence bureaucrats brought it to an abrupt halt after they sold the Joint Strike Fighter idea to then minister Robert Hill. The first and most important stage of the assessment was completed, concluding that Australia presented no greater security risk than the US Air Force itself.
Since Defence never sought the findings of this assessment, these were not public knowledge until disclosed in Parliament in March last year.
The minister's ill-considered statements produced much collateral damage to public confidence in our US alliance, judging from editorials, irate public feedback and media speculation. In turn, he has not aided his cabinet colleagues, the Prime Minister or the nation in the midst of a heated debate on the benefits of the US alliance.
Defence has a long history of tossing contentious red herrings into a debate to divert attention away from real issues. A good example is the minister's claims last week that the F-22 is not very good as a bomber, while it has been public knowledge for nine years that the US is replacing all of its specialised stealthy F-117A Nighthawk bombers with the F-22.
The debate the minister is trying to avoid is the impending decision by cabinet on whether to keep the F-111s until later in the next decade, or trash them in 2010 and sink $4.1 billion into "interim" F/A-18F Super Hornet fighters, which cannot compete against the latest Russian jets in the region.
Even the numbers do not favour the minister's case for the Super Hornets, which, despite their high cost, will still leave a 50 per cent capability gap once the F-111s are gone. If the F-111s are kept, the capability gap due to the poorly planned structural rebuilds of the existing Hornets will be as little as 15 per cent. If the F-111s are retired, Queensland and Australia's defence industry loses hundreds of high-tech jobs at the Amberley F-111 engineering facility, endangering a number of now marginal Coalition seats in that area.
The minister's Super Hornet proposal thus carries an enormous monetary, strategic and political cost to our nation, and to the Coalition Government.
Dr Carlo Kopp is a defence analyst and research fellow in regional military strategy at the Monash Asia Institute. He has flown the Super Hornet."
Some good points there, but pushing the F-111 barrow as well is too much. And I'm an F-111 fan!
rb
I love being misinterpreted and I must admire your consistency, you belittle anybody who does not agree with you and communicate rapturously with those who do. Yep, the Sea sprite management appears to be dismal. It also appears to be a classic example of trying to do much on with too little. Same as the original Collins FCS. Too much optimisim and too much risk risk. Shades of wedgetail (which early in the piece Dr Kopp was so keen on) where the project is being reworked to mitigate risk (funny that was systems intergration as well). The F-111S entails even bigger risk in my view for less at the end of the day.See - Seasprite Helicopters to be Scrapped Post # 87:
Would it be fair to say that 'program management' and maybe even 'management' in general being so 'dismal', as this poster so stridently asserts, could possibly be the common denominator. One only has to take a look at the incumbents in the appointments involved in making the decisions at the time to see just how common this denominator really is across those projects that have serious woes and are carrying equally serious risks.
See -
Volume II - APA-2005-01
The Root Cause of What Ails Defence Today (PDF)
Annex 1 - Annex 2
found on -
http://www.ausairpower.net/apa-analyses.html
As for the F-22/Evolved F-111S Proposal and associated submissions, the portrayal in this post would be hilarious, if it were not so wrong.
Unless the poster (Alexsa) is in Defence and has clearance to read these and the associated working papers provided to Defence back in 2001/02, the poster would not be in a position to comment. It would appear, from what is being claimed, the poster has little knowledge or understanding of the F-22/Evolved F-111S Proposal et al and is, therefore, unlikely to be in such a position. However, if Alexsa is in Defence and/or in such a position then:
1. This post misrepresents the contents of the F-22/Evolved F-111 Proposal by a significant and, disappointingly, quite inappropriate degree; and, if the latter,
2. The poster has breached Defence/Industry commercial confidentiality along with a couple of other somewhat more onerous regulations depending on whether civilian or uniformed.
Sigh.
No I have not read the Opeval for the F-22 nor the flight test report for the F-35 and doubt you have unrestrictecd access to them either. I you do then your opion counts for more and I will be more impressed by it. If you havent then it is speculation like many of my opionions.
My comment on your F111S proposals came from the APA article on supercruisng the pigs. Sorry haven't breached anything there. And it still seems to be a high risk suggestion to me but you appear overly sensitive about any criticism. So much for debate, agree or shut up would appear to be the order of the day.
So finally do you have clearance to read about the outcomes of the Opeval of the F-22 and the ongoing testing of the F-35 (in other words you are privy to the internal macenations of this project) or are you speculating on the basis of information available in the public domain or relativley low classification?
I think its important for Australia to let the F-111 go.
Its had its run in the sun. Now we all have to move on. It isn't getting any younger, and any life extention realistically is more or less going to be a 10 year thing. By which point all manned strike platforms may be replaced with UCAV's or maybe the greens will run the country and we will have other issues to worry about by then.
The Superhornets big draw card is the US will be flying them forever (effectively, 2030 or something simular). The F-4 of our generation (or maybe the B-52.) So all upgrades are extremely cost effective, all parts are plentyful, training is widely avalible etc. They also share a fair bit in common with the F-35 systems.
I just find it interesting that so many buy into the APA stuff so deeply. Sure we would all love Australia to have a indigionous strike aircraft, faster, stealthier, bigger dump and burns and with a massive payload tearing around scaring the neighbors, but its just not going to happen. Its effectively a new aircraft. If you want to prepose a new aircraft do that, the F-111 guise evolution is just not going to work.
Its had its run in the sun. Now we all have to move on. It isn't getting any younger, and any life extention realistically is more or less going to be a 10 year thing. By which point all manned strike platforms may be replaced with UCAV's or maybe the greens will run the country and we will have other issues to worry about by then.
The Superhornets big draw card is the US will be flying them forever (effectively, 2030 or something simular). The F-4 of our generation (or maybe the B-52.) So all upgrades are extremely cost effective, all parts are plentyful, training is widely avalible etc. They also share a fair bit in common with the F-35 systems.
I just find it interesting that so many buy into the APA stuff so deeply. Sure we would all love Australia to have a indigionous strike aircraft, faster, stealthier, bigger dump and burns and with a massive payload tearing around scaring the neighbors, but its just not going to happen. Its effectively a new aircraft. If you want to prepose a new aircraft do that, the F-111 guise evolution is just not going to work.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Occum, You said you would outline how exactly the F35 can be defeated by the SU XX just on energy terms. I still look forweard to hearing this analysis because it if the F35 is really incapable of acting as an effective air superiority platform for the RAAF then the program needs to be reviewed IMHO. However if you expected the link to sway me to your point of view by itself then i'm sorry but ill need some more convincing. The analysis seems skewed in a particular direction. However is still look foreward to hearing your opinions on the capability of the F35 vs the SU XX family taking into acount as much as possible AEW&C and missile capabilities.I look foreward to your reply and your opinions on the capability of the F35 vs Su XX in the BVR (in particular) + WVR engagements (including factors such as missiles and airborne radar).
On reading more on the subject i admit that i have underestimated the threat posed by the SU XX series and the improved IRST/optical sensor's ability to detect the F35, and the long range IR, optical or anti radiation variants of the R77 and R27 that have mid cource guidance capability via datalink. I agree the F35 will not be able to provide air superiority against future variants of the SU 30 series. We seriously need the F22A i agree. But that doesent mean we need to right of the F35, and that doesen't mean that the F11S/F22A proposal is a good one.
Last edited:
Difficult for any Flanker to reach Pine Gap. They'd need a lot of air-air refuelling. And currently there is nobody - absolutely nobody - who could physically launch such a strike, unless someone from a 3rd country relocated Flankers and tankers to Indonesia, which would be pretty obvious.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
i dont think he ment it litteraly.
As it stands currently it a fine force, tho a bit small. Times are going to change in 10 to 20 years in case you haven't been watching the news. My comment was made in the context of Riskshaws fantasy "disabling of all ties Americana" because, "waaa, waaa, we want the F-22".
Such a disabling, or Philippines type downgrading, of "ties with Rome" would be a disaster for you. That is fact.
Excellent troops. The Aussies have a knack for producing fine fighting men. However! Its also fact that the Aussie contribution to Iraq/Afghanistan is very, very small. Only a Loon would think that such a contribution would automatically qualify you to get our most precious air asset, which btw, we aint selling to anyone.
Now your spelling bad just to get to me eh? If there is any "Aussie family who's kid lost their life over there" here? Then I do apologize. But there isn't is there?
If you think America is Rome then you need to read some history. But, I do understand the mind screw the International press has on people. Do you get English speaking Al Jazeera down under? And, If we did sell you the F-22 would we cease to be Romans?:unknown
Mate, the Aussies have never "bowed down" to anyone. And we both know it. So cease with the "Rickshaw type sniveling drama".
As was probably I. BTW its "oversensitive". Look I got no stomach for twisting this thread and ruining it, or, getting into a Yank/Aussie bashout. But there has been to much Yank guilt and pandering in these forums regarding our not selling this aircraft and I'm tired of it. We have the right to sell or not sell anything we want, just like any other nation.
I'm done with the thread until it cools off. None of us here should want to see it yanked.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
You guys have the right not to sell anything you dont want to. Especially on a system you have poored so much R&D in to. Although i do believe we seriosly need that system. Are we automaticlly entitled to it? No. That is just unreasonable.
I used the rome analogy in response to your comments. If i really though that the US was runing an empire than why whould i say the things i said about the links our contries share?
Stateing that you need us more than we need you is no way to maintain an alliance. We are EQUAL partners, or at least thats the way I see it. And although we have bennifited emensly from the partnership, it would not lead to oblivion if it was downgraded or lost. The fact is we are very strong economically, with or without the US. And although the increased spending on defence would have negative effects on goverment spending, the world arms market is competitive at the moment and i'm sure we could find someone to fulfill our needs. However even if we pulled out of the alliance, i doubt that the US would stop selling us equipment. But without the US alliance, if an agressive and well armed china became an eventuality, you would see a very well armed australia. 4% of GDP (on par with the US) would equate to about $40Bn AUD ($32/3bn USD). That is big bucks. And we have an adolesant nuclear industry with large scientific base to draw upon. Nuclear arms would not be out of the question. I am very supportive of the US alliance, not because of the many benefits we recieve but due to the links and common herritage our societies share. However it would not be the end of the world for australia if that alliance was downgraded. many nations stand on their own two feet, we are more than capable of doing so.
I used the rome analogy in response to your comments. If i really though that the US was runing an empire than why whould i say the things i said about the links our contries share?
Stateing that you need us more than we need you is no way to maintain an alliance. We are EQUAL partners, or at least thats the way I see it. And although we have bennifited emensly from the partnership, it would not lead to oblivion if it was downgraded or lost. The fact is we are very strong economically, with or without the US. And although the increased spending on defence would have negative effects on goverment spending, the world arms market is competitive at the moment and i'm sure we could find someone to fulfill our needs. However even if we pulled out of the alliance, i doubt that the US would stop selling us equipment. But without the US alliance, if an agressive and well armed china became an eventuality, you would see a very well armed australia. 4% of GDP (on par with the US) would equate to about $40Bn AUD ($32/3bn USD). That is big bucks. And we have an adolesant nuclear industry with large scientific base to draw upon. Nuclear arms would not be out of the question. I am very supportive of the US alliance, not because of the many benefits we recieve but due to the links and common herritage our societies share. However it would not be the end of the world for australia if that alliance was downgraded. many nations stand on their own two feet, we are more than capable of doing so.
substitute "flanker" with VW,A310 Airbus, grey hound bus,etc!
No one should doubt the F-35's ability to make mince meat of any Russian Flanker.
Just from a radar cross section and radar power perspective the F-35 will be detecting the SU-30 three times further away. The F-35 will most definitely be able to get a shot off before its even detected by the SU-30.
That pretty much destroys all chances of the SU-30 getting a kill against the F-35. During the F-15's entire life it never got into a dog fight. With an even larger move to beyond visual range its likely that 99% of F-35 engagements will be beyond visual range. So the even if the F-35 turned like a brick it would still have a massive kill ratio. More than good enough for Australia.
Even if the F-35 had a 10:1 kill ratio then say Indonesia had 10 SU-30's we'd loose 1% of our combat capability while Indonesia looses 100% of theirs. Game over.
Just from a radar cross section and radar power perspective the F-35 will be detecting the SU-30 three times further away. The F-35 will most definitely be able to get a shot off before its even detected by the SU-30.
That pretty much destroys all chances of the SU-30 getting a kill against the F-35. During the F-15's entire life it never got into a dog fight. With an even larger move to beyond visual range its likely that 99% of F-35 engagements will be beyond visual range. So the even if the F-35 turned like a brick it would still have a massive kill ratio. More than good enough for Australia.
Even if the F-35 had a 10:1 kill ratio then say Indonesia had 10 SU-30's we'd loose 1% of our combat capability while Indonesia looses 100% of theirs. Game over.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
What about other sensors that are not effected by RCS??? The SU XX has a serious IRST capability that will be able to detect an F35 outside of the AMRAAMs range. Without that advantage the F35 is toast.
And the F15 was never up againt an equal opponant (ie on more than a platform v platform basis). Theres a good chance RAAF will be. The F35 is an exellant strike/CAS platform, but air dominance fighter it is not.
Please point out what has been said that is regarded as primary source material harvested through a breach of commonwealth privilege and/or commercial in confidence reference material?
I'm curious to know what commonwealth articles, statutes and civil laws have been breached. An accusation leveled at somone whose comments are based on opinion that is derived from publicly available material is not even remotely a vehicle of legal pursuit. If the comments are connected to privileged data it then begs the question of how you know it was privileged in the first place. Considering the fact that some of the data in the public hearings was embargoed, then I seriously doubt that you're aware of what was secured from general hearings anyway. Even Mr Criss does not have access to all information on platform capability. The commonwealth quite rightly reserves the right to protect and secure some information - and it has since "adam was a wee lad".
Everything that Alexas has commented on has been public domain or paraphrased by others, or is indeed presented as defacto technical reference material because its linked to APA etc...
What do we need it to do, Rich, in reality? What has it done for us, thus far?
Mmm, apart from the ratio of the equation, I agree with you, Rich. I believe the US needs us far more than we need the US. We provide a figleaf of multilateralism to your nation's military adventures so that its harder to bring the charge of imperialism against them. Something that was recognised by your government as far as back as Eisenhower IIRC. Our troops may be of little physical value in your grand scheme of things but morally however they have a far greater value than their numbers would suggest.
To be brutally honest, Rich, actually, I'd suggest that the 339 lives that we shed in Korea and the 520 we shed in Vietnam are a far greater argument than one mere "deployment", Rich. We have paid our dues. Are you going to tell us that it was a case of more fools us to believe that we should get something back for the blood we have shed in your name?
If you don't need us, why then does your government keep coming and asking us to be your partners in your latest madcap scheme?
As for why you should perhaps give a damn about Asia, how much is your trade with that part of the world worth, again?
I see nothing wrong with increasing our defence expenditures. Indeed, I think you'd be hard pressed to find an Australian in these forums who doesn't believe that we don't spend enough on defence.Boy it would just be just a disaster for us if ANZUS folded.
OK, you're right, it was 8 years ago. Nearly a decade.