- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #221
Scraw said:
refer to my prev post re this matter. however, there is a ditto on me not responding to any of your posts in this thread.Kurt Plummer said:
RAAF Stopgap air plan is 'dumb'
- Thread starter gf0012-aust
- Start date
- Status
Pursuit Curve
New Member
If I m be so bold to ask, Who is this Dr. Kopp?
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Dr KOPP is a professor at an Australian University, who is a qualified Cessna pilot and "mobile phone" engineer. This he claims gives him great insight into defence matters, and as such he writes extensively on them. He writes for quite a number of magazines including Air Forces Monthly (on occasion) Air International, Australian Aviation, Defence Today and others. Most of his work can be found at: ausairpower.net.Pursuit Curve said:
Pursuit Curve
New Member
Thank you all for the clarification guys, I appreciate it.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #228
he's certainly not advising on airpower issues. and from some mates I know in the EW game both at DSTO and in US mil-ind, he certainly isn't regarded as current on EW issues. that is contrary to his own inflated opinion of his knowledge base.JWCook said:
I had a few mates from the states and DSTO who privately shredded his comments about netcentric/fusion warfare as stated to the JSC. Considering their roles, I would assume that their views would be held in higher operational esteem than his. after all, they're all cleared at approp levels whereas his knowledge is public domain even if it is focussed.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Dr Kopp, me and Carlo go back quite a ways on rec.aviation.military, and we've clashed many many times.
I always found his data quite accurate, but his conclusions always left me scratching my head wondering if I possibly missed something.
Re his employment - I thought he was employed by the government to advise on air power issues, but a quick check here http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~carlo/ckprof.html reveals that:-
I wonder if anyone can help me with something , Did the Air 6000 competition ever get a proper briefing of the Typhoon from BAE or Eurofighter GmbH?, or was the decision made without one?
cheers
I always found his data quite accurate, but his conclusions always left me scratching my head wondering if I possibly missed something.
Re his employment - I thought he was employed by the government to advise on air power issues, but a quick check here http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~carlo/ckprof.html reveals that:-
I wonder if anyone can help me with something , Did the Air 6000 competition ever get a proper briefing of the Typhoon from BAE or Eurofighter GmbH?, or was the decision made without one?
cheers
Last edited:
Hi JohnJWCook said:
Yes it did. BAE were leading the way with the Australian leg of their bid efforts. Although RAAF officials were pretty impressed with the Eurofighter, the decided to pursue a true 5th gen solution instead.
I visited Coningsby in June last year and got to see the beast up close and personal - great jet and will be an awesome capability when in Tranche 2 form.
Cheers
Magoo
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #231
I agree, he always delivers on data presentation, but I often raise my eyebrows at his strategic motivators...JWCook said:
Ah thanks for that Magoo, BTW I was offered the chance of a 'tour' of Coningsby recently , but I would have had to make my own way there at short notice
, perhaps on my next visit I can con my way in, for some tea and biccys and a joy flight ;-)!.
Cheers
, perhaps on my next visit I can con my way in, for some tea and biccys and a joy flight ;-)!.Cheers
No worries. If you do get there, say g'day to Walshy for me at 17(XXX)SQN.JWCook said:Ah thanks for that Magoo, BTW I was offered the chance of a 'tour' of Coningsby recently , but I would have had to make my own way there at short notice
I had to make my own way there from Toulouse while on an Airbus trip. I rented a car from LHR and drove up via the IWM at Duxford. It was well worth it.
Cheers
OK I'll try to remember Walshy at either of those sqdns, Do you know the story why 29 sqdn has XXX???
Apparently they asked someone to paint XXIX on the aircraft, and explained it like this:-
Paint two X's before the roundel and 1X after the roundel = XXX and its stuck ever since (it may be an urban myth, but it sounds good.)
Cheers
Apparently they asked someone to paint XX
IX on the aircraft, and explained it like this:-Paint two X's before the roundel and 1X after the roundel = XX
X and its stuck ever since (it may be an urban myth, but it sounds good.)Cheers
Sorry, I meant 29, not 17. 17 is the T&E unit, whereas 29 is the OCU. I heard that same story while I was there...came out of WWII I believe?!JWCook said:OK I'll try to remember Walshy at either of those sqdns, Do you know the story why 29 sqdn has XXX???
Apparently they asked someone to paint XX
Paint two X's before the roundel and 1X after the roundel = XX
Cheers
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I'm surprised he didn't propose that Government stop university funding. Oh wait, that would hardly be in his own self-interest would it? Just like Aust buying F-35's...J.D. said:
If AU is looking for a stop-gap plane until JSF arrives I suggest the following. . . The US has a plane that can fight and bomb with JDAM capability along with long range Pheonix missles making it the ulitmate fighter/bomber. . . its called the F-14 Tomcat and it's out of the fleet. We have several squadrons worth that have several years of service life left due to premature decom. If the Aussies were to request this platform I'm sure they could get them for a bargain. I'd hate to see these incredible planes rot away. . . I think Australia would do them service by incorporating them into their air services. . . They have a tradition of operationg planes in the US naval inventory and acquiring them would lead to easy integration.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Australia would be FAR more likely to seek additional "legacy" F/A-18's if additional aircraft are required prior to the introduction of the JSF. Tomcat's, though an effective aircraft in "their" day are not exactly what the RAAF would require.Big-E said:
For instance we use AMRAAM and ASRAAM A2A missiles on our Hornet fleet. Neither can be carried by Tomcat. The AIM-154 Phoenix, was actually retired several years ago and is not in opertional service, despite several squadons of F-14D "Bombcats" remaining in USN service. The Tomcat is only capable of carrying the AIM-7 sparrow missile (which we phased out in 1995) and AIM-9M Sidewinder (which was phased out in 2003) for A2A roles.
If we required additional aircraft, say for instance if a MAJOR defence crisis appeared on the horizon (imminent invasion of Australia), ex- USN/USMC F/A-18A/B aircraft exist at AMARC, which could be re-activated far quicker than the acquisition of new build aircraft. These aircraft would be the easiest to integrate into our force structure. ANY other aircraft would be difficult to integrate, requiring a new training and support/logistical system.
Our pilots would also have to convert onto the new platform or be trained from scratch. Our Airforce would also require an extensive period to exercise the new platform with our existing platforms in order to maximise the capability and to become "masters" of operating this new capability. New tactics and doctrines need to be developed to properly operate ANY new capability, as new capabilities, as the name suggest bring new capabilities to a force structure. Not necessarily better ones either, simply different.
The AMARC airframes, in addition might also be of the F/A-18A/B + or C/D "night attack" standard, which are of a similar standard to that of our upgraded "HUG" Hornets.
Purchase of additional aircraft would also require additional investment in EWSP, weapons, sensors (including Litening AT targeting pods) and components of the HUG program that go beyond that of any other legacy Hornets such as helmet mounted sights and moving map displays and full colour monitors.
As I'm sure you can see, even additional "legacy" Hornets would require extensive funding and work to bring them "up to scratch". Such work has taken around 5 years for our existing fleet. More work would take a significant amount of time.
Introduction of other capabilities, would take serious investment and time also. An often discussed option would be to introduce Super Hornets into the Australian force structure. This would allow us to retire our F-111's and hornets requiring "centre barrel replacements" whilst providig us with an aircraft more capable than even our "HUG'd" Hornets (provided we acquired APG-79 AESA equipped aircraft) and aircraft with greater range/payload than our existing Hornets.
This option was not pursued due to the costs involved. An adoption of the Sh would impinge on the funding available for JSF's and thereby lessen the capabilities we could acquire then. The idea being that the JSF is thought of as a far superiour platform to the SH. It is expected therefore that our upgraded Hornets, in combination with their new weapons and other RAAF capabilities, like our new AWACS and tankers, will be able to carry the load until 2015-2017 when the JSF's are due to achieve "operational capability".
I personally have doubts about this, but there is no denying that ANY other option will be expensive and will eat up funding that would be better spent on JSF's...
- Status