Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates

[Boagrius]

To my mind, long range strike has changed fundamentally since the days when the F111 needed its long legs to drop gravity bombs on its intended targets. If we want to be able to strike into the archipelago to our north (and beyond) then there are a multitude of systems that could provide that capability (and not all of them require aircraft as a deliver platforms). I'm not sure adding a new and increasingly obsolete aircraft type to the inventory is the best way forward. A few things to consider:

- AFAIK work is still underway on an evolution or replacement of the F35's F135 powerplant using developments in variable bypass technology. This could yield significant enhancements to the range of the F35 fleet later this decade.

https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/program-management/f135-upgrades-reengining-considered-new-f-35-propulsion-road-map

- There is also the question of munitions. The commitment to LRASM is telling here, but continued investment in a range of standoff weapons for the F35 fleet ought to be tremendously helpful. While not integrated yet, weapons like JASSM-ER & XR should be excellent candidates in due course, along with JSM, SiAW (AARGM-ER), JSOW-ER and even HAWC.

- I believe LRASM can be launched from a variety of containers, ranging from deck mounted box launchers to Mk41 VLS cells, so (bearing in mind that LRASM has a secondary land attack function) we could conceivably distribute them across every major surface combatant (Harpoon replacement) in the RAN... ditto for NSM.

-The elephant in the room - Tomahawk. Another weapon that could be added to the arsenal of Hobart/Hunter as well as Attack/Collins. The US (and especially the USMC) also seem intent on reviving GLCM and using it as an integral part of their Pacific strategy. If we have been given the green light by the neighbours then I think a compelling case can be made for adopting it in both the Army and RAN.

- Beyond this what you are left with is the need for sufficient ISR to ensure all these weapons actually find their targets. F35, Triton, P8 with APS-154, Wedgetail and Peregrine all strike me as extremely potent platforms to this end. We actually seem to have many/most of the raw materials needed to make it work - we just need more of the stuff that flies a long way and goes bang.

I'd add that distributing a variety of standoff weapons across the services should offer a lot more versatility and redundancy to our strike capability than relying on a single fleet of aircraft alone. At the very least it ought to give us plenty of strike options for the next ~15 years or so, by which time the USAF PCA program ought to provide an F111-like reach anyway (assuming they'll sell it to us).

 

[pykie]

Who says that air superiority isn't the F-35s bread and butter? It's done pretty well at Red Flags clearing the skies of opposition aircraft. The only other true 5th gen air superiority fighter is the F-22 and that's no longer being manufactured and anyway it was forbidden to be exported.

From what I've read of Red Flags exercises - the F-35's were acting as a quarterback gathering information for other 4.5 platforms like the F-15 to do the bulk of the work, then ducking in when required for other roles.

My original question was really surrounding the performance of the F-35's - with the relatively short range, smaller payloads and slower speeds of the F-35, is going a complete fleet of the F-35's a wise option when we are going to be prioritizing national self defence over the next few decades?

Not that the USA and their budgets are comparable, but even they are procuring the F-15EX's and their reasoning has been exactly what was mentioned in the Red Flags review articles, F-15's with their 13,000kg payloads and longer ranges, higher speeds are the tip of the spear, working in tandem with F-35 playing the quaterbacks in certain scenario's.

The F-15EX may not be cost effective, they are basically comparable to an F-35 in cost, however they remain undefeated in combat to date, so certainly a great air superiority option.

 

[Boagrius]

From what I've read of Red Flags exercises - the F-35's were acting as a quarterback gathering information for other 4.5 platforms like the F-15 to do the bulk of the work, then ducking in when required for other roles.

My original question was really surrounding the performance of the F-35's - with the relatively short range, smaller payloads and slower speeds of the F-35, is going a complete fleet of the F-35's a wise option when we are going to be prioritizing national self defence over the next few decades?

I'm not confident that this is an accurate assessment of the F35's capabilities, its role in Red Flag so far or its role more broadly. US doctrine explicitly calls for 5th gens to be the platforms responsible for "kicking down the door", with 4th gens following their lead. The F35's ability to hang around as a quarterback even when winchester has generally been described as a valuable secondary capability:

(Just hit play and the relevant part of the video will automatically start)

 

[seaspear]

Would the addition of the Meteor missile assist the f35a in air to air superiority, the attached article suggests there are advantages to the Meteor over conventional missiles, I can appreciate the large order for the AIM-9X BLOCK2 and BLOCK2+

Meteor vs AMRAAM: Two Finest BVRAAM West Has.

European nations have been quick to embrace the MBDA Meteor as their preferred BVRAAM missile. Integration testing is underway for the Eurofighter Typhoon and already completed for the Saab Gripen. The Rafale is planned to provisions to carry two Meteors by 2018.

globaldefensejournal.blogspot.com

Raytheon secures US$434m order to supply air-to-air missiles

Raytheon will provide 766 AIM-9X Block II missiles and 160 AIM-9X Block II+ missiles for role out with key US Air Force and US Navy platforms including F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and F-35 variants. Th

www.defenceconnect.com.au

 

[Boagrius]

Given that Meteor has yet to be integrated into the F35, I think it would need to be weighed against the AIM260. Note that the latter does not use a ramjet like the Meteor, but still offers significant range/NEZ improvements over the AMRAAM. I suspect advances in throttleable solid rocket technology may be at work here. Most importantly though, the guidance technology on the AIM260 is almost certainly going to be more modern, potentially making it a better antidote to J20/J31 etc.

 

[aussienscale]

My original question was really surrounding the performance of the F-35's - with the relatively short range, smaller payloads and slower speeds of the F-35, is going a complete fleet of the F-35's a wise option when we are going to be prioritizing national self defence over the next few decades?

Compared to ? and what flight and mission profiles ? what weapons loadout ? Do you have a reference for a direct like for like comparison ?

Cheers

 

[ngatimozart]

The F-15EX is an option but how keen would the RAAF be about introducing a 3rd Fast Jet line that has has no link to any of the current Fleet and would require its own Logistics and trg streams, completely seperate to both the F-35 and Growler Fleet.
The chances of Australia getting the B-21, you would have to check with Mr Buckley on that one.

Yep Mr Buckley would have a lot to say. Yes the F-15EX is an option and that's why I have raised it. Whether or not it's a correct option is another story because it does have pros cons.

 

[vonnoobie]

In the end it is simply to early for us to even hazard a guess on what the future aircraft may be. Could be anything from upgraded super hornets to F-35 A/B or even D depending where the F-35 evolution takes it or even a larger combat drone. Lot of different options in an ever changing environment with ever changing technology to even try and guess something a decade away. We are yet to truly see how well the F-35 will fill in for the RAAF in active duty, could be it's bloody perfect and we get more or could be it is lacking in some areas where we want/need improvement on. Once we get real world large scale use on the F-35 then we "may" be in a position to speculate but not until then.

My 2 cents.

 

[ngatimozart]

From what I've read of Red Flags exercises - the F-35's were acting as a quarterback gathering information for other 4.5 platforms like the F-15 to do the bulk of the work, then ducking in when required for other roles.

My original question was really surrounding the performance of the F-35's - with the relatively short range, smaller payloads and slower speeds of the F-35, is going a complete fleet of the F-35's a wise option when we are going to be prioritizing national self defence over the next few decades?

Not that the USA and their budgets are comparable, but even they are procuring the F-15EX's and their reasoning has been exactly what was mentioned in the Red Flags review articles, F-15's with their 13,000kg payloads and longer ranges, higher speeds are the tip of the spear, working in tandem with F-35 playing the quaterbacks in certain scenario's.

The F-15EX may not be cost effective, they are basically comparable to an F-35 in cost, however they remain undefeated in combat to date, so certainly a great air superiority option.

Boagrius and aussienscale have answered you on the F-35 question, so I will reply to the F-15EX question. The F-15EX hasn't flown yet so you can't claim anything about it. It is a variant of the F-15 that the USAF is acquiring and is an upgraded F-15E and F-15QA. Yes there are no records in the open literature of a F-15 being shot down in air to air combat, but they have been downed by Ground Based Air Defence Systems. The Iraqi IADS was known to shoot down one or two

At present the F-15E flyaway cost is around US$110 million and the F-35A flyaway cost is US$80 million, so the only way that Boeing sees that it can interest the USAF is to promise a similar cost. But can they shave US$30 million off the cost and still make money? I think that Boeing is trying it's game of low entry cost then once the USAF have signed a contract go oh bugger there's extra costs here, and here, because of unforeseen difficulties and next thing the flyaway cost has gone up 30% or so. Or the USAF sign them to a fixed price contract like the KC-46 and Boeing runs into expensive problems which costs them a fortune. So they will most likely pass those extra costs on to foreign clients if they are unable to recoup their extra costs from the USAF. So whilst Boeing has claimed that the F-15EX will cost so much to acquire and so much CPFH it hasn't proved it yet.

Finally if I was a F-15EX driver and I knew that an F-35 was hunting me, I'd be worried, very worried and considering about bending over and kissing my arse goodbye.

 

[Takao]

Gah - poorly written words always fail me....

The point about a future air combat capability is that it is not 100% going to be another 30 F-35. It may be. If the answer to that need is a crewed platform, it's almost certainly (as in, high 99%-range) to be the same jet as AIR 6000 is buying now. Not B's, nor C's and definitely not a new fleet. I'd say the only possibility may be a hypothetical -18H that provides the Growler replacement. And that is pure make believe.

The question is not what fleet, the question is what effect. And while there are $ billion allocated for weapon design and procurement, additional in the next decade won't hurt at all. So the choice may be for a non-crewed option - ie, additional or new long-range weapons. Or perhaps the cooperative engagement capability to provide the effect from a greater number of platforms.

Either way, it's not a F-15 or B-1 or B-21. It's either crewed (F-35 or child-of-Growler) or its an existing or new weapon or system that gives a long range air combat effect.

 

[hauritz]

They did allude to unmanned tankers in the force structure plan which I took to mean something like the MQ-25 being developed for the USN. They are smaller and stealthier than a manned tanker and are planned to refuel between 4-6 fighters at a range of about 500 km effectively increasing a fighter's combat radius by about 50%.

This is a capability mentioned as an eventual replacement for the KC-30A fleet but depending on how things go with the USN it might be one of those projects that might be worth bringing forward.

 

[Redlands18]

Gah - poorly written words always fail me....

The point about a future air combat capability is that it is not 100% going to be another 30 F-35. It may be. If the answer to that need is a crewed platform, it's almost certainly (as in, high 99%-range) to be the same jet as AIR 6000 is buying now. Not B's, nor C's and definitely not a new fleet. I'd say the only possibility may be a hypothetical -18H that provides the Growler replacement. And that is pure make believe.

The question is not what fleet, the question is what effect. And while there are $ billion allocated for weapon design and procurement, additional in the next decade won't hurt at all. So the choice may be for a non-crewed option - ie, additional or new long-range weapons. Or perhaps the cooperative engagement capability to provide the effect from a greater number of platforms.

Either way, it's not a F-15 or B-1 or B-21. It's either crewed (F-35 or child-of-Growler) or its an existing or new weapon or system that gives a long range air combat effect.

I think the thing that is so confusing here is the complete lack of any mention of what’s happening with the Super Hornets other then them getting new Stand off weapons. No mention of replacement or upgrade. The only thing i can think off is the RAAF is as yet undecided and the additional combat capability covers either choice.

 

[Stampede]

I think the thing that is so confusing here is the complete lack of any mention of what’s happening with the Super Hornets other then them getting new Stand off weapons. No mention of replacement or upgrade. The only thing i can think off is the RAAF is as yet undecided and the additional combat capability covers either choice.

Your correct that there is a lack of clarity re the S Hornets.
Suggest in the public version of the recent defence update only so much would be revealed.

Looking forward, I guess it comes back to the old question of manned and unmanned aerial platforms into the future and how the balance of these platforms will be managed.

With the RAAF and other Air Forces currently investing in manned aircraft I'd suggest they' ll still be around in some capacity for a couple more decades at least.

For myself that suggests another tranche of manned aircraft and most likely the in service F35 A.


Regards S

 

[south]

Now - while I think there is an argument for a cheap CAS platform (even having Hornets over the MEAO doing ground attack has been...silly....without the threat justifying it. understandable but silly) I don't think that would meet the intent of that project. And I think 1 Avn Regt does that enough for the ADF. But, I think there should be more discussion than 'just buy another F-35 squadron', especially when that doesn't plug the F-111 gap, when it comes to additional air combat capability.

MEAO is not an argument for a cheap CAS platform (unless you are talking MALE UAV). An AT-6 type in OKRA wouldn't have had the range without forward basing, or payload full stop. Not saying forward basing couldn't be done, but with forward basing you increase risk, footprint and logistical cost, which probably would have tested government willing. Even with forward basing, you're now robbed of tactical flexibility because at 200Kts it takes a long time to get anywhere. Which is fine if you are an MQ9, and you're going to hang out for the next 36 hours, but less so if you have 4 hours (brochure number, expect that it is way less in practice).

 

[John Newman]

I think the thing that is so confusing here is the complete lack of any mention of what’s happening with the Super Hornets other then them getting new Stand off weapons. No mention of replacement or upgrade. The only thing i can think off is the RAAF is as yet undecided and the additional combat capability covers either choice.

Whilst it might appear confusing, I don't think that we will know what will happen until around 2025 (that date has been established for a long time now as a date that a decision will be made).

It's always worth going back to the early 2000's, to the early days of AIR 6000, to see where things start to where we are now and where we are likely to be heading.

Back then the plan was that the remaining F/A-18A/B and F-111C fleets (approx. 92 airframes at that point) would be replaced with up to 100 F-35A.

Replacing four operational squadrons (3 x Classic Hornet and 1 x F-111C) and two training squadrons (1 x Classic Hornet and 1 x F-111C) with four operational and one training squadron with a single type (No 6 F-111C training Squadron would not be needed anymore).

From memory it was planned that by 2020 all of the above would happen, and from memory it was the Classic Hornet fleet first and the F-111C fleet last.

Roll forward a few more years (2006-2007) and the F-35 program has problems and delays (don't need to detail, we all know), decisions are made, due to both the delays with F-35 and the concern of keeping the F-111C fleet operational until 2020.

The Howard Government decides that the F-111C fleet will be retired by end of 2010 and that 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets will be acquired as an interim replacement, a bridging the gap replacement, for 10 years.

The new Rudd Government modifies the plan slightly in that 12 of the 24 airframes will be pre-wired to potential EA-18G Growler conversion.

Roll forward to the Gillard Government (2012-13?) and the plan is modified again, instead of pulling some of the Super Hornet fleet off line for Growler conversion (avoiding interruption to the Super fleet), and instead procures 12 new build Growlers (they become 6Sqn).

Somewhere around this time (beginning of the 2013 Abbott Government?) the plan is made to keep the Super Hornet fleet for an additional 10 years, up to around 2030, and a decision will be made sometime around 2025).

During the 2013 election campaign, the LNP lead by Abbott, had committed a future LNP Government to procuring 100 F-35A.

By the time the 2016 Turnbull Government DWP had been delivered, the wording in the 2016 DWP said:

5.11 The Super Hornet fleet has been extended beyond its initial bridging capability timeframe and is now planned to be replaced by around 2030. Its replacement could include either a fourth operational squadron of Joint Strike Fighters or possibly a yet to be developed unmanned combat aerial vehicle. The decision on the replacement of this air combat capability will be best undertaken post-2020 when technology and emerging threat trends are better understood, and we have the benefit of our initial Joint Strike Fighter operating experience.

The new 2020 update is, as we know, less clear in the language that it is using compared to the past:

5.7 The Government is committed to the procurement and introduction of the F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, support of the F/A-18F Super Hornet strike aircraft and acquiring enhanced air-launched munitions.

But still has that budget allowance and timeframe in place, it now says: Additional Air Combat Capability - $4.5b-$6.7b, the time frame is still the same, mid 2020s to around 2030.

And lets not confuse this with the Loyal Wingman Project, there is a clear and specific project mentioned for that called, Teaming Air Vehicle - $7.4b-$11b, with a time frame starting at approx. 2026-27 and continuing to 2040 and probably beyond too.


So here we are mid 2020, does the Government have to be 100% clear on plans that are due in approx. 5 years from now? No I don't think they do, we can all read into it what we want, and I'm sure we will all come up with all sorts of answers too.

Getting back to the Super Hornet fleet, lets not forget that it is the one constant the RAAF has during the current wind down of the Classic Hornet fleet and the introduction of the F-35A fleet. The F-35A fleet hasn't reached IOC yet (next year I think?) and is not due to reach FOC until late 2023.

And lets not forget that when the Classic Hornet fleet retires we loose their anti ship missile capability (Harpoon) and their long range strike capability (JASSM) too, the F-35A fleet does not obtain these capabilities until it receives Block 4 software/hardware upgrades around the mid 2020s.

The one constant in all of this is the Super Hornet fleet, it currently operates with Harpoon and JSOW, and in the next couple of years LRASM will be introduced to take over that long range maritime and land strike role.

Bottom line?

Until the Classic Hornet to F-35A transition is complete and the integration of long range maritime and land strike weapons to F-35A, then I can't see the RAAF screwing around with the Super Hornet fleet in any way (other than integration of LRASM), no taking them off line for possible Block II to Block III upgrades, just leave them alone to do what they are currently doing.

If I had to give my crystal ball a rub (and I don't mean the crystal ball in my nut sack either!), my prediction would be that if by the mid 2020s that integration of those long range weapons for the F-35A fleet is completed, and there is no other obvious choice (other than F-35A) on the horizon for a Super Hornet replacement, then I would imagine that we will see the retirement of them by 2030 with that last Squadron of F-35A.

Anyway, that's my prediction and just my opinion, and lets not forget: opinions are like arseholes, everyone has got one!

Cheers,

 

[Todjaeger]

From what I've read of Red Flags exercises - the F-35's were acting as a quarterback gathering information for other 4.5 platforms like the F-15 to do the bulk of the work, then ducking in when required for other roles.

My original question was really surrounding the performance of the F-35's - with the relatively short range, smaller payloads and slower speeds of the F-35, is going a complete fleet of the F-35's a wise option when we are going to be prioritizing national self defence over the next few decades?

Not that the USA and their budgets are comparable, but even they are procuring the F-15EX's and their reasoning has been exactly what was mentioned in the Red Flags review articles, F-15's with their 13,000kg payloads and longer ranges, higher speeds are the tip of the spear, working in tandem with F-35 playing the quaterbacks in certain scenario's.

The F-15EX may not be cost effective, they are basically comparable to an F-35 in cost, however they remain undefeated in combat to date, so certainly a great air superiority option.

Out of curiousity, have you read the stickied threads Air Power 101 and a Brief History of LO?

I ask because bringing up the lower speed for F-35, and the higher speed of the F-15EX is the sort of thing which suggests either not reading those posts, or missing some crucial points. Same goes for referring to F-15's being "the tip of the spear".

One of the changes in modern fighter design between the 4th gen and 5th gen fighters is what features are considered most important, and why.

4th gen fighters like the F-15, F-16 and F-18 gave significant importance to the kinematic performance of the fighter aircraft, or basically how fast it could go and how quickly it could turn. In 5th gen fighters, these characteristics while still important, are significantly less important than they used to be. Instead, gathering and controlling information is much more important with 5th gen fighters.

Part of the change in philosophy has to do with changes in how modern battlespaces are managed, and part of it has to do with recognizing certain limitations which just are not practical to overcome. A fighter aircraft, 4th or 5th gen, just is not going to be able to out turn an air-to-air missile capable of making 40-G turns or more. At best, a fighter with a pilot in peak physical condition and a modern G-suit could manage 11-G turns before losing consciousness. Similarly, it just is not practical to design a fighter which can keep up with, never mind fly faster than an air-to-air missile, many of which are in the Mach 3+ range. The reason the kinematic performance used to be such a high priority was that before, a fighter was expected to attempt to maneuver to break a lock and/or evade an in-bound missile (using/assisted by ECM, chaff and flares, etc.) or accelerate in an attempt to get far enough away from the launch point that the missile either loses the lock, or runs out of range. The intent is that 5th gen fighters would handle and survive air combat a different way, by using and controlling information.

One of the maxims in this regards is that he who sees first, shoots first, he who shoots first, usually wins. The way this applies to 5th gen fighters like the F-22 and F-35, and will presumably also apply to the 5th gen fighters other nations develop is that improvements in both sensors (on and off-board) and avionics enable a 5th gen fighter to both collect more battlespace information than had been available before, but also present it to the pilot in a more usable format so that the pilot can make the most of what they get. At the same time, the LO features of the 5th gen fighter are limiting the information that hostile forces are trying to gather so that the hostile forces have less information available to use making decisions (or targeting/locking on, etc.)

The way that could work in theory with everything else being equal, a LO fighter would detect a non-LO fighter first and potentially substantially before the non-LO fighter might detect the LO fighter. This could then enable the LO fighter to take a position relative to the non-LO fighter that is substantially advantageous to it. This could anything from a LO fighter on a strike mission making a course adjustment to completely bypass the defending non-LO fighter, to an air-to-air configured LO fighter taking a position behind a non-LO fighter while keeping the non-LO fighter within the NEZ of the LO fighter's air-to-air missiles.

In the Red Flag example, the F-35's were "the tip of the spear" because they were the ones detecting the targets and being shot callers, as well as engaging targets themselves. At that point any 4th or 4.5 gen fighters were basically acting a bomb trucks. Given the budget of the USAF, the fighter inventory of the US, and the worldwide area that the US armed forces operate in there can be some advantages to the US in having some bomb trucks in inventory. Me being me, I suspect a certain amount of political arm-twisting was also involved in an effort of keep Boeing in the fighter design/production business.

Having said that, I just do not see the RAAF getting F-15's to use as bomb trucks.

 

[OPSSG]

From what I've read of Red Flags exercises - the F-35's were acting as a quarterback gathering information for other 4.5 platforms like the F-15 to do the bulk of the work, then ducking in when required for other roles.

My original question was really surrounding the performance of the F-35's - with the relatively short range, smaller payloads and slower speeds of the F-35, is going a complete fleet of the F-35's a wise option when we are going to be prioritizing national self defence over the next few decades?

Not that the USA and their budgets are comparable, but even they are procuring the F-15EX's and their reasoning has been exactly what was mentioned in the Red Flags review articles, F-15's with their 13,000kg payloads and longer ranges, higher speeds are the tip of the spear, working in tandem with F-35 playing the quaterbacks in certain scenario's.

The F-15EX may not be cost effective, they are basically comparable to an F-35 in cost, however they remain undefeated in combat to date, so certainly a great air superiority option.

In just 20 posts, you have worn out your new member courtesy period from Senior Members, with their willingness to continue to provide polite guidance.

You have been given a few warning points as a slap on the wrist, to shape up — read the links provided by Todjaeger or you will be given an enforced holiday.

No reply to this post is necessary.

 

[pykie]

In just 20 posts, you have worn out your new member courtesy period from Senior Members, with their willingness to continue to provide polite guidance.

You have been given a few warning points as a slap on the wrist, to shape up — read the links provided by Todjaeger or you will be given an enforced holiday.

No reply to this post is necessary.

This is a discussion forum, not an encyclopedia. Not everyone here is/are defense pro's and the point of a discussion forum is exactly that. It sounds like you should be running a blog, not a forum for discussion.

If you don't want novice discussion, you should limit your membership to defence pro's.

Your warning isn't required.

Please cancel my account, I have no desire to post here again with this sort of moderation, which is frankly the most over the top I've ever encountered from multiple forums I read.

Cheers.

 

[Redlands18]

This is a discussion forum, not an encyclopedia. Not everyone here is/are defense pro's and the point of a discussion forum is exactly that. It sounds like you should be running a blog, not a forum for discussion.

If you don't want novice discussion, you should limit your membership to defence pro's.

Your warning isn't required.

Please cancel my account, I have no desire to post here again with this sort of moderation, which is frankly the most over the top I've ever encountered from multiple forums I read.

Cheers.

There are plenty of people on here who are not DT Defense Pros, who make meaningful contributions all the time, who understand that this is the best place to learn about Defence, by listening to those Def Pros, by doing some quality research into what is being discussed.
No its not an Encyclopaedia but if you are here then you are on the Internet, the greatest Encyclopaedia ever created by mankind, it takes 30s to type out a subject in a search Engine and all the info you need is right in front of you.

 

[StobieWan]

This is a discussion forum, not an encyclopedia. Not everyone here is/are defense pro's and the point of a discussion forum is exactly that. It sounds like you should be running a blog, not a forum for discussion.

If you don't want novice discussion, you should limit your membership to defence pro's.

Your warning isn't required.

Please cancel my account, I have no desire to post here again with this sort of moderation, which is frankly the most over the top I've ever encountered from multiple forums I read.

Cheers.

we're happy to welcome posts from non defence professionals - in fact, I'm exactly that - however,we do expect some basic ability to engage with debate, hence the warning.


Have a think -if you're posting stuff that people in the business are telling you is wrong, what's better ? To post in forums where people don't know any better, or to discuss matters in a forum full of people with industry and armed forces experience? Who do you think you'd learn more from ?


[edited for punctuation and typos]