The F-14 was designed to take on the Soviet bomber hordes with the Phoenix missile as an interceptor, and in that role it was great, in everything else not so much.
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
You don't say...
I know I'm going to regret asking this... *deep breath* Please tell us how exactly the F-111 is "still ahead of today"??? I'm sure the RAAF would be very interested in your opinions.F-111 Fanatic said:
That's the first sensible thing you've said on this forum.
I'm glad you're not part of the tender eval team, because it's apparent that your view is somewhat based on emotion rather than actual contact.
as someone who's been on both sides of the mil industry fence, as someone who's been on Tender Teams, as someone who's seen russian kit up close, then you are apparently oblivious as to what the oncosts and reliability through life costs are for your beloved substitute.
at an electronic warfare fighting level alone the JSF is a golden league ahead.
for all those who think selection is based on single platform stats, then make the effort to understand systems impact.
this has got bugger all to do with keeping the US happy - such commentary is more a reflection of the lack of knowledge about how modern systems procurement is done as opposed to the "breakfast of champions" type commentary.
I can see more inane commentary coming up on the wonderful vailidity and merit of the "Cobra manouvre"
HHUA.
F-111 Fanatic
New Member
Well for a start, I diddnt come on these forums to sway the RAAF's opinion or hang in the hope that I could impress somone like yourself with my politically correct and oh so seriouse approach to a public discussion about variouse jets that have or havent sucked balls or demonstrated our governments incompetance and lack of research or consultation.
My opinion is that the F-111 has been dogged out by variouse and usually uneducated members in the RAAF and Goventment and you know what, I dont really give a rats left testicle if you dont like or dont agree with it.
For my 2c to answer your question, which maybee you can take to work with you on Monday and dazzle them all, is that the F-111 still has nothing that can match its low level performance, internal fuel load and general bang for our buck service that this aircraft has offered and continues to offer us for far less than anything inferior that can be offered to replace it right now.
Congratulations kid. 1st Warning. Read the rules. 2 left.
Congratulations kid. 2nd Warning. Read the rules. 1 left.
Congratulations kid. 3rd Warning. Read the rules. 0 left.
You just got banned.
that was the best part of the recent posts. You have to hand it to him his self belief was impressive..... just like Custer.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
battlensign
New Member
Umm.....GF.........obviously he needed/needs to learn to read the rules and be civil (in order to even simply keep this place running smoothly), but perhaps in this instance we might implore and humbly beseech you in your infinite “mod” wisdom to re-instate, if only on a provisional basis, this obvious F-111 die-hard fan in order that there can be a proper debate (though lord knows there have been a few already on this).
We (and we know who we are - particularly those with more reason to than I ) all know the efforts some have been going to, to indoctrinate the public on the myth of the invincible F-111. Whilst it is an annoyingly persistent topic, perhaps there is a wider role the members here can provide as a general service in once again debunking this fan's particular beliefs. It there are people who genuinely still believe those myths, perhaps we just need to keep trying.
Brett.
He was given 3 weeks to cool off. He can of course make every attempt to engage appropriately when and if he returns.
My charity button jammed off some time ago wrt these kinds of posters, but he hasn't been permanently banned - whether he is depends on future engagement behaviour.
Hi Weasel,
Interesting comments, especially the bit about "AESA radar confers stealth". Can you explain how this particular type of radar confers stealth? Emcon is not a new concept, been around for ages got bugger all to do with stealth. You select Emcon you stop transmitting all emissions, therefore your brand spanking new AESA radar is just as blind as your classic attack radars.
AFAIK the advantages of AESA are an electronically scanned array meaning faster scan rates and less moving parts ie more robust system and better picture. You still need to pump the ergotrons out to get that picture though, it is just a better way to control the beam.
To be blunt, back during the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Hornets were being bought to replace F-4 Phantom IIs and A-7 Corsair IIs for the US Navy and Marine Corps. At that time the Phantom IIs were considered good fighters, having a war history of doing well against Migs in Vietnam and in the Middle East. The Aussies having had Phantom IIs before delivery of the F-111s felt assured the Hornets would do an excellent job as fighter-bombers, much alike the US Navy and Marine Corps. Maybe not as well as the Eagles, but good enough to replace the Mirage IIIOs. And we are talking about A/B models of the aircraft, not the further developed C, D, or E versions.
Any fool can Monday morning quarterback any situation with hindsight. I am sure if the RAN were buying eight frigates today they would not buy MEK0 200s any more either. But this is water over the falls now. And lets face the facts, Australia does not buy American anything just to please the Americans. Australia does so for a number of reasons for themselves, offsets arrangements, availability of spares, etc. Its the same with the Lightning IIs.
Unfortunately, to get bang for the buck, and to eliminate conflicting sources for spares, Australia tends to buy their weapon systems in as much bulk as possible, and usually early in a program. While Australia does upgrade their equipment, they don't have the resources to buy newer models as they are developed as easily as the Americans. Never will. 300 million citizens can afford much more than 30 million with similar standards of living.
With the Americans, we buy A/B models to replace older front line equipment, and 10-15 years later buy C/D models to allow older A/B models to be used by the reserves. Its kind of hard to duplicate without such reserves.
Any fool can Monday morning quarterback any situation with hindsight. I am sure if the RAN were buying eight frigates today they would not buy MEK0 200s any more either. But this is water over the falls now. And lets face the facts, Australia does not buy American anything just to please the Americans. Australia does so for a number of reasons for themselves, offsets arrangements, availability of spares, etc. Its the same with the Lightning IIs.
Unfortunately, to get bang for the buck, and to eliminate conflicting sources for spares, Australia tends to buy their weapon systems in as much bulk as possible, and usually early in a program. While Australia does upgrade their equipment, they don't have the resources to buy newer models as they are developed as easily as the Americans. Never will. 300 million citizens can afford much more than 30 million with similar standards of living.
With the Americans, we buy A/B models to replace older front line equipment, and 10-15 years later buy C/D models to allow older A/B models to be used by the reserves. Its kind of hard to duplicate without such reserves.
the road runner
Active Member
GUYS well i must admit i was just like F-111 fanatic when i joined this forum,i loved the F-111,was brainwashed by APA, but learnt alot on this forum about the overall systems beieng more important than the actual platform itself.
Im a big fan of the F-111(actually its my favorite plane) but i learnt its time had come(altho dificult to swallow)
F-111 fanatic you got to understand the complete systems of the ADF including the F/A-18,along with JORN,wedgetails,stand off wepons and tankers are how we will fight and opponent.We will not just fly a F-18 into harms way and hope for the best.
Anyhow i picked up a copy of "THE NAVY "(the naval league of australia)
and there is a great artical on the F/A 18F (buy a copy F-111 fanatic,its a real eye opener on the F/A18 E and F) and they stated in there mag that the cost of an F/A18F is $40 million USD an aircraft(just thought people like might a rough price guide)
The thing that really suprised me was the capability of the ASEA radar,it states that it can track both ground and air targets at the same time?is this right and if so ,AMAZING.
The article also goes on to talk about how jamming is still used to great effect,and how the US navy uses(or will soon use) the F18G to jam a defenders Air defence network to get a strike package to a target.
Basically the artical is saying the F22/JSF uses Low observable(LO)to get the package to the target BUT you can also use jamming(FA 18 Growlers) as a means to get a package to target.
My Question is would it be more cost effective and capable for the RAAF and ADF in general to use Jamming I.E F18 growlers and F18 F as our main force over the JSF and Lo. Basically im asking what technique would be more usefull for the ADF. I have no understanding of Lo or Jamming.
SO ITS FIGHT NIGHT AND THE CONTENDERS ARE :-
Low Observable(some people call it stealth) VERSUS
JAMMING
Hope you guys understand what im trying to say?(and i hope its a good question to ask)
I myself keep asking the question if you cannot see fighter x,as it is Lo but you jam fighter x,and place fake fighters on fighter x screen you will have a stale mate with fighter x?<<<<sory this is confusing
and if you jam a defence network to strike a target dose this not act as a form of Lo(or more so confussing the defender) as the jammer will not let the defender see where the jammer/strike package is?
Here is the NAVY LEAGUE WEBSITE(but they have not posted the article,i think you have to buy the JUNE-AUGUST 2008 issue to see article im talking about)
http://navyleag.customer.netspace.net.au/
Im a big fan of the F-111(actually its my favorite plane) but i learnt its time had come(altho dificult to swallow)
F-111 fanatic you got to understand the complete systems of the ADF including the F/A-18,along with JORN,wedgetails,stand off wepons and tankers are how we will fight and opponent.We will not just fly a F-18 into harms way and hope for the best.
Anyhow i picked up a copy of "THE NAVY "(the naval league of australia)
and there is a great artical on the F/A 18F (buy a copy F-111 fanatic,its a real eye opener on the F/A18 E and F) and they stated in there mag that the cost of an F/A18F is $40 million USD an aircraft(just thought people like might a rough price guide)
The thing that really suprised me was the capability of the ASEA radar,it states that it can track both ground and air targets at the same time?is this right and if so ,AMAZING.
The article also goes on to talk about how jamming is still used to great effect,and how the US navy uses(or will soon use) the F18G to jam a defenders Air defence network to get a strike package to a target.
Basically the artical is saying the F22/JSF uses Low observable(LO)to get the package to the target BUT you can also use jamming(FA 18 Growlers) as a means to get a package to target.
My Question is would it be more cost effective and capable for the RAAF and ADF in general to use Jamming I.E F18 growlers and F18 F as our main force over the JSF and Lo. Basically im asking what technique would be more usefull for the ADF. I have no understanding of Lo or Jamming.
SO ITS FIGHT NIGHT AND THE CONTENDERS ARE :-
Low Observable(some people call it stealth) VERSUS
JAMMING
Hope you guys understand what im trying to say?(and i hope its a good question to ask)
I myself keep asking the question if you cannot see fighter x,as it is Lo but you jam fighter x,and place fake fighters on fighter x screen you will have a stale mate with fighter x?<<<<sory this is confusing
and if you jam a defence network to strike a target dose this not act as a form of Lo(or more so confussing the defender) as the jammer will not let the defender see where the jammer/strike package is?
Here is the NAVY LEAGUE WEBSITE(but they have not posted the article,i think you have to buy the JUNE-AUGUST 2008 issue to see article im talking about)
http://navyleag.customer.netspace.net.au/
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
It is not an "and/or" situation with LO aircraft and tactical jamming capability. They are (in US service, the ONLY Country to currently operate LO tactical fighter aircraft) complementary and each can enhance the capability of the other.GUYS well i must admit i was just like F-111 fanatic when i joined this forum,i loved the F-111,was brainwashed by APA, but learnt alot on this forum about the overall systems beieng more important than the actual platform itself.
Im a big fan of the F-111(actually its my favorite plane) but i learnt its time had come(altho dificult to swallow)
F-111 fanatic you got to understand the complete systems of the ADF including the F/A-18,along with JORN,wedgetails,stand off wepons and tankers are how we will fight and opponent.We will not just fly a F-18 into harms way and hope for the best.
Anyhow i picked up a copy of "THE NAVY "(the naval league of australia)
and there is a great artical on the F/A 18F (buy a copy F-111 fanatic,its a real eye opener on the F/A18 E and F) and they stated in there mag that the cost of an F/A18F is $40 million USD an aircraft(just thought people like might a rough price guide)
The thing that really suprised me was the capability of the ASEA radar,it states that it can track both ground and air targets at the same time?is this right and if so ,AMAZING.
The article also goes on to talk about how jamming is still used to great effect,and how the US navy uses(or will soon use) the F18G to jam a defenders Air defence network to get a strike package to a target.
Basically the artical is saying the F22/JSF uses Low observable(LO)to get the package to the target BUT you can also use jamming(FA 18 Growlers) as a means to get a package to target.
My Question is would it be more cost effective and capable for the RAAF and ADF in general to use Jamming I.E F18 growlers and F18 F as our main force over the JSF and Lo. Basically im asking what technique would be more usefull for the ADF. I have no understanding of Lo or Jamming.
SO ITS FIGHT NIGHT AND THE CONTENDERS ARE :-
Low Observable(some people call it stealth) VERSUS
JAMMING
Hope you guys understand what im trying to say?(and i hope its a good question to ask)
I myself keep asking the question if you cannot see fighter x,as it is Lo but you jam fighter x,and place fake fighters on fighter x screen you will have a stale mate with fighter x?<<<<sory this is confusing
and if you jam a defence network to strike a target dose this not act as a form of Lo(or more so confussing the defender) as the jammer will not let the defender see where the jammer/strike package is?
Here is the NAVY LEAGUE WEBSITE(but they have not posted the article,i think you have to buy the JUNE-AUGUST 2008 issue to see article im talking about)
http://navyleag.customer.netspace.net.au/
Good quality jamming will degrade an enemy radar capability allowing "paths" which aircraft can exploit within an air defence system and begin to dismantle said, air defence system.
LO achieves a similar effect, through passive, rather than active means, however this doesn't mean an LO aircraft can't exploit an air defence system, degraded through active jamming. Quite the opposite in fact. I'd imagine that an active radar jamming capability that is "off-board" from the LO aircraft itself, would massively enhance the ability of an LO aircraft to "penetrate" an air defence system.
I'm a fan of the Super Hornet as well, but the F/A-18F only possesses a self defence jammer and a towed fibre optic decoy. Not an offensive radar jamming capability. RAAF's F/A-18F's will not be completely jamming high end IADS on their own. Hence why the Growler was created...
the road runner
Active Member
Thank you Aussie digger,but the point i am trying to understand is this extract from The NAVY (the magazine of the naval league of Australia Vol 70 no 3 July to September 2008, By CDR david Hobbs,MBE,RN(Rtd )
he writes
"The ability of the EA-18 Growler to suppress enemy air defences and the E/F to fight through to there targets compensates for the lack of stealth in my opinion.There is ,in any case,the distinct possibility that hostile network enabled systems might negate the the value of stealth over the next 2 decades,effectively wasting the billions of dollars that have been spent on it by the USAF.F-22 lack the multi role capability of the super hornets,so do the typhoon,Raphael and Gripen and as these types progress,they are still likley to lag behind the evolved FA-18 which will continue to recieve avionics improvements.The baseline JSF due to enter service with the US Navy in ten years time will have the same capibility that the FA-18 F has now"
Is the above quote true?Dose the ability of the Growler to suppress enemy air defence and E/F super hornet,to fight through to there target compensate for lack of stealth?
and if so why not just buy the FA-18F and a few Growlers for the ADF as our new fast jet fleet and cancell JSF?nfloorli do hope RAAF do recieve JSF)
he writes
"The ability of the EA-18 Growler to suppress enemy air defences and the E/F to fight through to there targets compensates for the lack of stealth in my opinion.There is ,in any case,the distinct possibility that hostile network enabled systems might negate the the value of stealth over the next 2 decades,effectively wasting the billions of dollars that have been spent on it by the USAF.F-22 lack the multi role capability of the super hornets,so do the typhoon,Raphael and Gripen and as these types progress,they are still likley to lag behind the evolved FA-18 which will continue to recieve avionics improvements.The baseline JSF due to enter service with the US Navy in ten years time will have the same capibility that the FA-18 F has now"
Is the above quote true?Dose the ability of the Growler to suppress enemy air defence and E/F super hornet,to fight through to there target compensate for lack of stealth?
and if so why not just buy the FA-18F and a few Growlers for the ADF as our new fast jet fleet and cancell JSF?
nfloorli do hope RAAF do recieve JSF)
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I'd argue: no. Otherwise the USN wouldn't be buying the F-35C, but could simply order far more Super Hornets...Thank you Aussie digger,but the point i am trying to understand is this extract from The NAVY (the magazine of the naval league of Australia Vol 70 no 3 July to September 2008, By CDR david Hobbs,MBE,RN(Rtd )
he writes
"The ability of the EA-18 Growler to suppress enemy air defences and the E/F to fight through to there targets compensates for the lack of stealth in my opinion.There is ,in any case,the distinct possibility that hostile network enabled systems might negate the the value of stealth over the next 2 decades,effectively wasting the billions of dollars that have been spent on it by the USAF.F-22 lack the multi role capability of the super hornets,so do the typhoon,Raphael and Gripen and as these types progress,they are still likley to lag behind the evolved FA-18 which will continue to recieve avionics improvements.The baseline JSF due to enter service with the US Navy in ten years time will have the same capibility that the FA-18 F has now"
Is the above quote true?Dose the ability of the Growler to suppress enemy air defence and E/F super hornet,to fight through to there target compensate for lack of stealth?
and if so why not just buy the FA-18F and a few Growlers for the ADF as our new fast jet fleet and cancell JSF?
1. The chances of current LO technology used in tactical fighters being made obsolete any time soon is ridiculous because:
A) X band, L band, C band, S Band and KU Band are the types of radars generally used for tracking and targetting. Whether we are discussing surface based or air based.
These radar types are well known and LO treatments are specifically designed to reduce their effects. Current search radars will need to become infinitely more powerful to detect LO aircraft at longer ranges and if that were possible, it would have been done already.
Going into lower band radar systems (such as is used in Over the Horizon) radars has a better chance of providing the necessary increased "power" to generate significant returns against LO aircraft, but the problem is the resolution. Being able to detect an LO aircraft is useless. Being able to track it is what is required and knowing that an enemy aircraft is inbound somewhere in a 40 mile x 40 mile "box" isn't going to do much for your ability to defend yourself.
If you have a television, would you be satisfied with watching a 30 minute television program that comprised 29 minutes of "snow" and only 1 minute of program? Because that is akin to what a radar operator faces when attempting to track an LO aircraft. They don't fly in a straight line straight at radars. They use tactics. They don't turn their least LO angles towards threats (hopefully), but rather use EW and ESM systems to identify threats and work out ways to counter or go around them.
The other option with radar systems is to go "very high frequency". When that is done, very precise targetting is possible, but unfortunately the detection range is very short. Much too short when air to ground weapons ranges are contemplated.
Other measures include EW options and various "optical" systems. If optical systems were superior to radar you'd be seeing large airliners taking to the skies with large telescopes strapped to them, rather than large radars...
As to EW, it relies on enemy emissions to be useful. An LO aircraft dropping GPS guided munitions isn't going to be emitting ANYTHING in the early stages of a war...
As to the Growlers ability to supress enemy air defences, the USN is buy 85. The USN is buying 600 odd Super Hornets. I very much doubt the rare Growler capability will be used in the SEAD role, particularly when the "generic" Super Hornets are perfectly capable of employing the HARM and HARM targetting system...
As to the writer's claims about the respective capabilities of those aircraft compared to the Super Hornet, the F-35 will massively exceed it's capability and I don't see how the Super Hornet is more "multi-role" than the Gripen or Rafale and is only moreso than the Typhoon because the Typhoon is still under development...
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
I would expect most, & probably all, to incorporate at least some LPI measures. LPI techniques are not confined to AESA, & have been used in military radars in general, including radar altimeters, for some time.
Thanks for the link, nice sales pitch too. Maybe we should cancel Wedgetail and use the SH's as mini-AWACS.
Fact is you are still emitting and even with frequency hopping that means you are detectable even though the probability of detection may be low it is still possible. To say that using AESA confers stealth still doesn't ring true from MPOV. Does stealth = impunity? This system may confuse a targets EW system using LPI but it does not offer the user impunity from detection. Would be nice to know the range of frequencys used in the hopping pattern, the higher the number the higher the security of the system.
Still excellent piece of kit with multiple advances over MSA type attack radars, hopefully they will work as stated on the packaging when delivered to operational users.
Fact is you are still emitting and even with frequency hopping that means you are detectable even though the probability of detection may be low it is still possible. To say that using AESA confers stealth still doesn't ring true from MPOV. Does stealth = impunity? This system may confuse a targets EW system using LPI but it does not offer the user impunity from detection. Would be nice to know the range of frequencys used in the hopping pattern, the higher the number the higher the security of the system.
Still excellent piece of kit with multiple advances over MSA type attack radars, hopefully they will work as stated on the packaging when delivered to operational users.