Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
I believe that's been done before, back in 2006 IIRC? Surprising that it still turns up, the pig is dead and buried.
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
I completely understand where you are coming from and agree.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
The pig has well and truly been disabled. I've seen photos on another site of them post decom @ amberly.
And the RAAF museum has had one delivered, though I didn't get a chance to go look at that hanger on the weekend.
The only thing the pigs were good for in their later years were for air shows. This is probably why most members of the public (and media) believed they shouldn't have been replaced.
I know it would cost $$$$ loads.. but if we could afford an f-111 acrobatic squadron similar to our own Roulettes and the Blue Angels/Thunderbirds that would be brilliant. (Although it would cost a crap load, don't take this seriously. It is only a fairy tale.)
I know it would cost $$$$ loads.. but if we could afford an f-111 acrobatic squadron similar to our own Roulettes and the Blue Angels/Thunderbirds that would be brilliant. (Although it would cost a crap load, don't take this seriously. It is only a fairy tale.)
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Not maneuverable enough
However it would be pretty awesome if the RAAF had the budget for their museum to develop a historic flight/squadron for display flights made up of a selection of their aircraft. They have single examples of many of the RAAF's historical aircraft, it would be a matter of keeping 4-6 different ones operational though.
However it would be pretty awesome if the RAAF had the budget for their museum to develop a historic flight/squadron for display flights made up of a selection of their aircraft. They have single examples of many of the RAAF's historical aircraft, it would be a matter of keeping 4-6 different ones operational though.
True. Tbh I just want to see the dump and burn at Rivefire. The Super Hornets were great, being at South Bank and hearing one come in low from behind you before watching it shoot up in front of you. (with people complaining about a waste of taxpayer's money and how loud it is in the background.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Loved the dump and burn.
At 150+ hours of maintenance per flight hour or something silly like that though, keeping them in service is hard to justify, even if they *were* combat effective against a first rate opponent.
Whats the maintenence requirement for F-35A? Fairly sure its <10?
At 150+ hours of maintenance per flight hour or something silly like that though, keeping them in service is hard to justify, even if they *were* combat effective against a first rate opponent.
Whats the maintenence requirement for F-35A? Fairly sure its <10?
That's one of the key issues surrounding the jet. Its designed for easier maintenance and sustainment however it will likely take acouple of years of operating the existing a/cc before they have enough data to refne their financial models.
Well, I guess the trouble was more on the last statement. The SH's superiority lies in it's great assortment of sensors with the topnotch AESA radar as the crowning glory. On logistics part, Australia has dedicated air refueling augmented by SH buddy storing, EW capabilities with Growlers and AE&C capability and other land and sea-based assets (which are superior to their counterparts). As a staunch American ally, Australia will have information superiority. They have better trained pilots.
I guess the reality of things now is that any SEA country would be crazy to attack Australia. They'd be going in an asymmetrical war with Australia, get all their jets blasted BVR, their whole navy sunk by a lone AUS sub (exaggerated a little). Then suffer the wrath of the entire US-led bloc (among them other SEA nations). My only concern is that the advantages Australia has today might not last this decade. Indonesia is getting cash-rich with its booming economy and huge industrialization. Who knows, tomorrow they might align with China and order J-20s. And even right now, they could decide to modernize their armed forces. What happens if Indonesia is able to field half a century of advanced Su-35 (Su-47?) Super Flankers 10 years from now with all the stable logistics? What if they procure tech that gives them fog of war and active defense capabilities, all the while the F-35 proves to be a big time failure? What if America decides to enforce an isolation policy on itself? In short, what if the odds balance or even turn against Australia? And it's not just Indonesia. China might have a half-dozen aircraft carriers in a decade or so. Maybe India too.
I believe Australia having a dominant air power would be beneficiary to my country. Indonesia can be very uncooperative as an ASEAN member and they have their goals set on being the regional hegemon. They do not have the trouble of dealing with China unlike any other ASEAN country. Nationalism is at an all-time high, with all the Papua, Moluccas and Aceh separatists suppressed. Also their status in the international scene can be very unstable. Next thing you know, they'd be anti-West. And it also works for them that Chinese oil passes through 3 of their straits. They could cut off China from its energy if they wanted to, at least until the deep-water port in Pakistan is finished. They are an economic power already, even with refugees trying to escape to Australia making world news, an example is that the coconut industry in the Philippines is getting impacted by the cheap palm oil shipments Indonesia produces.
And as follow-up to the Silent Eagle suggestion, I've read that Australia plans to use the SH like the F-15 Strike Eagle. The Silent Eagle would theoretically have been the closest thing Australia gets to a 5th gen aircraft. And it would have been based on existing F-15 technology, making most of its capabilities proven and cheaper too, while being a better platform then the F-18. And the best safety net against a failed F-35 program. Sadly, all there is is a demonstration aircraft. Of course Australia could pressure Washington, but that's another matter. As you said and from a pessimistic PoV, RAAF modernization has come too little and too late. Politics may be to blame for the selection of fighters also. It's strange enough for me that Australia is the only country operating SHs outside of the US.
As for the F-111, I'm conceding the fact that it's just too old of a plane, if 150 hrs maintenance for an hour's flight or even if half of it is true, then it's just not worth it. I got roasted on that one. And again, apologies if my first post seemed too immature. Even if the only mission is bombing Fiji (and that's far away), the risks increase the more flight hours logged. And if we're talking of precise ground-striking, I also concede that the SH's capabilities are more than enough.
These will give a glance on my stance on the SH, just to see where I'm coming from.
Australia impressed by Super Hornet performanceF/A-18E/F Super Hornet vs. Sukhoi Flanker
They could have already been brought up here, and even the second link is quite old. In no way am I an expert on the Australian scene (defense doctrine, political scene, etc) so feel free to correct me or point out more flaws to my arguments. Can anyone also confirm if Australia is thinking on getting a few Silent Hornets (aka SH Block 3) too instead of just Super Hornets?
Last edited:
Very nice mock-up of the F-18 Super Hornet Block III.
Pictures:
http://i052.radikal.ru/1101/e4/6879902b7cbb.jpg
http://s009.radikal.ru/i307/1101/3b/b6844150b95e.jpg
Pictures:
http://i052.radikal.ru/1101/e4/6879902b7cbb.jpg
http://s009.radikal.ru/i307/1101/3b/b6844150b95e.jpg
Indonesia has no intention whatsoever of becoming a regional 'hegemon' or anything like it. They have enough to worry about internally without ever thinking of taking on any other major countries. The TNI exists primarily as a para-military force to keep the country from fracturing into hundreds (slight exaggeration) of failed states.
Indonesia is undergoing an economic transformation and growing significantly, and I think this should be viewed as a good thing by countries such as Australia and SEA, as a successful Indonesia benefits all of us. But to be realistic, Australia's GNP is still around double that of Indonesia, and Indonesia still has some very big hurdles to overcome before taking a place as a truly advanced economy (it's archipelagic geography, corruption, education, etc).
My last point, is that the majority of SEA views Australia & USA as the ultimate guarantors of security in the region, particularly against perceived future aggression from China, et al. Why on earth any of these countries would have such a complete mental meltdown and try to give Australia a blood nose, and as a result have to wear the results of a Aus & possibly US retaliation is so far beyond the realm of reality that this discussion is almost comical.
BTW this is just based on the capability that Aus either has now or will in the next 24mths (Supers, HUG, KC-30, Wedgetail...). Once the next-gen capability (F-35A) comes online later this decade and next... the gap increases exponentially and the game changes again (there will only be one game in town and if you don't have F-35 or a truly equivalent, you ain't even playing).
/2cents
Kalasag,
Going to Air Power Australia for information is not a good idea. Any of the old hands around here will tell you they're incredibly biased critics with no clearance to actually offer informed commentary, and vested personal interests in seeing the F-111 and F-22 fly for Australia (a company owned by Peter Goon tendered a proposal which involved his company doing extensive maintenance/modernisation work on the F-111 fleet). Their output is, without exception, so ridiculous that it's absurd to consider. They deliberately mislead readers, such as yourself, in order to convey personal agendas.
I don't really mind what you think of the topic but as friendly advice I would highly, highly recommend you avoid anything to do with Air Power Australia. And please ask other posters around here what they think of APA if you wish for a second opinion.
Going to Air Power Australia for information is not a good idea. Any of the old hands around here will tell you they're incredibly biased critics with no clearance to actually offer informed commentary, and vested personal interests in seeing the F-111 and F-22 fly for Australia (a company owned by Peter Goon tendered a proposal which involved his company doing extensive maintenance/modernisation work on the F-111 fleet). Their output is, without exception, so ridiculous that it's absurd to consider. They deliberately mislead readers, such as yourself, in order to convey personal agendas.
I don't really mind what you think of the topic but as friendly advice I would highly, highly recommend you avoid anything to do with Air Power Australia. And please ask other posters around here what they think of APA if you wish for a second opinion.
I'm just not talking about wartime capability, but about power projection, and who gets to dictate or influence defense policy in the region. Indonesia is the world's largest and one of the most secular Muslim countries in the world. Just 15 years ago, Indonesia was the laughingstock of SEA. And India is closer to a meltdown than anyone expects. Anything could happen.
Of course, the F-35 could be a half-baked plane and not the great thing it should be. Both the Typhoon and Rafale had the distinction of being a little outdated when they came out. It came as a surprise to me that UK is planning on retiring their Tranche 1 fleet in the near future. Who's to say F-35 wouldn't encounter the same problems? With the J-20 and PAK FA rolling out, I wouldn't be too sure about everything.
And Bonza, thanks for the advice. I'm a very big fighter plane aficionado and not exactly a fan of the F-18 airframe. Regardless, it's avionics is one of the best, it's basically the best-value multi-role fighter in the whole world. Not the best available though.
Hi Kalasag.
Australia and US are currently negotiating an increased US presence in Australia right now.
US-Australia alliance to remain strong in face of threats, says Defence Secretary Panetta | The Australian
I think that says something about US intentions in the Asia Pacific region.
The yanks are not going to sit idly by and let China run amok.
Although I dare say they will probably be pressuring Australia to do more in the region as well.
This could be warm & fuzzy stuff (building schools, hospitals etc) as well as increased surveillance etc.
J-20 is a CTD at best
PAK-FA - still a prototype
Hardly qualifies as 'rolling out'. The F-35 is so much further along the development curve than either of these platforms, I'm not sure how they are supposed to catch up as real contenders (apart from in the minds of the fanboi's
). When you look it as part of the whole system (RAAF, USAF, et al) with all the other enablers that go with it, the capabilities involved I don't see being developed for some time yet by any competitors. The economies of scale and previous development just aren't there...
But that's right... all of the best minds in aerospace & defence tech, working on the biggest defence project in history could easily be wrong and the F-35 could turn out to be a dud because 'that's what happened with the typhoon'. Even comparing the Typhoon and Rafale with F-35 is apples & oranges. Again, the scale and development were never to the level of that involved with F-35. Both Typhoon and Rafale were conceived in the dying days of the cold war, to fight a war that never happened. The F-35 is a next-gen capability that was conceived to fight the wars of the future, and people actually involved with the program all say this will be a game-changer. IMO the 'dud' scenario is unlikely.
tl;dr -
If you're worried.... don't be.
Last edited:
Can you back that up with anything at all? Sure its no F22 but its a hell of alot better than pretty much everything else.
Perhaps you should go back to the posts which detail the performance of the F18 compared to the other various fighters in SEA and reply to those points before you continue to make the same claim based on nothing but your personal opinion.
You should look into the reasons why the RAF is retiring their tranche 1 Typhoons rather than using it as a reason to somehow cast doubt on the F35 while giving the J20 & PAK-FA a free pass.
There is no way India is going to go into a political or otherwise meltdown and attack Australia... that is just ... I'm lost for words ...
Finally if you're going to move your goal posts and change the subject to power projection then perhaps you should consider the RAN's plans for future submarines, LHDs and surface combatants as well...
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #2,718
Indonesia is in fact by population one of the largest countries in the world, with a population of something like 10 times that of Oz. The fact that Indonesia has a marginally higher GDP (PPP, not per capita) of ~$1 tril. vs. Australia's ~$880 bil. means that Australia has significantly economic 'muscle' or as it has become know, soft power. This, coupled with the industrial and technological development of Australia means that Australia has significantly more options available to it. Plus there is the little matter of Australia being more of less unitary, while Indonesia is fragmented due to being an archipelago.
As for the SHornet not being the 'best'... Here at DT, we really tend not to like using that term, because there is so much more that is involved in determining who will be the victor in an engagement, etc. What can be accurately stated is that the F/A-18F Super Hornet was the best aircraft for what the RAAF needed. Another way to put it was that is was the only aircraft that met the RAAF requirements.
The RAAF placed the order in 2008, and the deliveries should be IIRC completed either by the this year, of the beginning of 2012, with IOC reached in 2012 AFAIK. This was possible because the USN was willing to allow the RAAF to take SHornet production slots, delaying the delivery of 24 SHornets to the USN. If this had not happened, or if the RAAF had ordered another aircraft to provide and interim strike role, it is distinctly possible that the 'interim' aircraft might not have entered RAAF service until 2015, with IOC reached in the 2016-2017 timeframe. Given that the F-35 is already supposed to start being delivered to the RAAF with IOC reached by ~2018, that would mean that the 'interim' solution would take nearly as long to be reached as the permanent solution. In short, if an aircraft other than the SHornet had been selected as an 'interim' strike aircraft, it would have been better to just retire the F-111 and wait until the F-35 entered service, since it would take that long...
The other thing which needs to be kept in mind, is what the ADF as a whole needs, and where particular platforms will fit in, and what capabilities they provide to the ADF and/or allies.
BTW, as Bonza has mentioned APA is not considered a reputable source for information, for a number of reasons. IMO they are more a source of comic relief than anything crediable or considered. Unfortunately from my perspective, they have some fairly 'slick' marketing, with enough information that sounds accurate for the ignorant to listen to them, and are vocal enough so that some end up listening to them. All the while not realizing the problems with either the sources or information, never mind the conclusions.
-Cheers
PS additional note: rossfrb_1, I do not know how much more that the US would like Australia involved in regional surveillance, or whether the US would just like greater access to Australian regional surveillance... I expect GF and perhaps a few others might know, but not be in a position to comment. I expect that Australia is a wee bit tricksy about some ELINT capabilities...
That's fine, but you might want to ask yourself how vital airframe performance is these days in relation to how military air power works. If you have the greatest avionics in the world, and can plug into a system that networks the entire battle force and enables sharing of sensor data and a battlefield picture, how important is the need for raw airframe performance as opposed to avionics systems?
Also for that matter, think about the raw performance of sensors/weapons as opposed to airframes - there might be aircraft out there that can out-perform a Super Hornet, but when helmet-mounted targeting systems and high off-boresight missiles capable of turning in excess of 60 Gs are a relative mainstay, again, does the airframe performance of the launch platform (which will NEVER match that of a high performance air to air missile) have such importance? In that environment doesn't increased situational awareness become even more important?
And in the face of all this imaginary air-to-air jousting you should also consider that (and someone will correct me here if I'm wrong) a networked, first-tier air force is likely to be more capable of taking out air threats where they're most vulnerable, that is on the ground. None of the above matters if the enemy has the capability to destroy your command and control, runways, fuel and munition dumps, and aircraft before you can react appropriately. This is another aspect of winning an air war that often gets ignored in online discussions but if you look at recent examples you'll see how important it can be.
These are just questions to consider, as I said what you choose to believe is up to you.
I wouldn't use purchase parity as a measure of strategic power. This just means the standard of living is higher in Indonesia than would appear using unadjusted GDP per capita because it’s cheaper to buy rice and socks and stuff like that there. But it doesn't mean Indonesia can access high end weapons, strategic reserves of fuel and international finance cheaper than say Australia. These products go at the same price to Australia and to Indonesia. Then of course GDP comparison assumes similar levels of Government access to revenue. The Indonesian economy is no where near advanced enough for their Government to raise the same levels of revenue off their economy as Australia can.