RAAF purchasing Navy aircraft

[wildcolonialboy]

I would appreciate if you would allow, Bonza, for others who may be interested in addressing my question (about why RAAF buys US Navy aircraft.. not a criticism, I expect it has something to do with twin-engines, with being closer to the US Navy institutionally, sturdier landing gears.. something like that).

I do understand the JSF issue is somewhat touchy with a few people, and it's quite possible that it has been done do death on this forum, but I must say, with all due respect, that it might be a little bit politer to raise your concern, rather than dismiss my comment out of hand and lock the thread.

With regards to Airpower Australia, I do appreciate that website's ability to pull together data and photos, but also realise that it's about as good as a Sukhoi press release in terms of its judgements. Having said that, it's somewhat curious that, from the implication of your (admittedly brief) comment, you don't think that the PAK-FA will be on par with the JSF. While the Airpower editor might not be the most credible commentator, I do find Pierre Sprey to be instructive.

I think it's a huge risk that the military will end up believing its own sales pitch, and we risk following a procurement path that will put us in the same place the US was before the fighter mafia came on the scene, where the UK thought it headed after the Defence White Paper of 1957, or the situation the Royal Navy ended up in during the Falklands Conflict.

Finally, with regards to the JSF (I promise I won't pursue this subject any further), it is interesting that many JSF supporters would appear to have believe that range, payload and top-speed don't really matter anymore, and that we just have to trust Boeing and DoD that JSF has some amazing classified capability that they can't disclose that makes it more competitive than it seems on the raw stats.

I do also, quiantly, believe that in a democracy, when it comes to a defence acquisition of that size, that the military and government should be required to convincingly justify such a large expenditure, and it's really not good enough to say "trust us", especially where we're buying a Clayton's version of what is technologically possible.

Wildcolonialboy

 

[the road runner]

I would appreciate if you would allow, Bonza, for others who may be interested in addressing my question (about why RAAF buys US Navy aircraft.. not a criticism, I expect it has something to do with twin-engines, with being closer to the US Navy institutionally, sturdier landing gears.. something like that).

US Navy fights far from home ,with aircraft that have to be durable and reliable.Most aircraft can be fixed by the crews on board the ships.Most Navy planes are dual role ,both ground attack and air defence,being dual role makes them versatile. Australia, has bare bases that the RAAF can use if needed.Most bases are far from major cities.Thus we need a reliable plane that is easy to maintain dual role and maranised .Its a bonus that it can work with the US assets and fit in with its US platform/sensor ect.

I do understand the JSF issue is somewhat touchy with a few people, and it's quite possible that it has been done do death on this forum, but I must say, with all due respect, that it might be a little bit politer to raise your concern, rather than dismiss my comment out of hand and lock the thread.

The guys who post on this site,usually work or have worked in the ADF,defence or for companys that built ,maintain equipment.These guys have the patience of SAINTS but sometimes people just dont listen what is being said.

With regards to Airpower Australia, I do appreciate that website's ability to pull together data and photos, but also realise that it's about as good as a Sukhoi press release in terms of its judgements. Having said that, it's somewhat curious that, from the implication of your (admittedly brief) comment, you don't think that the PAK-FA will be on par with the JSF.

APA is just crap mate.I was a big Carlo Kopp fan when i first joined this site,but the guys here put me straight,and taught me alot.The PAK-FA now lets see it has no internal weapons,is the size of a flying barn,will have all its weapons hanging off its wings(reduces the planes speed) and hard points. Just look at the PAK-FA engines and ass,it sticks out like a sore thumb.There is also no saw tooth details around engines,no engine plugs to prevent engine exhaust ect.Look at the shape of JSF to PAK, you will see the difference.

Then we have the JSF, 3 versions,cutting edge tech,LO,internal weapons and sensors,Its all about Intel and recon ,its not like Top Gun in the 80s were it was all about Turn n burn.Sensors,Awacs have changed the battlefield.

Finally, with regards to the JSF (and this is all I intend to say on the matter in this vein), it is interesting that many JSF supporters would appear to have believe that range, payload and top-speed don't really matter anymore, and that we just have to trust Boeing and DoD that JSF has some amazing classified capability that they can't disclose that makes it more competitive than it seems on the raw stats.

Its all about the complete package ,Kopp n co make it sound like we just fly a plain in the sky by itself and wacko its shot down cause it could not out turn/or out burn the opposition.He never mentions that when Aircraft are sent up,they have AWACS,Tankers,JORN, ect to ensure our asset is protected by information.

I do also, quiantly, believe that in a democracy, when it comes to a defence acquisition of that size, that the military and government should be required to convincingly justify such a large expenditure, and it's really not good enough to say "trust us", especially where we're buying a Clayton's version of what is technologically possible.

Australia is choosing the A version of JSF.It has no problems ,the B and C version are were the problems are,more so the B version.Why dose Kopp always say that ohhh the JSF B version is in alot of trouble<<<<<who cares AUSTRALIA is buying the A version.He is just trying to sell articles mate.All pilots who fly the JSF are amazed with it,people who have inside info on the JSF see it as a game changer,people who have no info on the JSF just seem to make up fiction on this plane and kopp is one of them.Im a builder mate not in defence and i have just shot holes thru Kopps work.Imagine what defence pros make of his work!

Reagrds

EDIT.I just saw you have already posted this and the thread was locked ,you may want to read the RAAF thread( post there instead of making another thread) its long but will have info that may change your POV.Bonza is a MODERATOR ,im sure he was just worried about the content of your post and how it could have ill informed people..

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I would appreciate if you would allow, Bonza, for others who may be interested in addressing my question (about why RAAF buys US Navy aircraft.. not a criticism, I expect it has something to do with twin-engines, with being closer to the US Navy institutionally, sturdier landing gears.. something like that).

The RAAF has acquired/ordered a total of 145 different aircraft. Of which only nine were US Navy aircraft (6%). These include the Catalina (flying boat), Kingfisher (floatplane acquired by chance), Buffalo (war emergency fighter), Helldiver (trials only dive bomber), Mariner (flying boat), Neptune (maritime patrol aircraft), Orion (maritime patrol aircraft), Hornet and Super Hornet. Even the RAN with only 28 aircraft types acquired has only ever ordered four US Navy types (14%).

The only time the RAAF has every purchased a non-maritime rolled aircraft in normal, contemplative conditions from a US Navy program was the Hornet and subsequently Super Hornet. The primary reason for both acquisitions is at the time of purchase both aircraft had the most advanced avionics available.

What you’ve done is take a very small amount of evidence and work backwards from it to generate a conclusion for a hypothesis. However it is completely flawed and unsupported by a complete evidentiary look and of course the most important thing – look at the real reasons why a certain aircraft (Hornet/Super Hornet) was purchased.

As for the rest of what you have to say again you have no evidence just more hypothesis based more on what things look like than anything else. Including a whole range of crazy stuff like claiming no one cares about range, speed, etc. Don’t expect anyone to come running to explain things just for your benefit. If you can read, go through the pages of the threads.

 

[ADMk2]

I would appreciate if you would allow, Bonza, for others who may be interested in addressing my question (about why RAAF buys US Navy aircraft.. not a criticism, I expect it has something to do with twin-engines, with being closer to the US Navy institutionally, sturdier landing gears.. something like that).

1. RAAF has only ever chosen US Navy aircraft on a handful of occasions with the Hornet and Super Hornet being most prominent. (The JSF model we have selected is the airforce variant). Almost every other aircraft the RAAF has chosen has NOT been a Navy aircraft. These aircraft were chosen for reasons other than the fact that they are primarily US Navy aircraft.

2. The Hornet was selected in the early 1980's primarily because of it's capability advantages over it's competition (at that time) the F-16 and F-15A (all 3 of which met RAAF's basic requirements, the 2 engines v 1 has been massively blown out of proportion over time, the Miracles had one engine afterall and we still considered F-16's) because unlike those aircraft it had the capability to employ laser guided weapons, maritime strike weapons (Harpoon) as well as a genuine BVR air to air capability (which F-15A had but F-16A didn't). I'd direct you to Andrew McLaughlin's excellent "Hornets Down Under" book which goes into greater detail. The fact that the F/A-18A/B was a Navy aircraft was incidental. It had the capability we required at a price that allowed us to purchase (eventually) 75 aircraft and was on this basis chosen.

3. The Super Hornet was chosen to give us an interim air combat capability until the JSF is ready for service (known as BACC - Bridging Air Combat Capability). It's similarity to our existing Hornets was a big factor (especially from a training and operational POV) in it's selection. Again it being a US Navy aircraft is incidental (although we do enjoy a great relationship with the US Navy).

It was chosen because it meets the capability requirements RAAF wanted for an interim fighter aircraft, was the cheapest suitable aircraft (around $30m per aircraft cheaper than F-15E) and offered capabilities it's rivals didn't that we ARE going to have to learn to operate on F-35 (namely AESA radar, Low Observable technology, sensor fusion and advanced networking capabilities) anyway. The Super Hornet Block II+ gives us years of exposure to such capabilities and it was available for delivery in 2009. No other Western combat aircraft (that was available for sale) could have offered us that for delivery in 2009.

I do understand the JSF issue is somewhat touchy with a few people, and it's quite possible that it has been done do death on this forum, but I must say, with all due respect, that it might be a little bit politer to raise your concern, rather than dismiss my comment out of hand and lock the thread.

Only because there's dozens of existing threads with thousands of posts on this very SAME topic.

It's that people come here and trot out the same crap over and over that we get upset. All that nonsense has been debated for YEARS here and every few months someone else comes here and starts the thing all over again.

We don't discourage debate about the F-35 here, but unless you've got something more to add than, "it's a dog because APA says so" we won't be condoning such debate.

With regards to Airpower Australia, I do appreciate that website's ability to pull together data and photos, but also realise that it's about as good as a Sukhoi press release in terms of its judgements. Having said that, it's somewhat curious that, from the implication of your (admittedly brief) comment, you don't think that the PAK-FA will be on par with the JSF. While the Airpower editor might not be the most credible commentator, I do find Pierre Sprey to be instructive.

Sprey might make sense some of the time, I've just yet to hear it. His opinion's are approximately 40 years out of date and he can't move on from his involvement in the "day light fighter" style of thinking behind the original F-16A.

Any fighter with a radar system is junk, is basically what his opinion boils down to. Please feel free to research his opinion on the F-22A if you don't believe me. You should find that "instructive"...

I think it's a huge risk that the military will end up believing its own sales pitch, and we risk following a procurement path that will put us in the same place the US was before the fighter mafia came on the scene, where the UK thought it headed after the Defence White Paper of 1957, or the situation the Royal Navy ended up in during the Falklands Conflict.

Um, okay....

Finally, with regards to the JSF (I promise I won't pursue this subject any further), it is interesting that many JSF supporters would appear to have believe that range, payload and top-speed don't really matter anymore, and that we just have to trust Boeing and DoD that JSF has some amazing classified capability that they can't disclose that makes it more competitive than it seems on the raw stats.

1. Boeing doesn't make the JSF. Lockheed Martin does.

2. Top speed doesn't matter. The F-15 is a Mach 2.5 capable fighter (when new and clean airframe). The amount of time it has spent at a speed beyond Mach 1.4 in actual combat is measured in a handful of minutes. If that is so and considering the F-15 has the most amount of combat time of any modern fighter then what differences does an extra 0.2-0.4 of Mach make when it is historical fact that fighters don't usually get there anyway?

You should bear in mind that most fighters unlike the F-35 have to carry fuel, weapons and targetting pods out in the air. These all create drag, which reduces performance. The F-16 is an example of a fighter aircraft that most people consider to have adequate performance and yet do you know that with 2000lbs weapons under the wings even the "hottest" F-16's can't exceed Mach 1.2 at altitude? Puts the Mach 1.6 (at 39k feet) that the F-35 has already demonstrated into some perspective doesn't it?

Top speed doesn't matter. Those speeds aren't going to be achieved in combat. What is important in air to air combat is subsonic to supersonic acceleration and the F-35 has that in spades thanks to a 43,000lbs engine.

Please feel free to read the test pilot reports of F-16's in reheat struggling to keep up with F-35's accelerating in mil-power only...

Range? What other medium sized fighter aircraft on internal fuel only has the range the F-35 has? If you're going to consider F-35 internal fuel only against fighters loaded up to the gunwales with external fuel you're being intellectually dishonest. The F-35 can carry external fuel too. You also have to bear in mind the performance reductions inherent with such large external fuel loads too. Most aircraft with 400gallon EFT's can't even fly supersonically. Therefore to have the sparkling range you seem to think they have, they have to do it subsonically. If they punch the tanks off to regain that sparkling supersonic performance that so impresses you, their range goes.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. Every capability decision is a trade-off against other considerations.

I do also, quiantly, believe that in a democracy, when it comes to a defence acquisition of that size, that the military and government should be required to convincingly justify such a large expenditure, and it's really not good enough to say "trust us", especially where we're buying a Clayton's version of what is technologically possible.

Wildcolonialboy

Actually every defence force that has chosen JSF has explained the choice until they are "blue in the face". It's just that you apparently don't believe their arguments and therefore no matter what they do, it just won't be enough.

Interesting that it has become the situation where military men who fly and operate the very things we are discussing are no longer believable but journalists and retired military people are "credible"...

 

[wildcolonialboy]

US Navy fights far from home ,with aircraft that have to be durable and reliable.Most aircraft can be fixed by the crews on board the ships.Most Navy planes are dual role ,both ground attack and air defence,being dual role makes them versatile. Australia, has bare bases that the RAAF can use if needed.Most bases are far from major cities.Thus we need a reliable plane that is easy to maintain dual role and maranised .Its a bonus that it can work with the US assets and fit in with its US platform/sensor ect.

Cheers, thanks for the info. I had a vague sense in which I linked Australia's maritime orientation to our choice of aircraft, but your answer puts it together very intuitively.

The guys who post on this site,usually work or have worked in the ADF,defence or for companys that built ,maintain equipment.These guys have the patience of SAINTS but sometimes people just dont listen what is being said.

True enough; I would imagine that with so many Aussies on this forum, this subject has been debated and rehashed a million times, and was perhaps more interested in the possibility of RAAF procuring the F/A-XX. I'll go into a bit more detail about that just below.

APA is just crap mate.I was a big Carlo Kopp fan when i first joined this site,but the guys here put me straight,and taught me alot.The PAK-FA now lets see it has no internal weapons,is the size of a flying barn,will have all its weapons hanging off its wings(reduces the planes speed) and hard points. Just look at the PAK-FA engines and ass,it sticks out like a sore thumb.There is also no saw tooth details around engines,no engine plugs to prevent engine exhaust ect.Look at the shape of JSF to PAK, you will see the difference.

I don't think that PAK-FA will be anywhere near as stealthy as the F-22 (clearly), but I suspect that as the design matures, it will definitely get up to JSF standard (look how well the Russians do incremental capability growth? The Su-35 is a fantastic aircraft; I'm absolutely sure they can similarly grow the PAK-FA from humble origins).

Then we have the JSF, 3 versions,cutting edge tech,LO,internal weapons and sensors,Its all about Intel and recon ,its not like Top Gun in the 80s were it was all about Turn n burn.Sensors,Awacs have changed the battlefield.

I'm very cognisant that warfare is undergoing profound changes, but I am always circumspect that whatever flavour of the month is the "end of [military] history", to borrow and twist Fukuyama's phrase. I recall the US and UK in the early 60s seeming to conclude that all combat would be BVR, or at least by missile, and so you had the extraordinary situation where neither the F-4 nor the Lightning were fitted with guns. Testing, and manufacturers, were doubtless telling the USAF and RAF that AIM-4s and Red Tops were all you needed for air combat because they had 90% hit rates under test conditions.

Of course, they found out the hard way that you don't really know how your kit will function, truly, until you put it to the test in combat. So I am slightly dubious when I hear that top speed, range and payload are totally irrelevant, particularly as the latter two actually are quite important from an Aussie perspective. It's not really a problem if you're flying an F-16 in Europe, and you can fly 15 minutes to the battle area, fly home, refuel and rearm, and rejoin the battle. But where you're talking about long-range strike and interdiction, over possibly thousands of miles, involving several refuellings, four internal hardpoints is not a lot considering that the aircraft will need to fight their way past any opposing fighters, destroy any ground air defence threats, protect the tankers and AWACs. and destroy the actual target. That means you end up having quite a large force for a small number of munitions, and the enemy, at the very least, know you're coming because you're bringing a huge AWACs and several tankers with you. Far better, I would think, to have a larger, stealthier, longer-ranged aircraft, but I do accept that there is nothing on offer in the global aviation market that would be a stealth F-111.

Its all about the complete package ,Kopp n co make it sound like we just fly a plain in the sky by itself and wacko its shot down cause it could not out turn/or out burn the opposition.He never mentions that when Aircraft are sent up,they have AWACS,Tankers,JORN, ect to ensure our asset is protected by information.

To give him credit where due, I believe that his main arguments are that the refueling requirement make any long-range strike mission vulnerable insofar as all you need to do is shoot down the tankers, and all the F-35s crash. He also raises the point that AWACs, decent radars and BVR weapons are not the exclusive domain of western countries anymore. It's true that an F-35 might get a couple of shots off at a Sukhoi, the Sukhoi is very well equipped not just to evade the shot, but to get in a favourable position to fire back.

Australia is choosing the A version of JSF.It has no problems ,the B and C version are were the problems are,more so the B version.Why dose Kopp always say that ohhh the JSF B version is in alot of trouble<<<<<who cares AUSTRALIA is buying the A version.He is just trying to sell articles mate.All pilots who fly the JSF are amazed with it,people who have inside info on the JSF see it as a game changer,people who have no info on the JSF just seem to make up fiction on this plane and kopp is one of them.Im a builder mate not in defence and i have just shot holes thru Kopps work.Imagine what defence pros make of his work!

The issue is not one of engineering problems, but simply lack of capability. I'm sure it would do quite well as a jack-of-all-trades in a minor European airforce, but I do believe that the F-22 or similar fighter would be the most appropriate aircraft for Australia for the same reasons that the Japanese are obsessed with either getting the Raptor or building one themselves.

In relation to defence pros, I do know a few people in the ADF and also former ADF and currently working in the defence industry, who feel the F-35 is the least worst choice, that its payload and fuel capacity shortcomings impose significant costs and limitations on the RAAF, but that we can't not have stealth, and so failing the availability of an F-22 we just need to bite the bullet. I'm not saying the F-35 is an awful aircraft, but it is a jack of all trades and master of none, and all it has going for it is stealth.

EDIT.Ijust saw you have already posted this and the thread was locked,youmay want to read the RAAF thread its long but will have info that may change your POV.Bonza is a MODERATOR ,im sure he was just worried about the content of your post and how it could have ill informed people..

Cheers, I appreciate the heads up. I did certainly keep in mind that he is a moderator (hence my respectful request etc). I didn't mean to come on and post about the JSF, I was really seeking to talk about the reasons for procuring navy aircraft, but I do stand by my opinion on the JSF. People are certainly welcome to engage or not engage, if discussing it takes their fancy, but I think that there are enough distinguished and respected individuals working in and retired from RAAF, Defence and government to make it an opinion that might be reasonably held.

I would hasten to add, I do appreciate your response and advice.

wcb

 

[the road runner]

Cheers, thanks for the info.

Id listen to the 2 guys that posted after me, Abe and AD they have the info you seek If you listen to the guys whos names are in the colour "Red" or "Blue" they will steer you in the right direction ,welcome to the forum

don't think that PAK-FA will be anywhere near as stealthy as the F-22 (clearly), but I suspect that as the design matures, it will definitely get up to JSF standard (look how well the Russians do incremental capability growth? The Su-35 is a fantastic aircraft; I'm absolutely sure they can similarly grow the PAK-FA from humble origins).

I dont think the PAK-FA will get anywhere near the JSF, the F-22 is in its own class and the JSF a class below that.The reason being....just look at the F-22/JSF shape...then look at the shape of PAK-FA

Tankers and Awacs will be 300 odd km behind the JSF,you have to realise the LO of JSF is what makes it so good.JSF will "see" and "shoot" before an enemy knows it is even there.

Read the RAAF or JSF thread it will tell you about new munitions for JSF ,how LO works ,the benefits of the JSF ect.

I'm not saying the F-35 is an awful aircraft, but it is a jack of all trades and master of none, and all it has going for it is stealth.

That is so wrong, just read the JSF thread.

 

[wildcolonialboy]

The only time the RAAF has every purchased a non-maritime rolled aircraft in normal, contemplative conditions from a US Navy program was the Hornet and subsequently Super Hornet. The primary reason for both acquisitions is at the time of purchase both aircraft had the most advanced avionics available.

There was one aircraft we acquired, was pretty big in the 1960s and 1970s, almost something of an icon, designed for carrier operations....

What you’ve done is take a very small amount of evidence and work backwards from it to generate a conclusion for a hypothesis. However it is completely flawed and unsupported by a complete evidentiary look and of course the most important thing – look at the real reasons why a certain aircraft (Hornet/Super Hornet) was purchased.

I don't think it's entirely coincidental that since 1970, Australia has only purchased twin-engine fighter aircraft designed for carrier-operations by the US Navy. I was seeking, if possible, some insight into why that was the case if it was not entirely a coincidence (which, considering the issue of twin-engines, the fact that carrier aircraft are more rugged and so could cope more easily with bare basing etc) that there is some foundation.

As for the rest of what you have to say again you have no evidence just more hypothesis based more on what things look like than anything else. Including a whole range of crazy stuff like claiming no one cares about range, speed, etc.

In a world where money is not an unlimited resource, I think people actually do care about things like unrefuelled range, like payload... money, avgas and munitions are not unlimited resources, and sortie rates a total irrelevance, but I would tend to think that for those of us who live on earth in 2011, they actually do kind of matter.

Don’t expect anyone to come running to explain things just for your benefit. If you can read, go through the pages of the threads.

If only you could see yourself saying that from my perspective. I joined this board because I believe that there are both things I could learn, and perspectives I could offer.

Maybe you're at the brigadier-general level in real life, in whatever field you're in, and you don't have to be polite to anyone anymore, and people just kiss your a**e and salute, but I think for the rest of us, we try to be friendly and polite, even when we strongly disagree with them.

You don't have to, nor do I expect, that you, or anyone, will have to come running to "explain" things for my benefit. People are certainly welcome to come and discuss and engage with something if they find it interesting, which I had taken to be the point of a message board.

 

[Sea Toby]

The issue is not one of engineering problems, but simply lack of capability. I'm sure it would do quite well as a jack-of-all-trades in a minor European airforce, but I do believe that the F-22 or similar fighter would be the most appropriate aircraft for Australia for the same reasons that the Japanese are obsessed with either getting the Raptor or building one themselves.

In relation to defence pros, I do know a few people in the ADF and also former ADF and currently working in the defence industry, who feel the F-35 is the least worst choice, that its payload and fuel capacity shortcomings impose significant costs and limitations on the RAAF, but that we can't not have stealth, and so failing the availability of an F-22 we just need to bite the bullet. I'm not saying the F-35 is an awful aircraft, but it is a jack of all trades and master of none, and all it has going for it is stealth.

When was the last time the USAF bought only an interceptor? Haven't they done well without one for the last thirty years? What payload and fuel shortcomings? The JSF has more range than a Hornet the RAAF flies currently. The F-35B is an air force fighter and will be a master of air superiority. And it won't be anywhere near as expensive as a F-22A...

The reason why the F-111s had good range may have been the reason why they were poor fighters, many considered them bombers. The RAAF is buying the JSF to replace their Hornets, not so much only to replace the F-111s.

 

[wildcolonialboy]

...because unlike those aircraft it had the capability to employ laser guided weapons, maritime strike weapons (Harpoon) as well as a genuine BVR air to air capability (which F-15A had but F-16A didn't). I'd direct you to Andrew McLaughlin's excellent "Hornets Down Under" book which goes into greater detail. The fact that the F/A-18A/B was a Navy aircraft was incidental. It had the capability we required at a price that allowed us to purchase (eventually) 75 aircraft and was on this basis chosen.

I'll see if I can find a copy. I might just emphasise that I'm not claiming there is some Australian promise to buy navy aircraft; it seems far more likely that naval aviation will usually implement the kind of upgrades and capabilities that RAAF, with its not inconsiderable maritime responsibilities (sea-air gap and so forth), would be seeking. I think it's very much an issue of having similar requirements, whereas clearly we couldn't really just pick some F-16s like a country like Belgium can (very much a function of our unique requirements, and that they coincide with us naval ones., that sort of thing)

Only because there's dozens of existing threads with thousands of posts on this very SAME topic.

It's that people come here and trot out the same crap over and over that we get upset. All that nonsense has been debated for YEARS here and every few months someone else comes here and starts the thing all over again.

We don't discourage debate about the F-35 here, but unless you've got something more to add than, "it's a dog because APA says so" we won't be condoning such debate.

I take your point entirely, and know it's a bit frustrating if someone comes to a forum unaware of that history and brings up such a topic. Having said that, my view is informed by more thanm Carlo Kopp, and I think it was my first post.... will certainly keep this in mind.

Sprey might make sense some of the time, I've just yet to hear it. His opinion's are approximately 40 years out of date and he can't move on from his involvement in the "day light fighter" style of thinking behind the original F-16A.

I know what you mean, I think he went too far towards his purist ideal of a fighter with no excess fat. If he is unhappy with the F-22, then that's quite unusual, but it's not really his domain (being the heavyweight part of the equation, if you know what I mean) surely he would love the F-35, with its low fuel capacity and minimalist approach to payloads (see what I mean in that respect? The F-16 wouldn't be half the fighter it is today without the increases in weight, fuel capacity, payload, etc).

With re: to your other points, I really appreciate you taking the time to respond and I promise will come back and respond to those this evening. i also appreciate the words of advice on the JSF issue, and will familiarise myself a bit more with the ongoing threads.

wcb

 

[colay]

Just out of curiosity WCB, what would you have had the RAAF purchase in lieu of the SH and F-35 to comprise Australia's strike fighter force? Speaking personally, I'm comfortable with the justification in terms of capabilities these platforms bring to the table now and in the future.. what would you have done differently given the chance?

 

[ADMk2]

There was one aircraft we acquired, was pretty big in the 1960s and 1970s, almost something of an icon, designed for carrier operations....

Absolute rubbish. F-111 started as an aircraft designed to meet USAF requirement SOR183. Secretary for Defence McNamara subsequently directed USAF and USN to acquire a joint aircraft to meet their (disparate) requirements. USN wanted a long range interceptor. USAF wanted a long range strike aircraft.

Boeing and General Dynamics were shortlisted. General Dynamics design was chosen and became the F-111. General Dynamics then teamed with Grumman because they had no experience building a carrier suitable aircraft.

F-111A was subsequently developed to meet the USAF requirement. F-111b was developed to meet with USN's requirement. F-111b was cancelled by USN in 1968.

We chose the USAF F-111A design, suitably modified with F-111b elements to an F-111C standard with appropriate modifications to suit our requirements.

Even the interim F-4E Phantom II's we leased from 1970 to 1973 were USAF aircraft.

Stop distorting history and presenting it as fact.

I don't think it's entirely coincidental that since 1970, Australia has only purchased twin-engine fighter aircraft designed for carrier-operations by the US Navy. I was seeking, if possible, some insight into why that was the case if it was not entirely a coincidence (which, considering the issue of twin-engines, the fact that carrier aircraft are more rugged and so could cope more easily with bare basing etc) that there is some foundation.

Explained earlier. Hornet had the capability we required and the other shortlisted aircraft (F-15A and F-16A) didn't.

Super Hornet was chosen as a low-risk off the shelf acquisition. The fact that they were both Navy aircraft is incidental. The choice of the F-35A (Air Force model) should be enough to disuade this sort of thinking. Apparently not...

In a world where money is not an unlimited resource, I think people actually do care about things like unrefuelled range, like payload... money, avgas and munitions are not unlimited resources, and sortie rates a total irrelevance, but I would tend to think that for those of us who live on earth in 2011, they actually do kind of matter.

We do live in a world of finite resources and finances so if you acknowledge this then why continue to advocate the unavailable F-22A? It is by far the most expensive fighter aircraft ever designed on this planet and is so far beyond the RAAF's budget to acquire and even more to the point to sustain, that it is not in the slightest, funny.

If only you could see yourself saying that from my perspective. I joined this board because I believe that there are both things I could learn, and perspectives I could offer.

Maybe you're at the brigadier-general level in real life, in whatever field you're in, and you don't have to be polite to anyone anymore, and people just kiss your a**e and salute, but I think for the rest of us, we try to be friendly and polite, even when we strongly disagree with them.

You don't have to, nor do I expect, that you, or anyone, will have to come running to "explain" things for my benefit. People are certainly welcome to come and discuss and engage with something if they find it interesting, which I had taken to be the point of a message board.

Abe's point is the same that has been made multiple times now. This crap has been discussed ad nauseum on this board and every point you've made has been discussed thoroughly.

Go and read those discussions and then come up with something new if you can (which I doubt given the thousands of posts on the topic) otherwise this debate is done.

Last warning.