Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Haha, fair point. Agreed on all counts
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
It also says that it doesn't find the F-22, Rafale, Eurofighter, nor Gripen suitable. It "notes" ASPI's recommendation of more Super Hornets as the most sensible hedge, but I don't think that means it recommends it. There are other ways of hedging; for example, maybe it could ask to be moved up in deliveries (i.e. some other country gets theirs later), or maybe it negotiates a penalty or discount clause for delays, etc.
It's really nothing more than a Pugh matrix. The really nice thing about these is that they are visually easy to digest, especially when you color the boxes green/red like the APA does. However, it obscures all sorts of errors in the decision-making, which is noted in the report and elsewhere, not to mention it doesn't really let you understand if each of the metrics were analyzed correctly or not. That the committee slaps it down as "unpersuasive" (and puts it at the end of the appendix so everybody can see it plain as day in case APA tries to change it later after criticisms) should show what they think of it. For example, the ZOCT claims that the PAK FA, J-20, and Su-35S has supercruise to the tune of Mach 1.5 or higher, as a reason to knock the F-35. It also says the F-35 is the only one without good non-RF low observables, (I don't know what "VOVS/SWE" means in the table.), and that its engine has little growth (that would be news to the ADVENT folks). And so forth.So from my reading, apparently APA submitted something they called a "Zero-One Comparative Technique (ZOCT) Table" which was roundly dismissed by Defence et al. In short it is a single table (!?) in which the F35 is compared to J20/PAKFA et al. in a binary (and in many cases flat out incorrect) fashion on the basis of utterly arbitrary, contrived performance metrics. Literally the kind of "analysis" I would expect from one of my teenage students over a game of Battlefield 3...
I am genuinely baffled at where APA get the audacity to submit something so obviously and woefully incomplete, unscientific, error ridden and warped by agenda/fantasy (they're STILL pushing for RAAF Raptors!?). In all seriousness, how do these guys so much as get an audience at a forum like this?? :hitwall
It looks nice though (any Pugh matrix does), so it's easy to throw at the uninformed and make it seem like the person did a lot of work, or that there's quantitative analysis or whatnot. Even if everything inside is wrong.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Indeed. The fact that Goon essentially claimed to be able to make an informed assessment of the capabilities of J20/PAKFA/J31 based purely on publically available info blew me away. Just incredible :roll
Of course he can. All you need to do you see is to completely fabricate the performance figures you want for F-35 that show it in a far lesser light than people realistically KNOW, then completely make up more impressive performance statistics to show that it is out-matched by some nefarious 'enemy's' aircraft, throw in a bunch of unrelated techno mumbo-jumbo and add a few dark hints of conspiracy (Thana marketing, cough, cough...) and voila!
The apparently lucid voice of reason that is Air Power Australia...
Like with conspiracy theorists, I always wonder whether APA and the like actually believe what they say. It's one thing to knowlingly make up this nonsense in some cynical attempt to gather fame/money/whatever - the truly scary thing is that they might actually believe it. I can't even imagine what sort of break from reality would be required to believe they are the only ones that can 'see the matrix' in the way that they indicate.
I feel like there should be a Netflix documentary about it. It would be entertaining viewing.
I feel like there should be a Netflix documentary about it. It would be entertaining viewing.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
^ Haha, you're not wrong. I often wonder the same about people like David Axe, Tyler Rogoway etc. In their case I suspect it's just an efficient way to get hits for their blog. If they are sincere then I suspect their views may well get reinforced by the circle jerk effect that seems to occur on this topic - ie. Axe does a "piece" on the F35's problems, uses APA as a source; Rogoway does a similar piece, uses Axe as a source; Kopp does a piece, uses Axe and so on.
I just get a cold shiver every time I see APA treated as anything more than a handful of overzealous defence enthusiasts whose favourite jet didn't get picked for AIR6000...
I just get a cold shiver every time I see APA treated as anything more than a handful of overzealous defence enthusiasts whose favourite jet didn't get picked for AIR6000...
We are looking to have a plan in place to acquire extra aircraft should the need arise. For the most part it is based around government concerns with the F-35 based on poor information given to them wanting to have a back up plan, At least they are being proactive in having a back up plan so credit where credit is due though I don't see any delay in the F-35 being severe enough to implement this.
The Super Hornet has not been clarified as that back up option but at least by me is considered the only option as bringing into use a 3rd family of combat aircraft is just plain stupid.
As for what it is and what we have to my knowledge we have the A and B models, No C's of D's while the Super Hornet currently in use is the F model.
We fly F/A-18 A/B models, never got into C/D models, though we should have in the 90's and we would have avoided the waste of much national treasure, however that is by the by...
However, the primary difference between F/A-18 E and F models, is that the F models sacrifice some fuel and range for a second seat. Capability-wise there is no other substantial difference between the two, so as long as you can afford the additional crew, I guess the choice of airframe is going to be dependant on how you intend to operate it.
There is some suggestion the planning if necessary could be for 75 Sqn at Tindal to re-equip with Super Hornets, so that might be an argument for E models, however if additional aircraft are to be operated by 1 and/or 6 Sqn, well I would suggest they would simply add more F models into the mix.
I suspect however no additional Super Hornets will be acquired short of some unforseen catastrophe occurring with the JSF project and all indicators are now that it is running very well, at long last as it nears entry to service with most planned users.
I was under the impression that our A & B F18's had been modified to C class standard some time ago. And if the occasion arises where we need to replace some o our single seat Hornets with Super Hornets, then surely the F18/E would be the way to go. Would be cheaper to acquire, and a bit cheaper to run I would imagine.
Yes and no. HUG converted them to close to C standard, but they are still upgraded F-18A/B model Hornets and not F-18C. Older, more time worn despite barrel replacements.
I think it's vanishingly unlikely that we'll be buying any more Super Hornets, and if they were bought as gap fillers I suggest they'd buy F models rather than introduce yet another type.
oldsig
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I recall the initial purchase was for 24 F models with 12 of them preconfigured for G conversion. IIRC this conversion was never done and 12 G models (Growler) were ordered instead. Curious, was there an additional reason Australia selected the F model (other than possible conversion to G) instead of the E?
The 2 seater Super Hornets were seen as a better fit for the primary land and maritime strike roles they inherited in 1 Sqn when they replaced the F-111.
They of course retain all the air to air capability of the -E model minus some range and fuel.
just to rub it in...
I'm getting a walk on look at the P8 Poseidon in about 2 weeks time
I'm getting a walk on look at the P8 Poseidon in about 2 weeks time
Good job to the RAAF, Our KC-30A fleet has achieved 20,000 hours and delivered 36 million liters of fuel to Australian and coalition aircraft along with the various other tasks it has achieved.
Out of curiosity what is the average lifespan (in hours) for an A330? We are building up the hours on them pretty quickly.
Out of curiosity what is the average lifespan (in hours) for an A330? We are building up the hours on them pretty quickly.
I don't know about average, but I've seen an Aviation Week report from 2012 that the oldest A330-200 in commercial service was 15 years old, & the oldest A330-300 was 20 years old. Considering how many cycles & hours a commercial airliner gets through in a year, I'd expect an air force tanker to last a longer.
The USAF is still flying KC-135s, & the newest one is 50 years old.
The USAF is still flying KC-135s, & the newest one is 50 years old.
Looks like it's 40000 cycles or 60000 hours according to this link. Although the WV050 is listed as 33000FC/100000FH. Somebody with better knowledge may know what the difference between those versions.
http://gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-11-15/html/2010-28363.htm
Last edited by a moderator:
The first RAAF P8A Poseidon A47-001 arrived in Auckland late on the afternoon of Saturday 12th November 2016. It is on its delivery flight and is due in Canberra on 15th November. It flew the leg from Hickam / Honolulu direct to Auckland. There are a couple of photos in the link. If it had gone to Whenuapai it could've parked up alongside a couple of JMSDF Kawasaki P1s
Last edited:
Presumably done to allow RNZAF and maybe pollies to get a look.The first RAAF P8A Poseidon A47-001 arrived in Auckland late on the afternoon of Saturday 12th November 2016. It is on its delivery flight and is due in Canberra on 15th November. It flew the leg from Hickam / Honolulu direct to Auckland. There are a couple of photos in the link. If it had gone to Whenuapai it could've parked up alongside a couple of JMSDF Kawasaki P1s
Hope it helps convince them to spend some money.
Edit - Sorry, forgot for a second about the RNZN celebrations. Obviously that is the reason.