Gentlemen... please get over the F-22, it's not nor will it ever be for sale before a final decision has already been long passed.
EA/18G Growler
- Thread starter Malayali
- Start date
-
- Tags
- boeing northrop grumman
Big E, that may well be the case (and I suspect you are right) but I would love to see the Australian government test it.
If the F22 is indeed out of the loop then the other possible scenarios still stand which supports my belief that an early procurement of FA18Fs by the RAAF seems a sensible idea.
Cheers
PETER671BT
New Member
Tasman here's a a question for really for everybody to about while we still debat what fighter suits Australia may it be FA-18F,JSF,F-22,.
What is the best future combat format for australia and these planes in australia.Others what combat role is applied,WHATS the ADF SAY.
What is the best future combat format for australia and these planes in australia.Others what combat role is applied,WHATS the ADF SAY.
Peter, I'm not a member of the ADF, nor am I any sort of technical expert re combat aircraft. I rely on others for that. I am an avid reader of military history, especially naval and aviation so hence my interest.
From looking at what has worked and what has caused problems in the past I make the following observations:
1. There is value in a two tier force. As stated by Magoo (Post 129) this need not necessarily mean one tier more capable than the other. When the F111 fleet has been grounded for various reasons the Hornet fleet has still been available. In the lead up to WW2 the RAF built the Hurricane, a comparatively simple, low risk, easy to manufacture aircraft to supplement and perhaps act as an insurance policy to the more complex Spitfire. Both complemented each other well in the air battles that followed. Hence I like the idea of the FA18F as a supplement to an as yet unproven design.
2. A small airforce like the RAAF must rely on technical superiority (including pilot quality), hence I believe any future force structure should include at least some of the best available (note Big E's point about the F22 non availablity) hence I like the idea of the F35 (including some B models for the navy's amphibs). I would hate to see Oz pilots ever again having to take on opponents as they did early in 1942 when they had to fly Wirraways against Japanese Zeros, or indeed as they did in Korea when they were equipped with Meteors rather than Sabres to combat MIG15s.
3. The Chief of the ADF has clearly stated that it (the ADF) wants the F35.
Cheers
OK, here's my suggested structure based on what I said in Post 141:
2 squadrons F35A
1 squadron F35B
2 squadrons FA18F
Plus 3-5 additional tankers using money saved by equipping two squadrons with FA18Fs rather than F35s.
Based on a 50% reserve for training, maintenance and attrition that would require about 54 F35s (3 x 12 plane squadrons) and 48 FA18Fs (2 x 16 plane squadrons).
Cheers
Hey Tas
I don't think the F-35Bs will happen, although I wouldn't discount anything lately!
It's too narrow or 'niche' capability for our limited resources and requirements.While we're talking about wishlists, here's mine (combat force & support only).
Scenario 1 (the more realistic one):
- 48 x F/A-18F (2 SQNs plus attrition reserve)
- 48 x F-35A (2 SQNS plus attrition reserve)
- 8 x KC-30B tankers (6 + 2 reserve WITH cargo door/floor mods)
- 6 x B737 Wedgetail (5 + 1)
- 13 x AP-3C (10 + 3, re-winged and sensors further upgraded)
- 6 x RQ-4B Global Hawk
- 10 x MQ-9B Reaper
- 24 x F/A-18F (2 'Bridging' SQNs, 2009-2022 - replaced by last F-35s)
- 36 x F-22A (2 SQNs plus small reserve, 2011-)
- 60 x F-35 (3 SQNs plus OCU plus reserve 201
- 12 x KC-30B (9 + 3)
- 8 x B737 Wedgetail (6 + 2)
- 13 x AP-3C (10 + 3)
- 8 x RQ-4B Global Hawk (incl 2 x Block 30 ELINT/SIGINT, 2 x Block 40 MPRTIP)
- 16 x MQ-9B Reaper (ISR & armed versions (SDB, AGM-114, GBU-38 JDAM-ER, HyperStrike, LOCASS)
Cheers
Magoo
IMHO:Hey Tas
I don't think the F-35Bs will happen, although I wouldn't discount anything lately!
While we're talking about wishlists, here's mine (combat force & support only).
Scenario 1 (the more realistic one):
Scenario 2 (yeah, right!):
- 48 x F/A-18F (2 SQNs plus attrition reserve)
- 48 x F-35A (2 SQNS plus attrition reserve)
- 8 x KC-30B tankers (6 + 2 reserve WITH cargo door/floor mods)
- 6 x B737 Wedgetail (5 + 1)
- 13 x AP-3C (10 + 3, re-winged and sensors further upgraded)
- 6 x RQ-4B Global Hawk
- 10 x MQ-9B Reaper
Anyway, back to reality...The kids are hungry and want their breakfast! :unknown
- 24 x F/A-18F (2 'Bridging' SQNs, 2009-2022 - replaced by last F-35s)
- 36 x F-22A (2 SQNs plus small reserve, 2011-)
- 60 x F-35 (3 SQNs plus OCU plus reserve 201
- 12 x KC-30B (9 + 3)
- 8 x B737 Wedgetail (6 + 2)
- 13 x AP-3C (10 + 3)
- 8 x RQ-4B Global Hawk (incl 2 x Block 30 ELINT/SIGINT, 2 x Block 40 MPRTIP)
- 16 x MQ-9B Reaper (ISR & armed versions (SDB, AGM-114, GBU-38 JDAM-ER, HyperStrike, LOCASS)
Cheers
Magoo
Scenario 1 would preserve the RAAF's present qualitative edge into the 1920s.
Scenario 2 would ensure a qualitative edge and guarantee air superiority (I like it!).
I note that both scenarios call for the acquisition of the FA18F - at least as an interim type in the case of the 'dream' option.
Cheers
I don't really understand the desire by some for us (Aus) to acquire the B model F-35s. We have no carriers and it doesn't seem likely that we'll obtain one any time soon - to me it appears they'll only be of benefit to overseas deployment, for Aus protection we have enough bases capable of supporting aircraft spread out throughout the country including the top end.
I would support the acquisition of a small number of F35Bs (say 12 -16) to provide close air support and limited air defence to Australian troops who may be deployed aboard the new LHDs. They could certainly operate from the Spanish designed vessels. In combined operations with US forces air cover can be provided by America but more and more it seems that Australia is deploying troops on missions (eg Timor Leste and in the Pacific) where the RAN has been required to operate as the major player.
I agree that for operations within Australia the B model is not needed but when was the last time combat aircraft were used operationally within Australia (apart from the RF111C flight during the Franklin Dam controversy in the 1980s or for 'chasing' UFOs in the 1950s and 60s!)? Every operational use of Australia's air combat force since WW2 has been overseas.
With a big land mass, small population and relatively slow defence budget of Australia, and especially the current ill sounding situation of our combat aircraft, I don't think we ought to be considering asset acquisition for overseas operations at this point.
I'm all for supporting peace and UN operations etc, but ultimately we have to ensure our own defence first. Any extra costs or lack of capability involved in getting the F-35B instead I don't think is a smart move at present.
I'm all for supporting peace and UN operations etc, but ultimately we have to ensure our own defence first. Any extra costs or lack of capability involved in getting the F-35B instead I don't think is a smart move at present.
I take your point and I would not advocate the F35B as the number one priority for the RAAF. I would only recommend it after Australia had re- equipped at least 4 squadrons with F35As and/or FA18Fs. But, if the budget then allows, I think it would be a valuable addition.
Whether or not people think Australia should deploy troops overseas the fact is that the government is doing so (as did their predecessors in GW1). As I have stated previously I believe our troops must be given the best equipment and support possible. They are required to carry out their government's bidding, therefore I believe the government has a responsibility to equip them to do the job as efficiently and as safely as possible.
Cheers
Care to Bet
What you are asserting here, presumably with some knowledge, is not what your namesake's good friend, Gen Mike Ryan, said to Big E when they were chiefs of their respective air forces back in 1999 and 2000.
Now I realise that the USN has gotta get Boeing St Louis to get export sales of the Super Hornet just to keep their own acquisition costs and, moreover, the costs of the upgrade and modification lines down, but we are talking about Australia's air combat capabilities here, not the USN's budgetary woes.
If we believe our people should have the best, then we should go for the best - and no USN brown shoe pleading that 'we need to get over it' should dissuade us from the task.
By the way, are you prepared to have a little wager on this on the side, just to make it all a tad more interesting?
Okay Navy,
What you are asserting here, presumably with some knowledge, is not what your namesake's good friend, Gen Mike Ryan, said to Big E when they were chiefs of their respective air forces back in 1999 and 2000.
Now I realise that the USN has gotta get Boeing St Louis to get export sales of the Super Hornet just to keep their own acquisition costs and, moreover, the costs of the upgrade and modification lines down, but we are talking about Australia's air combat capabilities here, not the USN's budgetary woes.
If we believe our people should have the best, then we should go for the best - and no USN brown shoe pleading that 'we need to get over it' should dissuade us from the task.
By the way, are you prepared to have a little wager on this on the side, just to make it all a tad more interesting?
Last edited:
This is the second time you have mistaken this... my namesake is Enterprise = Big-E. You are excused as foreigners need not be familiar with this.Okay Navy,
What you are asserting here, presumably with some knowledge, is not what your namesake's good friend, Gen Mike Ryan, said to Big E when they were chiefs of their respective air forces back in 1999 and 2000.
Now I realise that the USN has gotta get Boeing St Louis to get export sales of the Super Hornet just to keep their own acquisition costs and, moreover, the costs of the upgrade and modification lines down, but we are talking about Australia's air combat capabilities here, not the USN's budgetary woes.
If we believe our people should have the best, then we should go for the best - and no USN brown shoe pleading that 'we need to get over it' should dissuade us from the task.
By the way, are you prepared to have a little wager on this on the side, just to make it all a tad more interesting?
USN acquisition is not set in stone, it is variable dependent on cost.
This Brown Shoe knows quite well the reality of his government. Knowing the political makeup of congressional commitees is key into determining the reality of defense acquisitions. Knowing the power of committee chairmen and interelations that committee has with other chair's agendas determine where this issue will stand. Now that the GOP is out of power and the very man who placed the ban on F-22s sales is now a committee chair and those districts that build the F-22 components are not... need I say more? Well if I must the Senate committee that already shot it down is now chaired by the leader of the opposition. This is a dead issue for this congress... can you wait for 09' for another chance, doubt it.
If you must have the best your just going to have to develop it your self because you won't get any commitment this session.
You need to wake up and smell the coffee. :coffee The people have spoken and there is a new crew in town.
I don't think it's called a wager if it's a sure thing.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Possibly. It's also NOT going to be available in the time frame we need it. IF we buy this aircraft, it will be bought specifically BECAUSE of the widening gap between the retirement of the F-111 aircraft and the introduction of the JSF. RAAF and Government are confident JSF is the next generation aircraft we need for our defence. The Rhino should be considered little more than a "bridge" in this context between current capability and the next.
F-15E "might" be more capable. So "might" Eurofighter or Rafale. Unfortunately none of them are available in the timeframe we need them and none of them will be as easy to introduce into RAAF service as the Rhino will be.
Why do you say that? Both F-15E and Super Hornet are twin seat, avionics are similar. The Super Hornet has grown to the size of the eagle.
F-15E
Length: 19.44 m
Wingspan: 13 m
Empty: 14,379 kg
Max T/O: 36,450 kg
Internal fuel: 6,103 kg
External fuel inc CFT: 9,818 kg
Thrust: 26,000kg
Super Hornet
Length: 18.31 m
Wingspan: 13.62 m
Empty: 13,864 kg
Max T/O: 29,900 kg
Internal fuel: 6,350 kg
External fuel: 7,430 kg
Thrust: 20,000kg
Future block Super Hornets will most likely have increased thrust and a higher maximum takeoff weight. Just like the F-15E is heavier has more thrust and longer range than the original F-15A.
well let's start with
longer range and better payload-on the Eagle
I do beleive the avionics in the F-15 are currently better suited for all weather/night attack---Navy is still trying to figure out what do to with the guy in back of the F-18F(although not to say--that it won't compare to the Eagle avionics once it matures in service)
if you are looking for power projection--the super bug is NOT the answer
if the Aussies want something to cruise around the beach--then go for it
longer range and better payload-on the Eagle
I do beleive the avionics in the F-15 are currently better suited for all weather/night attack---Navy is still trying to figure out what do to with the guy in back of the F-18F(although not to say--that it won't compare to the Eagle avionics once it matures in service)
if you are looking for power projection--the super bug is NOT the answer
if the Aussies want something to cruise around the beach--then go for it