Their table, the "matrix" I was referring to as seen here: (http://www.ausairpower.net/FME-20Mar07-PAG.png) clearly states 50x Raptors but makes no mention of F-111 numbers.
Things must've changed then, as my understanding was that it was always 55 F-22s and 36 F-111Ss. But yes, the matrix does show 50. Not sure what's changed nor when.
6SQN still has some C models, but will likely relinquish these to 1SQN as the Super Hornet gets closer. I'll be visiting 6SQN in a few weeks and should have a clearer picture after that.Aussie Digger said:
Did you read those articles at all? Just because Defmin NELSON is a politician and NOT a Defence Professional, doesn't mean Defence doesn't have a clue. If Defmin Nelson refuses to use his "cheat cards" is that Defence's fault?
Have you read the Australian Defence Business Reporter article Will the F-22A 'Raptor' ever be available for export to Australia? that was posted by AD? It looks in detail at the claims made that the F-22A can be sold to Australia and strongly rejects them.
What would you ahve us buy. EF is still on it growth path and is not yet fully capable, makes no sense as an interim buy, particulary as it is more expensive.
I like the F-22 but even Israel have expressed interest in the JSF stating the F-22 is too expensive. It is also a purpose built A2A platform that is less capable than JSF will be (if it lives up to expectations) in the strike role.
Sorry this is nonsense. The gap filler has been discused ad nauseum for a couple of years. While it may be polly speak I think the words were 'we don't need an interim aircraft at this time'. Well times changed and avoiding the LRIP aircraft make a heap of sense given the congressional rescheduling of production.
I suspect that there are people in uniform that know much more thatn you and I. I also suspect they breif the Defmin. Granted he is no airpower expert nor should he be or our defmin wouel be in uniform. By the way how do you know what the "testers" know or is this speculation.
Who are the peer group you refer to .... APA? There are a large number of individuals who fully support this approach as being low risk and cost effective and providing a massive increase in capability wiht current systems on a moder platform. A fairy tail would be remafucaturing the F111 given the risk involved.
Wow... that is the king of disinformation. Claiming some kind of significant L.O. capability when tanks and weapons are hanging. Someone better learn the difference between stealth and L.O. enhancements to a legacy jet which aren't going to make enough difference to be important. F-15 in a K like config, out-matches the Super in range, weapons load, and raw performance. The radar K gets is no weakling. Note too that that AESA was first fielded operational in an F-15. Korea is being offered packages for this. Claiming F-15 is more expensive isn't helpful when the Super has such dangerously weak raw performance as to make it dangerous to put in the front line vs. a hard threat with no back up by a real air domination jet like F-15, F-22, Eurocanards. The weak raw performance makes it a pretend aircraft if it is trying to fit a mission of "air superiority". The production availability of F-15 is nice disinformation too. Note also that Boeing sells both products so I am sure you will just believe what they tell you and go with a Super purchase. ( nice PowerPoint slides btw ). If you want to go down the path of mediocrity in performance, I don't think that is very good. Any concern they brought up ( just like the DM's webpage on the F-15 selection ) is basically misinformation. They haven't stated anything correct about F-15 thus far. Funny that no one is breaking down the door to get a Super Hornet unless it is given to them practically ( the Maylaysia deal ) or an insane amount of U.S. tax payer giveaways like Indian workshare. India will probably give it a pass. What does that tell you? The constant harping about what is good for the U.S. Navy compatibility is no reason either. Complete performance not weasel word from accountants is what makes a good combat jet selection. Buying an inferior combat jet and justifying it by saying "look, it is cheaper"... brings one to consider if the person holding that job is capable. After we screw up the JSF program over here, there is even serious issues of what you will do then... go all SH? Hmmm. F-22 not being available and all.
So would you care to back ANY of your opinions up with ANY kind of supporting evidence? ABDR-E do. We also have the RAAF, USN and Boeing AND the operators of the aircraft stating you're wrong, but hey, I guess their all lying? Even ABDR which is just another defence industry magazine (albeit an expensive one!) and has no particularly obvious agenda, right?
Once again, where are YOUR facts backing this up. The testimony of OPERATORS is written off as lies designed to enhance careers, testimony of Countries is ignored and the manufacturer obviously doesn't wish to earn as much money as it possibly could.The weak raw performance makes it a pretend aircraft if it is trying to fit a mission of "air superiority". The production availability of F-15 is nice disinformation too. Note also that Boeing sells both products so I am sure you will just believe what they tell you and go with a Super purchase. ( nice PowerPoint slides btw ). If you want to go down the path of mediocrity in performance, I don't think that is very good. Any concern they brought up ( just like the DM's webpage on the F-15 selection ) is basically misinformation. They haven't stated anything correct about F-15 thus far. Funny that no one is breaking down the door to get a Super Hornet unless it is given to them practically ( the Maylaysia deal ) or an insane amount of U.S. tax payer giveaways like Indian workshare. India will probably give it a pass. What does that tell you? The constant harping about what is good for the U.S. Navy compatibility is no reason either. Complete performance not weasel word from accountants is what makes a good combat jet selection. Buying an inferior combat jet and justifying it by saying "look, it is cheaper"... brings one to consider if the person holding that job is capable. After we screw up the JSF program over here, there is even serious issues of what you will do then... go all SH? Hmmm. F-22 not being available and all.
The talking points on getting a Super Hornet are dangerous at the extreme. Capability first, not accountant-speak.
RE: the F-111, in the last few years Defence has done everything possible to make that fail. Not setting it up with JDAM ( now the excellent JDAM-ER for you ) and JASSM is a bad idea all around. That is real reach. Screwing up MC rates and sustainment on the F-111 just means someone isn't trying hard enough. We got rid of it because we have an insane amount of tankers and other long-range airframes. You don't have that option. Right before we retired F-111 we had MC rates of 86% or better. One of the remaining squadrons got the glass cockpit a year before retirement pushing up the MC rates another 5%. Anytime I see a program like C-5 or B-1 MC rates slip, I can point to poor funding and be correct. Those are only two examples. F-111 is not being sustained at the proper dollar level. Airframe improvements aren't that hard. It also has speed and gas to contempt of engage. JDAM-ER and JASSM would make it a serious threat until big SUs grow up to be a big number ( if that happens ) up around 2020 when it would be retired anyway if anyone could some whining about F-111 and just sustain it. F-111 backed up by a real air domination jet, isn't a bad thing. You are throwing away a lot of firepower and reach. I'm all happy that the U.S. Navy will give RAAF a gold star for having lowered production costs on Super Hornet. That is about the only advantage out of this. Super Hornet is a nice strike aircraft. Painting it as something it is not, is being ill informed.
Hate to point this out but nobody is breaking down the door to buy Eurocanards either. EF looks like it will develope into a great aircraft, when it gets there. Same goes for Rafale but it is on a very short production run.
Geez this pisses me off. This is NOT what the Minister said, so do not put quote marks around it. Look up the transcript, read what he DID say, and then read the context in which he said it.
No, thats was not my inferecne at all. I have no interest in proving APA right. I'm bringing these arguments to the table so they can be rebutted. I was fully confident in the F35 untill a couple of weeks ago, and i didn't consider any of the arguments made by APA, mainly due to the dismissive attitude of the members here. But after i actually READ said arguments, i found there was more validity too them than people here gave them credit for. Trust me i would feel much better if a had the confidence in the F35 i had a few weeks ago, and although some of my fears have been relieved, there are still some major points that no one has adressed, just avioded.
Thats an argument i've heard before, and to some extent i agree with it. However there is a tendancy here to dismiss what APA is actually arguing because of theree inferred motives. Kopp may have personal gains invested in the F111S idea, but that doesen't mean there isn't some validity to what he is saying. Members here seldom make that jump.
This isn't like a political stance. I'm not a true beliver. However there is a valid argument on the capability of the F35 in the air superiority role, and it seems no one here would dare bring it up for fear of ridicule. It is a vital discussion for the future of the ADF IMO.
Absoloutly, the Falklands is a great example of this. But the RAAF has a precedent set over the passed 60 years of having a qualitiative advantage on a platform v paltform basis over threat nations, and unless we intend to reliquish that advantage the platform that we chose needs to be debated.
As a strike platform, i agree its a fine aircraft. But i dont think the little goodies the USN is putting on it make up for its poor airdynamic and kenetic performance when we're talking about A2A combat.
I didnt say the russian radars were superior, just that (yes with manufacturors data) the BARS has a greater detection range vs RCS then the APG 79, the APG 79 is much more sophistocated and is a better radar. And even if the russian data is overestimated, it cant be to a large/decisive degree. And again this does not alter the core of my argument in the F18E/F vs SUXX in A2A combat debate. The BARS would most likely detect the F18F's before they reached maximum launch range for the AIM120D, and the Ibis has three times the power output, 20kwts, and a huge apature, so that detection range has to be much higher. This new radar will be operational at about the same time the F18E/F is delivered to the RAAF.
Were did he say that russian avionics are better than there western counterparts? I've never read that. Anyway thats not part of my argument at all. Its not the russian avionics that are decisive, its the raw performance of their aircraft coupled with the capability of the avionics/sensor systems (yes not as good as the west but still quite capable) that is the argument.
But this advantage is negated with the introduction of an opponants AWE&C's capability, and a fully armed and tanked SH would have a large RCS in the frontal sector. And even without AWE&C's, the detection range will still be beyond maximum launch range for the AIM 120D, so i dont see how this will be decisive.
I agree that ther will give the RAAF a huge advance in capabilities, especially in the strike/maritime strike/CAS role. However the point isnt wether them will increse our capabilities but whether they will be able to provide air superiority against advanced SUXX variants or maintain the qualtitative advantage the RAAF has maintained on a platform basis for half a century. And i dont see how questioning the sepcifics as to how the chosen platforms will achieve this is delusional.
Mate, you have this tendancy to pick little things out that people are saying and not fully deal with the argument. This is a good example.
This is a fine statement if you wish to push a particular POV. The aircraft IS being acquired as a replacement strike aircraft and not because of it's A2A performance, but lets continue to discuss it's A2A merits shall we?
Once again, based on "guess work" on manufacturers data released from only 1 side. The Russians. Go to Raytheon's site and see if you can find ANY such data on the APG-79 radar. Fact is you won't. No T/R module counts, no power outputs and most certainly no range figures. The reason for this is because the information is CLASSIFIED. Dr Kopp doesn't have access to it and yet even HE states the APG-79 is superior. I refer you to page 18 in the Jan/Feb 2007 edition of Defence Today magazine where he writes: "The BARS can be supplied with a range of Travelling Wave Tube (TWT) power ratings, but cannot compete with the Super Hornet's liquid cooled APG-79 AESA".
Read Defence Today or Air International lately? The Russian radars are better, their IRST are better, their weapons are better, their range is better, their maneuvreability is better, their aerodynamic performance is better their avionics and networking capability is similar but improving...
Which opponent has AWE&C's capability? India? We get on like a "house on fire" with India. I can imagine us at war with Pakistan, before India. So that pretty much leaves China. Unless you think it likely we'd go to war against Singapore, Japan or South Korea. Because they are the only other Countries with a current or planned AWAC capability in our region.
The Labor Party loves the Chinese and the Liberals want to sell them as much of our national resources as we possibly can. But hey, I'm sure going to war against them won't cost us anything economically, will it?Again, they are being chosen AS a strike aircraft. They are replacing the F-111, which is not currently used as an air superiority aircraft, if I'm not mistaken?
Ozzy,
Nope, thats not what i was saying anyway. Not by a mile.
There are some problems with what you are saying.
There are alot of iffs and buts on this one.Indonesia is not the only threat nation.If both sides have an AEW&C's then both sides will be well aware of each other well before launch radius are met. If the F35 buy happens in the timeframe set out and is not altered by external factors.
The F18E/F does pay a range penalty on strike missions compared to the F111, however it can self escort to some degree which is a big pluss.
So this means that there will be no deviation from the production plan in the future??? Especially with two costly wars to fund. And even if the total ammount of airframes produced does not change, the rate of production does have effects on the RAAF purchase, becaus if we still wish to buy in the timeframe planned, our aircraft will be futhur up the list. If production dramaticaly slows due to future funding problems then the effect will be very significant for the RAAF.
If the JSF gets too expensive for 100 airframes, then the RAAF will probably look to get 48-60 of F-35s instead a little further down the production run (i.e. not LRIP), and perhaps beef up the Super Hornet force a little to get the required capacity. Or maybe a Block 30/40 F-22 will be available for sale by then, which may bring that aircraft into play as the HI elements of a two-tiered force along with a the LO Super.
Of course not. However the "doom and gloom" brigade are predicating upon massive cost increases because THEY alone say that USAF in particular intends to reduce it's order to only around 760 aircraft, when in fact this is completely un-true.
To be fair AD the first post in this thread put up by you does have the heading "Regional Air Domincnce" and several referances to suplementing the Bugs that are going into the HUG programe. So you kind of broght the air superiority argument into this thread when you started it.
1. Would you mind giving me a link to some analasys that states the F18E/F as having the edge in WVR combat, if all the other experts apart from Kopp state this that is? Or that the small advantage in situational awarness in WVR environment (given that the missile systems are comperable) will negate the Flankers ability to generate much greater angles of attack than the SH.
1. its angles of attack that are important in getting a fireing soloution not big high g turns.
Again this does not alter the core of my previos argument. The APG 79 is superior, I said that in my previous post you are quoting. However this will not allow the SH to reach maximum missile launch radius for the AIM 120D without being detected and, depending on the missiles caried by the flanker, engaged. So the APG 79 vs BARS is irrelevant to this argument.
The point is not which radar is superior. It is whether the F18E/F will be able to get into a decent launch position without being detected and engaged by the Flanker. This was the argument used by an un-named previos poster (if you want to know who go and have a look) as to how the SH could defeat the flanker every time.
You still havent outlined exacly how these advantages can be used tactiacaly to negate the Flankers airodynamic/kinetic advantage, which is the important part. And i would call, for the most part, AA weapons systems comperable.
Which opponent has AWE&C's capability? India? We get on like a "house on fire" with India. I can imagine us at war with Pakistan, before India. So that pretty much leaves China. Unless you think it likely we'd go to war against Singapore, Japan or South Korea. Because they are the only other Countries with a current or planned AWAC capability in our region.
So what operational scenario are we likely to find ourselves in against China? China deciding they need to launch punitive strikes against us for delivering too much LPG to them? Perhaps they would like to destroy our LPG production facilities off the North West Shelf, because we might decide to forgoe the $20 BILLION contract we have with them...
If we decide we need to go to war against China in some future invasion of Taiwan scenario? I can see us doing that. No, really, I can...
I refer to my firts line in this post. You brought the Air superiority debate into this thread with your first post, so you kind of shot yourself in the foot on that one AD.