It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

RAAF alternatives to SU-30

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Well folks my respect for the Flanker is not unfounded! Its actually shared by many Aviation analysts. The Australians are also worried over the Su-30's of Indonesia and Malaysia

It also seems China will acquire the MKI level technology in the form of the Su27-SM variant with revised And updated BVR and Anti Ship capabilities

home.gwu.edu...

home.gwu.edu...

home.gwu.edu...

home.gwu.edu...

home.gwu.edu...

home.gwu.edu...


[edit on 9-3-2005 by Lucretius]




posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Nice post.

A few things I would like to add though.

Firstly, the Su's range and fuel load would be offset by the great distance it would need to travel to get to Australia. Therefor, I feel as if the kenetic advantage it would enjoy is a bit overstated by the author. In a defensive position, the Su's airfeilds would be hit by cruise missles which would likely target their fuel suplies, thus making their ability to bleed more fuel in afterburner a foolish choice.

Remember, war is ALWAYS about logistics.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 05:13 PM
link   
This might be relvant to this thread.
AUSTRALIA'S new jet fighters will be delivered years late and cost twice as much as expected, according to US Government auditors.
That will leave the nation with fewer aircraft and short of top-line air defence for several years.

The Howard Government has signed up to the US Joint Strike Fighter project sight unseen and wants to buy about 100 of the "next-generation" war planes to replace its fleet of aged 30 F-111 and 80 F/A-18 Hornets.

The new fighter planes were supposed to cost about $67 million each but that has blown out to $147 million, according to the US Government Accountability Office.

Defence Minister Robert Hill told Australians the aircraft would cost about $67 million

source

Im a WW2 buff so forgive me asking but isnt the F-35(?) spose to be the next wonder plane for the RAAF?

[edit on 9-3-2005 by xpert11]



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Hot Tip;

The F111's will be lucky to be flying in 5 years time as they have well documented airframe and wingroot fatigue problems. The RAAF were flat out keeping them in the air back in 2000 let alone now. I heard that the RAAF were offered F-15's as a stop-gap measure for the F111 and for next to nothing; but the Ozzie government refused. Also I am lead to believe that the Hornet has problems with corrosion in and around the undercarriage which is also shortening their life spans. My opinion don't buy the new fighter's and get on the UAV bandwagon. The RAAF although staffed by some really well trained pilots, is under-resourced when it comes to fighter and bomber type aircraft and pilots have a hard time maintaining currency on type.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Maybe Australia would be better off buying the SAAB Gripen, agile, modern, capable and cheap, it could acquire these fairly quickly and then take a little more time over acquiring a more 'top end' fighter. Maybe offering the Gripens back as trade ins for Typhoon, Rafale, Super Hornet etc.

Anyway I was always under the impression that the F-35 was mainly a ground attack type with A2A capability as an extra, thats certainly the the case for the F-35B anyway, if it is true for all three versions then it should come as no surprise that it wont be the best.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Anyway I was always under the impression that the F-35 was mainly a ground attack type with A2A capability as an extra, thats certainly the the case for the F-35B anyway, if it is true for all three versions then it should come as no surprise that it wont be the best.


Your impression is correct.

I wouldn't say that the A2A capability is an extra, but it was designed mainly for strike missions.

Also, you can not really compare these two aircraft, there are simply too many differences - for instance the F-35 is a single engine aircraft, so of course it has less thrust.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Maybe Australia would be better off buying the SAAB Gripen, agile, modern, capable and cheap, it could acquire these fairly quickly and then take a little more time over acquiring a more 'top end' fighter. Maybe offering the Gripens back as trade ins for Typhoon, Rafale, Super Hornet etc.


How is it in the Grippen in the maritime strike role?

I think this is hugely overblow. The Su-30MMetc etc etc has short legs like most Soviet fighters and it is doubtfull that they would risk thier premier fighterbomber on such a long way mission even if they could do it with a signifigant bomb load.

No the real threat to Aus would be if the communist government of China get serious about a long range bomber force like the Backfire etc.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Hmmm Australia wanted F-15s originally (instead of F/A-18s) but they were too expensive (similar to the recent/current talk of fetting F-22s instead of F-35s). We also wanted the TSR.2 from the Uk but that got canned so we ended up buying the 'paper' F-111 (just like we have with the F-35) which turned up way over budget and very very late. We were not offered F-15s as a replacement (that would be like the US giving us F-22s now while waiting for the F-35!) we were however given F-4 Phantoms for a little while to cover the gap.

www.acig.org...




posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by waynos
Maybe Australia would be better off buying the SAAB Gripen, agile, modern, capable and cheap, it could acquire these fairly quickly and then take a little more time over acquiring a more 'top end' fighter. Maybe offering the Gripens back as trade ins for Typhoon, Rafale, Super Hornet etc.


How is it in the Grippen in the maritime strike role?

I think this is hugely overblow. The Su-30MMetc etc etc has short legs like most Soviet fighters and it is doubtfull that they would risk thier premier fighterbomber on such a long way mission even if they could do it with a signifigant bomb load.

No the real threat to Aus would be if the communist government of China get serious about a long range bomber force like the Backfire etc.


Right.....

And China will invade Australia....

I love neocon talk.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 02:37 AM
link   
What we need is a real strong aircraft in the maratime strike role.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 04:33 AM
link   
If I was Australia, i'd develop my own derritive of the Su-30 and ask Israel to help with the avionics and systems, but that's me, i'm partial to Russian equipment.

If you think Australia's state of it's airforce is bad, look no further than New Zealand! their airforce is nearly non-existant, the closet thing they got to a fighter is a Orion equipted with AIM-9's!

And how exactly is the Su-30 short-legged?



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 04:45 AM
link   
Its called refuelling. With refuelling then the ranges are unlimited,but then how to get a fuel tanker in under heavy fire is another thing.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by drfunk
What we need is a real strong aircraft in the maratime strike role.



If that is truly Australias greatest need then then should look no further than the Tornado GR.4!

Before I get ripped to bits over that lets look at it rationally,

no, it has none of the 'glamour' (or agility) of the modern fighters but if maritime strike is truly the driving concern the Tornado is the absolute best aircraft in existance for high speed low level attack profiles, it was designed specifically for that type of operation and is said to be rock steady even supersonically at low level, by contrast the F-111 is distinctly subsonic at low level and it is even slower at low level than the old Buccaneer was and even the F-15E loses out on low level performance over the Tornado and its crews suffer from buffeting as the airframe was not originally designed for such a scenario, though this is not a problem to the USAF as, with the Gulf War, the USAF operates them more as high level bombers within secure airspace, this is not a luxury Australia could rely on.

While the Tornado itself may be an old design the GR.4 is the most up to date strike platform in the world in service today and, on top of all that, the UK has many low hour airframes in storage dues to the initial purchase of the type being for 220 airframes while just over half that are in service today.

Now, if you bring air defence into the equation the UK also has a reasonable number of Tornado F3 low hour airframes in storage and while these are no dogfighters in any sense they ARE very effective long range BVR interceptors in the F-14 class, which might suit Australias geography better. Not glamourous like agile stealthy machines I grant you but they are effective, available and cheap.

Even as just a stop gap F-111 and F-18 stand in it could be good idea.

FredT, the Gripen is actually an effective maritime strike aircraft too, like the Typhoon it is what is known as a 'swing role' aircraft which means that just by reconfiguring its avionic set up virtually at the touch of a button it can switch from 100% A2A to 100% A2G, or even somewhere in between as the situation demands. A very cost effective solution for the cash strapped Europeans. I don't know if the F-35 is intended to be 'swing role' or more the traditional strike fighter, there appears to be little need for swing role in the US but what of the export version?



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by rapier28
And China will invade Australia....
I love neocon talk.


I love snappy one liners from posters who do not bother to actually read the intial topic


I am not a neocon and do us all a favor and read the intial thread ed?



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
And how exactly is the Su-30 short-legged?


SU-30 in a clean configuration is good for about 3000 kilometers An F-15E is good for 4988 in a clean configuration.

Max combat radius for the F-15E is 1000 miles, I could not find the figures for the Su-30. However, the max miles is a ferry range figure and meaningless for a combat situation.

Yes they can tank as a previous poster asserted, but can they portect the tankers as well as generate a sig. strike force to do any real damage?? Unless its Doolittle propaganda victory.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 08:24 AM
link   
I think we (Australia) should get a stop gap aircraft maybe F-15E,F-18E,
Gripen or Tornado.
The JSF is too far away for F-111's and F-18"s to last.
Then have a flyoff between JSF,RAFALE,TYPHOON.
Canada has same problem to try and make their hornets last longer.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by rapier28
And China will invade Australia....
I love neocon talk.


I love snappy one liners from posters who do not bother to actually read the intial topic


I am not a neocon and do us all a favor and read the intial thread ed?


Hehe.. it seems everyone loves each other over here..


The Indonesisan Su's are not posing any threat to Australia..Not unless they get more than 100 which i doubt they will..
Malaysian Su's are meant ONLY for the Sing F-16s.. if the stupid water dispute ever becomes a flashpoint..!!

China will not get backfires from Russia.. India will try its bl00dy best to stop that, unless India and China patch up and become bum chums..
Basically China has no power projection capability 500 klicks beyond its coastline..
In the east Unca Sam is screwing em'
And in the South, India and the US have MUCH better power projection capabilities..
And China wouldn't pick on the aussies directly..they'd maybe prod the Indonesians to do so..

As for the a maritime strike aircraft the Su-30 is perfectly fine, actually well suited..
correct me if im wrong but the initial 'aim' behind the design of the Su-27 was the provide escort to the backfires and blackjacks which would bomb the british/norweigen oil wells in the baltic sea..So obv. the Su-30 will be a good maritime aircraft..
As for the Aussies, they should have purchased the Jaguar (if they don't have it already) because that is one amazing maritime aircraft..but unfortunately now its being phaesd out of all the AFs that possess it
(still can't understand why, its such a bl00dy good jet!!)..
so maybe F-18 / F-15 would suffice?



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Actually no, China will get the backfires but its just at which number. Some say in order to replace our bomber fleet, we'll need 150 Backfires but certainly we won't be buying that much and by the time they finish producing it, it'll be oblescent. China is looking at 40 Backfires signing this June, after the military practice with Russia.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezza
I think we (Australia) should get a stop gap aircraft maybe F-15E,F-18E,
Gripen or Tornado.


Any would be a fine addition, but costs rear its ugly .. Im will have to pull my Janes off the shelf and get some info on the Maritime strike ability of the Grippen, but that or the Tornado would seem more likely. Ill bet the Grippen could be had at a good price too.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Waynos, are Tornado's still produces? and what will be their service lives? I know this is a temporary solution.

I heard Dutch F-16's airframe will be able to go on for another 10 years, you think they never flew that?




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join