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: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
Waynos, are Tornado's still produces? and what will be their service lives? I know this is a temporary solution.


The Tornado is out of production, but there no doubt are many sitting in the U.K.'s equivalent of the bone-yard an could be renderd operation that still have service life left in them(for a tidy sum no doubt)

One other thought as a cheap interim plane:

Waynos, what do you think about the recently retired RAF Jaguars??




posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   
The Jaguar is a superb aircraft, I for one was saddened that the bean counters said it had to go, it was the first 'brand new' RAF plane I saw go into service (when I was 9) so I always had a soft spot for it. I'm not sure how it would fare in the maritime strike role though, maybe quite a costly systems conversion need there, that was my point about the Tornado, there are *at least* 60 airframes in storage, fully capable and ready to be brought back up to serviceable status at short notice, I think they may be of GR.1B standard but the GR.4 conversion is proven and has just been completed on the remaining in service planes. If ever a country wanted an effective and cheap strike platform quickly there is one just sitting around waiting for them.

Ground Zero, the F-16's would be good if they were looking for a cheap fighter with low airframe hours, the Dutch never flew their F-16's as much as they would have liked due to budget restraints.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by rapier28
Right.....

And China will invade Australia....

I love neocon talk.


But malaysia is?


Please, what he said was 100% correct. The TRUE threat they face is from China. They are the regional power, and are the only nation that would pose a threat to a US-Australian alliance.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Greetings,

There is a major point deep within this topic, while the Aussies understand the capbilities of the SU 30, they seem to want to counter the SU 30 with Maritime Strike aircraft... why, its interesting, the only nation within any range of Aussie land, with a maritime strike force would be india... BUT China have been pressing for the creation of an organic CBG. That is the threat that I feel the Aussies are more worried about. But that is my opinion on the matter :/

As for a replacment... I wouldn't touch the Eurofighter with a stick, I would either order up some Gripens, note: The Gripen, while designed as a swing wing fighter, it does have the ablility to be a very capable maritime strike force, the reason beening that one of its roles would have been hitting the Russian fast craft in swedish waters. OR hire some B52s from the Yanks, put in an air attack radar and load the bomb bay with Harpoons, TLAMs, AIM120s, HARMs and some bouys and torps, there you go, you have a WHOLE strike force rolled into one.

Ok I know you may think I am nuts, but I worked it out based on payload and space, that about 20 AIM120s, 8 HARMs, 8 Mark 46 Torps, 14 Harpoons, 6 TLAMs, HELL thats with room to spare.... PLUS about 8 hours of flight time, now come one folks, that could put a hole in any CVBG ::grins:: It nain't pretty but it sure as hell would wreck any ones day.

What you think?
- Philip



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Interesting that while the best fighter in the world is out of Australias reach for a number of reasons you wouldn't have them touch the next best with a stick. May I ask if you have some predjudice against the Typhoon?



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Interesting that while the best fighter in the world is out of Australias reach for a number of reasons you wouldn't have them touch the next best with a stick. May I ask if you have some predjudice against the Typhoon?


Price? maybe beyond that the supercruise etc etc would be well suited to covering alot of ocean. Combine that with say a small global hawk fleet for recce, and you got pretty good force there.

The other question is this: If Australia were to say "lets buy the Typhoon", where would they be in the production line?



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Interesting that while the best fighter in the world is out of Australias reach for a number of reasons you wouldn't have them touch the next best with a stick. May I ask if you have some predjudice against the Typhoon?


I suppose I do have a slight aversion to the typhoon on the whole, while I do not have first hand experience of the Typhoon, or its systems, I have a close friend working with the computer based systems on the typhoon and the only thing he can say about it, is that it needs more patches than XP.

While I understand that all new aircraft have teething problems, I will admit that I would rather the UK armed forces have the best there is, than a joint effort, that just about does it.

Time will tell...

- Philip



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 05:08 PM
link   
I'm certainly not going to try and stomp all over your opinion even if I do disagree with it, but I thought I detected a hint of malice towards the programme in that comment.

Fred, that is a very good point about where they would be in the queue for it, there is a tendency no for the partner nations to defer some deliveries in order to encourage further sales, this was misinterpreted by some press over here as the RAF trying to 'wriggle out' of buying the plane when it first happened with Austria. I couldn't say for sure but I think something like it would be negotiated.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 09:18 PM
link   
IMO the only problem i see with the the typhoon is price, and that again is only a problem to countries who have the option of buying cheaper aircraft from say Russia..
Otherwise typhoon is good stuff



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
IMO the only problem i see with the the typhoon is price, and that again is only a problem to countries who have the option of buying cheaper aircraft from say Russia..
Otherwise typhoon is good stuff


Unless you are thinking of going against the Yanks or Brits then a Su-30 would be your best bet. Cheap,very manouverable,relatively good avonics and shexy is as good as you can get


D

posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Originally posted by rapier28
Right.....

And China will invade Australia....

I love neocon talk.


But malaysia is?


Please, what he said was 100% correct. The TRUE threat they face is from China. They are the regional power, and are the only nation that would pose a threat to a US-Australian alliance.


I'm not too worried about a Chinese invasion anytime soon. I still believe that the US is the only nation that has a proven and effective projection force. China's forces are too many in number, logistics would be a nightmare as well as supplying frontline troops with food and basic neccesities



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 10:03 PM
link   
This might be of interest.

At the time of writing industry was still awaiting a Request for Tender (RFT) for Project Air 5418 - Follow-On Stand-Off Weapon (FOSOW), but contenders were just about to submit tenders for a related project, Air 5409 � Bomb Improvement Program.

Worth some $500 million between them these will provide the precision and stand-off strike capabilities to sustain the RAAF through to the entry into frontline service of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter some time around the middle of next decade.

Last year the minister for defence, Senator Robert Hill, announced a shortlist of three contenders for the $450 million FOSOW program: Lockheed Martin�s AGM-158 Joint Air-Surface Stand-Off Missile (JASSM); EADS-LFK�s Taurus KEPD 350; and Boeing�s AGM-84H Stand-off Land Attack Missile � Expanded Response (SLAM-ER).

source

Wedgetail is a 737 airborne early warning & control (AEW&C) system providing airborne surveillance and command and control capability. The Commonwealth of Australia awarded Boeing Space and Communications (S&C), a unit of The Boeing Company, a contract worth more than a $1 billion dollars for four 737 AEW&C systems plus options for up to three other systems. Boeing expects to deliver the first two aircraft in 2006.Australia has named Project Air 5077 "Wedgetail" after our native eagle.

combines the new high-performance Boeing 737-700 aircraft with the new technology Northrop Grumman Multi-role Electronically Scanned Array (MESA) radar. Included in the platform are an advanced Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system; an expanded, passive electronic surveillance system

Source

No doubt the wedgetail will gather intel off the coast of China/indonesia keeping an eye out for any flare ups in the region.



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 06:28 PM
link   


An F-15E is good for 4988 in a clean configuration.


fred that is with the conformal fuel tanks

the best alternative is the rafale, i think that the typhoon is too costly



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Okay gimme F-15C/E , F-18, Typhoon, Rafale and Grippen prices..



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by grunt2


An F-15E is good for 4988 in a clean configuration.


fred that is with the conformal fuel tanks

the best alternative is the rafale, i think that the typhoon is too costly


Your right, what I ment to say is ferry configuration with the FAST tanks and 3 drops.

I still think thier best bet for a short term solution is the Jaguars that the UK just retired.



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Interesting discussion, i remember about 5 years ago when Indonesia and China first got Flankers there were articles about how badly the RAAF F/A-18A's would get blasted by them.

F-22 is obviously far and away the best money can buy however it's unit cost is around $70 million so far (only estimate I can find) and may even be higher by now. It's got limited ground attack capability atm from what I know, but if the FB22 materialises then a mix of FB and F22s would make a good choice, if limited in number. I might add that even if you only have a small number of F-22s that's at least better than having a large number of inferior aircraft that will only be picked off at long range.
Cost - $70-80 Million (unverified estimate)

Eurofighter is good but is only barely operational, and it's flaws and cost blow outs make it barely more sane than choosing a paper aircraft like the F-35. The UK is ordering 232 at a cost (of the entire program) of around $30 billion USD meaning final unit cost comes to around $130 million per aircraft. I guess this would be cheaper once they have made a few, since this would include development costs. Ok I have found final costs for export.
Cost $58-63 Million (source www.aeronautics.ru...(Consortium).htm)

Gripen is a contender if a little old. South Africa has bought 28 for $1.5 Billion USD which makes for a unit cost of around $53million per 'plane? (cost includes spares and support I think) It's multirole and quite capable, but it's getting on a bit now.
Cost - $27.5 Million (source www.aeronautics.ru...)

Russian stuff is basically out of the question due to politics, otherwise with western avionics they would be quite formidable and affordable.

Su 27 is $30 Million


Rafale would be my choice, it's in service, it's twin engined (a factor in the F/A 18 getting chosen over the F-16 way back when), has been developed for Naval use. It's unit cost is around $52 million USD for the better models, a bit less for the B and C models. We also have a good relationship with the French having had a good run with the old Mirage 3s and now with Eurocopter getting a lot of our Army contracts. IT's actually being discounted while most others are moving up in price, they are also desperate to sell to an export market.
Cost - $48-52 Million (source www.aeronautics.ru...)


We could get old F-16s, F/A 18E/Fs etc as short term replacements but none really enhance the current capability at all.

Costs
F/A-18E/F -$54 million
F-15S - $60 million
F-15E - $45 million
(www.aeronautics.ru...)
F-16C/D -$27.5-30 Million (www.aeronautics.ru...)

Note on prices: For the sake of comparision I got the final prices from the single source website. I cannot vaouch for accuracy and obviously any real price would be decided after a tender process and considering local industry participation. Also note that Final costs I have put down are for the Aircaft only, most deals I mentioned also include spares and support which can just about double the cost of the aircraft and is what most deals take into account.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 01:25 AM
link   


Please, what he said was 100% correct. The TRUE threat they face is from China. They are the regional power, and are the only nation that would pose a threat to a US-Australian alliance.


Nope Indonesia is on Australia door step parts of should they start to buy large numbers of landing crafts I think Australia would be worried. This is unlikely but its possible that extremist could overthrow the Indonesian government.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 03:39 AM
link   
R988, I agree with you that Rafale would be a good choice of fighter for Australia, it was one of the planes I chose on my 'shortlist, however your post does contain several flaws which, if addressed doesd not not actually detract from the choice of Rafale but which will correct some misleading impressions you have there;

The first is that the Gripen is somehow 'long in the tooth'. This fighter became op-erational in 1997, it has been in service for less than a decade and is constantly upgraded with state of the art avionics upgrades thanks to its fully integrated 'programmable' nature, as there is not better aerodynamic layout for a light agile fighter than the one the Gripen uses this should not be a problem, however if it is taken as read that Australia wanted a twin jet then that would obviously count against it.

The other flaws in the post relate to the Typhoon, you appear to complain that it is barely in sevice, flawed and expensive yet advocate the F-22 Raptor, to which that description equally applies! Only more so. Each Raptor is about twice the unit cost of a Typhoon and also the unserviceability of the early Raptors has been much worse than was expected whilst the RAF has stated that the Introduction of the Typhoon has, so far, exceed expectations with the aircraft giving near 100% availability. Whilst obviously Raptors early problems are being and will be overcome it is all quite at odds with your view that buying Typhoon would be 'barely more sane than buying a paper aircraft'.

Also there is an inherent flaw in your cost analysis of the Typhoon, you state the RAF purchase of 232 aircraft and then use the total programme cost to calculate a rough unit cost. This is a tactic that anyone against Typhoon would do well to copy as it rather neatly ignores the fact that the Typhoon is also being built for Germany, Italy and Spain (plus Austria so far) and that the programme cost is actually spread over more than 600 airframes!

Still, as I said to start with, Rafale is a good choice of aircraft if less capable than either Typhoon or Raptor, that in itself is not really a problem and it is fairly close to Typhoon in a smaller airframe which can be flown off a carrier.


RAB

posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 04:12 AM
link   
I'd personally ask the RAF for (Some of the spare)Tornado GR4 with the EJ200 engines with that you get mssive range and the world lead martine strike and strike plane. add to that the storm shadow calcm and you have the recipe 4 some fun.

As the RAF is also getting rid of the F3 (bad move) replace the engines with the EJ200 and you have a very nice adv with massive range, good bvr detection add in the AMRAAM and all is good

The RB199 in the tornado and the EJ200 typhoon engines are very simlier to each other hence the upgrade would not be a major problem.

For anti-shipping the Auz could also buy the 4 Nimrod MR2 that we have decided not to upgrade.

But as they say it's all cash, I think you would have to be mad to attack Auz, in that the first thing that you would notice is hunderds of tomahawks and assorted things raining down on you in a few short hours.

I would think you could expect to lose you fuel supplys very quickly, I dare say the Auz SAS would be wondering around your country taking shots at high value targets within a few days if not within hours of a attack.

Just having a look to see what the US and UK currently have in Auz currently the RAF have a few hundred people in OZ and the US true to form and a few billion :-) I'm suew both the UK and US would get involved very quickly if needed

[edit on 13-3-2005 by RAB]



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 04:25 AM
link   
RAB you are right about that, the engines are so similar that Typhoons DA1 and DA2 first flew with RB199's installed, having EJ200's fitted later.

I think there is a discussion somewhere on this site about the UK fitting Tornadoes with EJ200'S, of course it is all down to cost and while the RAF would have loved to keep a couple of squadrons of F.3's in service, possibly upgraded with EJ200's, the govt position is more like 'you're getting the Typhoon, don't be greedy!'

An EJ200 powered re-lifed Tornado could make a good low cost purchase for smoebody!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join