Australian Air Combat Musings, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 9-2-2007 @ 05:54 AM by Jezza
Australia to Buy 24 Super Hornets As Interim Gap-Filler to JSF?

DID has covered the recent controversies over Australia's involvement in the F-35 Lightning II program, amid criticisms that the new aircraft will be unable to compete with proliferating SU-30 family aircraft in the region, lacks the required range or response time, and will either be extremely expensive at $100+ million per aircraft in early (2013-2016) production or will not be available until 2018 or later.


Feb 6/07: Australia has submitted a formal request. The US DSCA has announced the $3.1 billion request and its details. In addition to the 24 F-18Es, Australia has requested:Feb 6/07: Australia has submitted a formal request. The US DSCA has announced the $3.1 billion request and its details. In addition to the 24 F-18Es, Australia has requested:

- 48 installed and 6 spare F414 engines
- 24 AN/APG-79 AESA radar systems
- 24 AN/USQ-140 Multifunctional Informational Distribution System Low Volume Terminals (MIDS-LVT Link 16)
- 30 AN/ALR-67(V)3 Electric Warfare Countermeasures Receiving Sets, the same kind that will also equip Australia's other Hornets after the ALR 2002 project's failure.
- Integration of the AN/ALE-47 Electronic Warfare Countermeasures Systems
- 145 LAU-127 Guided Missile Launchers. These wingtip launchers allow the plane to launch AIM-9 Sidewinders or medium-range AIM-120 AMRAAM air-air missiles.
- 30 AN/PVS-9 night vision goggles
- 12 Joint Mission Planning Systems
- AN/ALE-55 Fiber Optic Towed Decoys
- System integration and testing, software development/integration, test sets and support equipment, spare and repair parts, maintenance and pilot training, software support, publications and technical documents.



LINK

Looks like the purchase is on


reply posted on 11-2-2007 @ 02:52 PM by Willard856
Looks like there is a growing chorus of discontent regarding the Australian Super Hornet purchase.

Press article

I agree with the sentiment regarding failure to follow proper procurement policies, but for different reasons than the agenda being pushed by the various group in the article - I actually think proper analysis, with classified information (rather than the open source crap these groups rely on) would show that any gap, if it does exist, could be sorted in other ways rather than the purchase of new fighters. These groups keep pushing the F-22 because of Australia's apparent lack of capability against Su-30s, but I haven't seen a single shred of threat analysis to indicate where this apparent threat is going to come from. There needs to be more analysis to back up their point of view from both sides, instead of snap decision and emotive diatribe. It is starting to get more than a little embarrassing.


reply posted on 12-3-2007 @ 11:37 AM by Canada_EH
In my romp around the net came across this from aviation week. Its a story on the F/A-18 E/F's new radar that they need in order to trully finish the planes. Its sounds like they are running into some problems with it and that its a little slow on locking on etc. Either way doesn't sound too good for what to sending these things into combat in 08.

One other part about the story struck me was the last lines about fifth gen planes and comparing the 22/35 to the 18 and it almost sounds like he thinks the 18 cna do a better job in someway? As i said its confusing.

In the wake of the evaluation, Gaddis alluded to fifth generation capabilities for the AESA-equipped F/A-18Fs. Such claims raise the hackles of F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter program officials.

"There is no tactical fighter flying that is more effective in both air-to-air and air-to-ground [missions] as a Block II Hornet with AESA," Gaddis says. "It is the finest radar bomber in the world today. That goes for little platforms and big platforms" - a reference to the B-1 and B-2. The F-22 program has not yet completed its development of air-to-ground capabilities.

Critics of Gaddis' claim contend that cobbling together some pieces of the capability won't result in a fifth generation aircraft like the F-22 or F-35. "The whole point to fifth generation is the synergy of stealth, fusion and complete situational awareness," says a veteran Air Force fighter pilot. The point about fifth generation aircraft is that they can do their mission anywhere - even in sophisticated integrated air defense [IADS] environments. If you fly into heavy IADS with a great radar and sensor fusion, but no stealth, you will have complete situational awareness of the guy that kills you."


link: www.aviationweek.com...


reply posted on 19-3-2007 @ 08:58 AM by thebozeian
Originally posted by Willard856
I was actually quite surprised by the 60 Minutes story. I thought they went quite lightly on him all things considered. And they didn't even mention the Super Hornet. As an aside, the reported was violently ill during the flight.
.



Hey its 60 Min's, not 4 Corners they were NEVER going to ask the hard questions, Im actually surprised they queried him at all. Like I said I wouldn't have been surprised if Chnl 9 had signed up Naomi Robson for the story. Would have LOVED... no paid! to see her barf all over the back of a Sqn leaders bang seat



From both the 60 Minutes and 7:30 reports stories, I'm getting a little sick of ex-serving members jumping up and down saying we shouldn't get this, or should get that, without providing an evidence or discussion. I'm not saying they are necessarily wrong, but I do think they need to give reasons for there point of view.
.



Yeah but without proper analysis by government these are the only forums these Ex brass have got to publicly voice there concern. Lets face it a 10 min story doesn't give you much time to get your point across and 3/4 of the interview ends up on the cutting room floor. And in any case the minister and current DoD leaders haven't done any better either. Although didnt AVM (retd) Peter Criss make submissions to the Senate standing committee on Defence over this? I seem to remember he or another retired RAAF leader detailing why the F-22 was better suited. He also had a story in "The Age" or "The Australian" in the last couple of days that outlines some of his reasoning. There appears to be a link to it on APA's website. But in general your right BOTH sides are not giving their arguments properly.

LEE.





[edit on 19-3-2007 by thebozeian]

[edit on 19-3-2007 by thebozeian]


reply posted on 19-3-2007 @ 09:31 AM by thebozeian
Originally posted by kojac
Any idea's on why our Minister for Defence suggested the F-35 would be better suited to our environment than the F-22?


Thats the problem kojac, neither he or the brass will give real reasons because they broke the golden proccurement rule of not doing ANY real analysis in the first place. All he can offer is the following qoute.

"It's the five percent of this aircraft's capability that is classified to which I have had privileged access and, that's the five percent that really counts. And that's why this is the correct aircraft for us."

Oh well thats just comforting Dr Nelson you pull out the old "thats classified" crap and we should just trust you. Of course he didn't mention the classified 5% of the F-22's capabilities I note, nor any other aircraft.

Hypothetically, would the Yanks even have sold us the F-22?


The USAF did begin an analysis of export suitability to Australia between 99-01 under the LOEXCOM directive. It was cut short when we leapt into the F-35 decision, but the gist of it at the time was that the RAAF presented no greater risk of technology ending up in the wrong hands than the USAF. Therefore if a direct PM to President request was made it is likely to be looked on favourably. The USAF would be keen to see the build numbers increase to reduce per unit costs as this adds weight to there argument for more Raptors, so there are unlikely to be any stumbling blocks there.

The often quoted letter from US deputy defence secretary Gordon England claiming the US wont export the Raptor appears to be a Canberra spin job. I havent seen a copy of it but the handfull of journalists who did see it seem to indicate that what it was really talking about was the "Obey Ammendment". This was a bill that was passed in the US that denied the abillity for the Government to use taxpayer funds to market the aircraft. That is NOT the same thing as saying export is denied.

LEE.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



In Case Of Videos Of Flying People
  Posted 12 days ago with 9 member flags
First flight for \'flapless\' plane - the Evolution of Aviation
  Posted 15 days ago with 4 member flags
F22 mishap or more that meeets the eye?
  Posted 4 days ago with 4 member flags
Boeing X-37 and X-40 - the ultimate history
  Posted 8 days ago with 3 member flags
Its a bird, its a plane, no its a ....
  Posted 17 days ago with 0 member flags