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.
Originally posted by Daedalus3
What needs to be seen is the wingloading.
Originally posted by Daedalus3
AESA and all that jazz gives comparable results to the fatass Ruskie radars.
Well actually not only could such a capability be easily fitted onto the F-15 via software, it has already been done. The South Korean operated F-15K, has such a capability. The South Koreans operate the F-15K, much like the RAAF, deep strike, maritime strike and in limited air operations. Their F-15's have already been configured to carry several advanced munitions with plans to integrate several other weapons to the F-15E's already impressive list of munitions (notice the naval capable munitions) which far surpass that of the F-111 in terms of diversity, capability and ability to carry (a large number) in a single aircraft. Never mind the advances in terms of avionics and sensors which would make the F-15E that much more lethal.
it would appear that there is no adequate replacement for the F-111 in our specific role, so the best option would have been to continue to upgrade the Pig and wait for something else to come along.... It is apparent that the F-35 won't do the specific job either.... which just adds weight to the question about why we are in the program in the first place.
Originally posted by Harlequin
again you have the assumption that `made in america` = better , it does not.
Originally posted by Harlequin
you do not know the full capabilities of the NO11M bars can do...
Originally posted by Harlequin
so you are again assuming that just because its PESA therefore its inferior to AESA especially those on USAF and USN aircraft.
So one minute he tells us there are no delays in the F-35, and the next he says there are, like we were always told that. Love to know what they are smoking in Canberra.
Delays in the JSF program underscored the need for acquiring a modern multi-role platform, Defence Minister Dr Brendan Nelson said.
So the US Air Force is looking at the Super Hornet as well if I read this correctly. Is this another hint at the F-35 programs true state?
The decision to buy the Super Hornet has led to renewed interest in the F/A-18F Block 2 aircraft by Canada, Switzerland and even the US Air Force, which would have preferred Australia to choose the F-15E Strike Eagle, Mr Gower said
Now the bit about Boeing Australia's size surprised me. However it is precisely that which underlines the real reason for the Super Hornet decision, influence and jobs in an election year.
Australian industries could make huge gains as a result of the Super Hornet sale, including involvement in lucrative support for USN Super Hornets, he said.
Boeing Australia is second only in size to Boeing US and employs more than 4000 people.
Originally posted by thebozeian
So the US Air Force is looking at the Super Hornet as well if I read this correctly. Is this another hint at the F-35 programs true state?
Originally posted by thebozeian
However it is precisely that which underlines the real reason for the Super Hornet decision, influence and jobs in an election year.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
Maybe, but perhaps it could have something to do with the unprecedented level of cooperation and consultation the RAAF received form the US and Boeing. As the article sates they were briefed by both Boeing and the USN on the full capabilities of the Super Hornet and offered an almost identical copy with full technology transfer. Not to mention not covering any R/D cost and buying it at USN prices.
Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
It really doesn't matter if the SH is good, bad or indifferent in this case. Let me state it one more time. The RAAF has said publicly - We don't need it and we don't want it!!!!
Put it this way - if what you say about the USAF and SH is correct (and I don't question that in any way), would you think there was something fishy going on if your Secretary of Defense suddenly ordered a whole bunch of them for the USAF? Same situation exactly!
Originally posted by thebozeian
Now given all that do you really think that the deal could still be considered "clean"?
Originally posted by WestPoint23
[On a slightly different note, has anyone considered that Australia may have wanted to have one naval capable fighter (i.e. ship launched) squadron just in case in the near future it receives some sort of carrier capability. I admit this is very unlikely and far off but interesting nonetheless...