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.

 

AUS set to cancel Super Hornet order

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 09:40 AM
link   
watto,

I'm only plucking the figure of 15 years as an example (Really the timescale of F-35 deliveries is still pretty vague). Australia plans to replace both the F-111 and the F/A-18A with F-35. The purchase of the F/A-18F is supposed to be a stop-gap to cover the gap between the sustainable life of the F-111s and the delivery of the F-35s.

So while it might be quite desirable tactically to convert a few F/A-18Fs to Growlers, I cannot really see the RAAF maintaining 4 or 5 'orphaned' Growlers once the F-35s are in service and all the other Hornets are gone. (As an example this situation would have been part of the decision by the USAF to retire its Spark Varks once the F-111 and FB-111 variants had gone thereby leaving the USN in the same situation with EA-6B). I guess you could say we would be creating a situation with Growler that the USN is trying to solve with Growler.

Alternatively, we could keep the Super Hornets and reduce our order for F-35 (as well as convert a few SHs to Growler config), but this conflicts with the plan to replace the two existing types with a single type - it leaves us in much the same logistic situation that we are are in now. There is, of course the added international ramifications for the F-35 program if we do reduce or cancel our planned purchase of them.

So it is not merely a matter of which aircraft is best for the job, but is complicated by pressure brought by the various manufacturer lobbies, the desires of the US Administration, and in some respects what the USAF decides to do regarding their F-15 fleet (as this may affect availability of new build F-15s in the short to medium term).

So really there are three commonality scenarios.....

F/A-18A and F/A-18F until F-35 arrives,
F-15 variants for both roles with a delayed purchase of F-35, and
the planned F-35 purchase itself.

If the first option is selected, we still have to buy F-35 when it is available, because the F/A-18As need replacing and the conversion to Growler would be mighty expensive and in the name of commonality would have to be replaced once the F-35s are delivered.

The Winged Wombat




posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 03:22 PM
link   
I think the F35 is the wrong choice for a country like Australia. It isnt long ranged. They need a successor to the F111 not a plane with a different purpose in mind. They need a plane with a long range the f35 is not a long ranged strike plane.

It seems the only viable option for them i would think would be a flanker variant....



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Winged Womat,
All understood mate and I agree. I'm just one of these maintainers who has seen how easily things go to poo, I don't like the idea of putting all our eggs in one basket so to speak.
Working on pigs makes you realise how good two engines really are. Sure reliability of engines these days is alot better but that doesn't help when it sucks in a bird. It is mainly for this reason I don't like the idea of the F-35 or any single engine jet. Purely personal opinion of course.

Imagine in a hypothetical world, we've been flying F-35s for 5 yrs or so (only type in inventory) and a maintenance issue comes up and the fleet is grounded.
What now?
Do we rely upon AP-3Cs with harpoons and torpedos to defend the country?
Granted we may not be looking down the eyes of an invasion force at the moment but that's the sort of things the defence planners should be considering in my view.

Sorry for getting sidetracked there, doesn't really apply to the topic heading I suppose...

Oh and I REALLY can't see us getting any Flanker type airframe, it's going to be either U.S. or European.

[edit on 10-1-2008 by watto]



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 06:23 PM
link   
imho that is not even the real issue. The F35 even in service is not fit for the same role as the F111. The F111 replacement needs to be a F111 like plane.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Okay, those "in the know" correct me if I am wrong, but...

Wasn't part of the whole Rhino brouhaha the fact that the government of Little Johnny Wayward seemed to have suddenly and, apparrently incorrectly, shortened Pig's projected service life? Despite the fact that there are no actual problems with Pig.

Therefore, if this is true, there is no requirement for a new strike plane at all until JSF enters service. While the US are talking about a mid-century retirement for the Stratofort, the RAAF had been discussing a 2020-2025 retirement for the Pig.

(On a side note, it seems to me that in the last decade (and a half?) the US have not been great friends to us when it comes to military aquisitions. There were grumblings about the price paid for ships that required huge renovation and extra spending, we chose M1 Abrams to replace our Leos when the M1 is (by some analysts) regarded as inferior in non-tank v tank combat to the C1 and it is unlikely Australian tanks will in the future be in the vanguard of advancing armour forces and now we've had an extremely expensive 'plane pushed on us when there was no need for a new one at all.)



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 02:19 AM
link   
tomcat ha,

While I would agree that the best replacement for an F-111 is another F-111 in our situation, the fact is that there really is nothing available on the Western side of the fence that will do it (short of bananas in pajamas and Buffs). The US doctrine is to use tankers just outside the combat area to get the bombs on target, but in our case, we end up with a scenario looking more like 'Black Buck' than Iraq. The US doctrine is flawed in that the US Navy just didn't have the tanker range to play a really active part in Afghanistan - but of course, the big bombers filled that gap.

watto,

I agree with your single/twin engine argument. I also believe it is an argument for F-15s or ultimately F-22s. Our situation with vast areas of land without even grass strips mitigates against single engined aircraft (just as it does with Canada), and I would have thought that Mirage vs Hornet experience would have proven that. Unfortunately, the only new strike aircraft on the horizon is the F-35 - perhaps another argument to delay purchase of it and go for upgraded F-15s pending a twin engined striker.

The matter of a grounding of a type which we use for both roles is a very real problem which has to be balanced against the cost savings of using a single type (Might I suggest that in the world of force multipliers, using one single engined type to fill multiple roles could be defined as a force divider!). This is the reason I have been so scathing about what I choose to call US over-optimism concerning the airframe life of the F-15. It doesn't matter if it is over-optimism, graft or corruption, or faulty manufacturing - in our situation we don't (and never will) have the luxury that the USAF has of substantial F-16s, the resources of the USN or nearby Canadians to help out if our 'F-15s' (substitute whatever we actually buy) get prematurely grounded.

HowlrunnerIV,

Indeed this is the crux of the controversy surrounding the F/A-18F. However we still need a replacement for the F-111 and F/A-18A within a 'short' timespan - ie:- we need a replacement that is either available right now, or at least is in testing at the moment - anything else would leave a capability gap. Whether the F-111s can or cannot be maintained until the 2020s is somewhat of a red herring, as it still has to be replaced by something that is further along than just the drawing board (anyone seriously - not just wish list - want to make a case for B-1s?). Unfortunately, what we really need to adequately replace these types doesn't currently exist, isn't available, or comes from the 'wrong' side of the fence, and there is very little that we can do about it.

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 11/1/08 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 06:33 AM
link   
That is why i think western countries should get over must order western systems and should get a flanker variant but it isnt that simple.. :|



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by The Winged Wombat
 


Thanks for giving the big C its dues in that rant there WW. To often is it over looked that not just the RAAf but the CF are in ver similar spots so a aircraft that works for one will most likely work for the other. Since this graph has helped me out in the past I'll post it again as I is a good visual comparision with these aircraft.....

Actually I'm going to do a bit of up date work to it but soon enough.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 08:24 AM
link   
teh sad fact is the RAAF and CF won`t order the SU-34 , even though it is ideal for there missions - a new order for Strike Eagles? quite propably though.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
teh sad fact is the RAAF and CF won`t order the SU-34 , even though it is ideal for there missions - a new order for Strike Eagles? quite propably though.


Yeah, That is a sad fact for sure!

The SU-34 is IDEAL for Australia, and in combination with the SU-35, it will be a force off epic proportions!



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 06:51 PM
link   
The Su-34 replaces for Tu-23M and Su-24 aircraft. Su-34 is one of a number of Russian aircraft, Su-27, Su-30, Su-33 and Su-35, which have been given the NATO codename Flanker.

The Su-34 fighter bomber is a derivative of the Su-27 fighter aircraft. The aircraft design retains the basic layout and construction of the Su-27 airframe, with a conventional high-wing configuration and a substantial part of the onboard equipment.

The Su-34 has a changed contour of the nose section to accommodate an advanced multi-mode phased array radar with terrain following and terrain avoidance modes. It has a two-seat rather than single-seat cockpit. The capacity of the internal fuel tanks has been increased with a resulting increased take-off weight. Changes have been made to the central tail boom for a rear-facing radar.

link
fullback

2nd link shows rage charts etc.
Yes i know AUS wont get but it IS an awesome beast indeed



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 07:28 PM
link   
The matter of a Flanker derivative for Australia is interesting, if only from the observation that it is spoken of on this forum as if it were something that could happen purely by a (somewhat rogue) decision on the part of Kevin Rudd and his government.

What nobody has mentioned is the fact that Russia is about as likely to offer Australia anything with the capability of, say, India's Su-30 as they would be to offer it to Britain, Canada, Israel, Japan or indeed the USA.

Let's be real here - the Indians are not using their radars in exercises with Western forces - and it is obvious that they would have agreed to that sort of condition long before any agreement was reached on them receiving the aircraft.

Any such purchase by Australia would only be on the basis that there was nothing at all available for our needs, rather than any weakening of ties with America (ie:- merely a trade matter rather than one of international political alignment).

So no matter how well it might suit our requirements, a Flanker derivative of any real capability is far less likely to be available to us that a full capability F-22.

Therefore any such political 'threat' on the part of the Rudd government as leverage to get hold of F-22 would be hollow in the extreme. I reckon America would dearly love to see Australia with a couple of squadrons of Su-30s (mate, the US would pay for them on our behalf!) - I'm sure it would boost 'tourism' from America to Australia, if only in the number of spooks arriving here for their vacations.


So banish any thought of Australian Su-30s from your minds, not only won't it happen - ideologically and politically, it simply is not possible!

Likewise, while we have very good economic ties with China (and probably better diplomatic ties with them that has America), I don't think anyone would image that they would sell us J-10 for instance.

Canada_EH,

Aussies and Canadians have much in common, and not only our geographic situations and parallels, but our view of life, multi-cultural society and the world. I would suggest that the vast majority of people here with an interest in the military/political world are very aware of the contributions by Canada to NATO and UN peacekeeping operations around the world. May I say a contribution far in excess of what could be reasonably expected of a nation of your size / economy / population. Go Canucks! (raises a Labatt in salute
)

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 11/1/08 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Jezza
 



The Su-34 replaces for Tu-23M and Su-24 aircraft. Su-34 is one of a number of Russian aircraft, Su-27, Su-30, Su-33 and Su-35, which have been given the NATO codename Flanker.



Su-34 is not a Flanker, its a Fullback.

[edit on 12-1-2008 by waynos]



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 06:39 AM
link   
whilst the SU-34 IS based upon the flanker - its so much different that it has its own reporting name - Fullback.


Just sell Invincible with sea harrier to AUS so they get a real navy



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


With all the Gorshkov problems the IN's having, I might actually have to conced that the Harleguin - HMS Invincible Garage Sale is no a bad idea for more than one navy..


Great points on the Oz Su analysis WWombat. Really makes you think about the ground realities.

Would like to post more on this later..



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 11:43 AM
link   
LOL

i do think though with `hermes` now very very old tbh the INS would do well with invincible , use the harriers for a few more years and have a good carrier capability.

theres also some low life new aiframes knocking about spare as well



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by The Winged Wombat
 


That last part is worth like 3 stars but alas I can only give one! A couple of very good thoughts about the Su-34 and its ability to be sold to what is viewed as a western country be it Aus or Can. Its tough to say that it will never ever happen but your right to say the limiting factor is political and not money etc.

WW if Canada and the Aussie's got the respect that was due to them for going into Afghanistan and trying to keep on rebuilding the country when the US left to go fight the pointless war in Iraq we would be heros lol. Not to mention we are trying to do it with defense budgets half or less the size of the US.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   
The USAF has also released a CG video of the event.




On 2 November, 2007, a Missouri Air National Guard Boeing F-15C had just entered a mock dogfight when the pilot felt something was wrong with his aircraft. Seconds later, the Eagle broke in two and the pilot ejected from a tumbling cockpit.

Using HUD camera recordings and other data, the US Air Force has reconstructed the circumstances surrounding the accident, which occurred during routine basic fighter manoeuvre (BFM) training involving four F-15s.

The mishap aircraft, serial number 80-0034 and call sign Mick 2



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Canada_EH,

This is somewhat off topic, but does nave some bearing on the overall subject of military purchases.

I feel that the US is not fully aware of the capabilities (or enforced lack thereof) available to their allies.

There is an interesting article by John Lake in Air International (January 2008, Part 1 of 2), examining the RAF as it approaches it's 90th Anniversary. In it he states that the RAF is now smaller than the US Coast Guard in manpower and has less than half as many front line squadrons as the US Marine Corp.

Now I am aware that there is a feeling in some quarters within the US that the US 'has to do most of' whatever needs to be done militarily in the world.

Considering the much smaller economies and therefore military organizations of Australia and Canada (even in comparison with Britain), Americans might find it sobering to consider just how much our two countries contribute when comparatively we have so little to start with. Hey, I'm not crying poor here - we both have strong economies and high end living standards - but somehow, I don't think Americans really comprehend the ramifications of the fact that our populations are less than 1/10th of theirs, nor that our national land masses (which we are bound to defend and administer) are not dissimilar to their own.

So, when asking Australia and Canada to do more on the International stage, it would be well for Americans to consider their own reactions if they had only 1/10th of the military assets that they actually have, or alternatively if they were to be taxed 10 times what they presently are to have their current forces.

Consideration of this reality might bring home to America the importance of the decisions we have to make when considering military equipment for our needs. In a high-tech modern world, we simply cannot afford to buy even a single 'lemon', or to buy two platforms when a single platform will do two jobs.

As a single example, I recall a situation during an International exercise conducted in Australia in which a US squadron of F-16s participated. This squadron was most unhappy to discover that they were expected to operate by both day and night (protesting 'But we are a day fighter squadron'). Simply put, a country with the population of Australia or Canada cannot afford the luxury of separate day and night fighter squadrons - we need to have something that does both, or increase taxes by a factor of 10!

The Winged Wombat



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


Oh the IN has longterm plans for the Harrier. Plans that extend operations till 2015 I believe. However at the rate the IN's losing harriers now, new procurements will have to be made if the class is to remain 2015!
Half the Harrier fleet (~15 a/c?) have been lost to accidents. In fact I think we lost one last month!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join