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.

 

Australia confirms F/A-18F Purchase and eyes Growler EW variant

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by FredT
 


Fine, FredT,

then I would expect that (in your circumstance) it's just fine with you if Congress just buys the USAF whatever Congress thinks it needs without any input whatsoever from the USAF - because that's what we are talking about here.


And, no the RAAF did NOT see a need for the SH as a stop-gap for F-111 - the (then) Minister TOLD them that they had a requirement - which has now undoubtedly turned into a requirement because the F-111's have now begun de-commissioning. There is still no requirement for retaining SHs beyond the introduction of F-35 (and I'm not going to quibble about the time taken to get F-35 into service beyond the first delivery date).

There is still no service stated requirement for Growler, so the government (according to Australian government practices and regulations) has no right 'eyeing' any purchase of Growler!

But let's not allow any fundamental change in the way Australia buys stuff stand in the way of a good discussion of 'mines bigger than yours'

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 9/4/08 by The Winged Wombat]




posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by The Winged Wombat
 


WW,

Thats how the cookie crumbles. The USN did NOT want the Seawolf class sub. But 3 were built because influential congressmen decided that they needed to protect thier districts where the subs were to be built.

Im not saying its right but thats how it works in most countires. I said the same thing int he KC-45 thread.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 01:13 AM
link   
Well, there you go FredT.

Our great democracies are no better than the worst dictatorships when it comes to graft and corruption - what a bleeding surprise.

So let's stop claiming the high ground shall we.

The Winged Wombat



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
So let's stop claiming the high ground shall we.

The Winged Wombat


WW, the US lost the highground the moment it invaded Iraq



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 01:23 AM
link   
Indeed, FredT,

We are in agreement there. For too long the democracies have taken the high ground on the basis that democracy is intrinsically better than a dictatorship. A false premise indeed. It appears that Mr Bush has turned that falsehood (or is this now called 'misspeak') into a policy that justifies any obscenity.

The Winged Wombat



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 07:23 AM
link   
Relax Wombat,
I was not just indulging in fantasies or rolling over on Westpoint23's argument.

I think the way equipment selection is being carried out in this country these days SUCK'S!!, but I cant do jack about it. I totaly agree that no real argument or mandate for the SH selection has ever been properly put forward or justified by either the Govt or RAAF, and I have said as such here on ATS many times.

As for Westy's point, upon reflection I tend to agree with him that an EW component would be good EVEN with stealth capability, BUT as you point out a justification must be put forward by the powers that be. I dont want our tax dollars being piddled up against the pub latrine as it were on follies, any more than the next man. However I would have much rather seen the plan put forward by the USAF a few years back to reactivate and jointly operate a squadron of EF-111's put forward. On range, loiter and transit speed alone they would have made far more sense. But hey Im not some dumb ass politician looking to feather his political retirement bed now am I?(RE: Andrew Peacock syndrome).

LEE.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Well I think we can all do something about it - by continuing to point out that (apparently in another time) the actions of the former Minister (and potentially the current minister) could well be considered as graft and corruption, or at the very least to be well outside the parameters laid down that are supposed to govern the selection of equipment for Australian Forces.

In that light is is totally irrelevant to debate the 'suitability' or otherwise of something that is intrinsically corrupt or potentially illegal!

Apparently it cannot be corrected at the ballot box as it would appear that the current government is 'eyeing' equipment for which there is no official requirement. This is no different to the former minister buying equipment for which no official requirement existed.

It needs to be said and it needs to be remembered (at least as the point beyond which the professionals no longer have any say whatsoever in acquisitions or strategic planning).

The Winged Wombat



[edit on 9/4/08 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 09:16 AM
link   
RAAF likes the sound of the Growler



Mark Dodd | August 15, 2008

THE Rudd Government has sought US export approval for a cutting-edge electronic-warfare aircraft, the Growler, which is capable of performing escort and radar-jamming missions.

Designed for the US Navy, the Growler is a carrier-based electronic warfare version of the two-seat F/A-18F Super Hornet, 24 of which Australia has ordered at a cost of $6.7 billion.

Details of the approach were confirmed yesterday by the aircraft's maker, Boeing.

Canberra has not formally placed an order for the advanced military jet, but wanted clarification from Washington on whether the aircraft could be purchased at a future date.

Boeing's Super Hornet program manager, Carolyn Nichols, said from the company's St Louis head office: "The RAAF has submitted a formal request for release for the Growler to the US Government. The export release of the Growler to Australia is still in review and in progress.

Defence analysts told The Australian that about six Growlers would be needed to complement the Super Hornet fleet, the first of which will be delivered to the RAAF in 2010.

the australian

sweet if it goes ahead.
6 growlers.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   
I do not consider myself a defense expert but I am Australian, from the Aerospace industry and reasonably intelligent.
For my two-pence worth, the F-111 is clearly un-paralleled in the region, now or in the future.
Government assertions about it's availability, cost and longevity are clearly politically driven as per the 'Flying Blind' ABC assertion of a 'pro-F111' and 'anti-F111' set within defense (nb: Defence should note that while we take their advice, defence is a adjunct of government and elected officials will make the decisions, not 'bathtub admirals').
Anyway, the F-111 is irreplaceable so my suggestion is this:

Buy EF-111's instead of Growlers
Maintain at least 40 F-111's and buy all the remaining worthwhile F-111 airframes at AMARC for a song. The yanks are going to scrap them anyway.
Delay the F-35, keep the F-111 and F/A-18 A/F and buy the F-22 in say, 75 of thereabouts and wait for the FB-22 and replace the F-111 with that airframe.
If that doesn't eventuate then look for second hand B-1B Lacners. 15-20 should do the trick and will still be more advanced than anything else.
It is clear the F-35 and F/A-18F and Growler do not have anything approaching the combat radius of the F-111. While it is probably acceptable to employ front line something with say, the F-35 PLUS JASSM-ER range (equalling the F-111C) it will always give the RAAF an edge (unapproachable by our neighbours and potential adversaries due to cost) such as a medium to longe range strike capability that scares the 'crap' out of our neighbours and after 110 years of stable, equality driven, democracy, just gives us the edge to 'urge' our neighbours to do the right thing but keep a 'bloody big stick' up our sleeves just in case.
The USA has far too many competing priorities for us to rely on them as a regional defender.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   
You won't get Raptors or Lancers. They won't approve the Raptor for export, and the B-1 is too expensive to maintain, and won't be sold for a long time yet. It's a decent bird, but it's always having minor maintenance issues. Not sure if it's changed yet, but a crew chief told me once that there is no such thing as a fully mission capable B-1, because they all have minor little problems. And they're massively underpowered electrically. On climbout and decent they have to pick from deicing, or navigation systems, they can't have both. They use more nav systems during those two portions of flight, and the deicing would take too much power from them..



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Rocket47
 


The F-111 is simply not up to snuff with the current threat environment that the RAAF would face. politics aside its really that simple.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
reply to post by Rocket47
 


The F-111 is simply not up to snuff with the current threat environment that the RAAF would face. politics aside its really that simple.


Hi FredT,

Thanks for all your work on this forum.

Is there a link to anything which specifically states what the F-111 will be up against? It would help armchair amateurs like me to understand the situation better.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by answerman
 


Here is one thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Back in 2006 AWST had an article about the issue of F-111's facing current threats.

The proliferation of S-300 SAMS and AESA radars etc, have placed the F-111 at a distinct disadvantage in terms of its role as a strike/Interdiction aircraft.

Also the cost of maintaing the airframes is also getting to be quite expensive and most would need a complete rebuild by 2015 to remain airworthy.




The service life of the F-111 has been one of the most debated issues in Australian defense policy for a decade or more. At one time the aircraft was intended to serve as late as 2020, and some of its supporters have called for an even longer operational life.

The F-111’s backers say that no replacement can offer so great a payload-radius. Its critics, noting that the U.S. Air Force retired its last F-111 in 1996, say Australia cannot afford to maintain the small fleet of old and very complicated aircraft.

There have been worries about safety, too, with some military officials pointing to the likelihood of cracks in the strong but brittle D6ac steel of the wing carry-through structure.
www.aviationweek.com.../EA18031708.xml&headline=Australia+Eyes+E/A-18Gs,+Confirms+F/A-18Fs



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join