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 FA-18F purchase problems exposed on TV
page: 1share:
For those who have the bandwidth and an hour to spare I would recommend watching the online version of the ABC TV (Australia) program "4 corners"
story this week on the RAAF Super Hornet purchase. For those who dont have the bandwidth or time there is a transcript available of the story on the
sidebar of the page.
Seems quite a few credible people are less than impressed, and our defence minister has some explaining to do. View it here on the 4 corners website. It also reveals some very unsettling news about how they arrived at the wrong conclusion that the F-111 was in danger of suffering from structural failures. There are also some interesting little scenarios played out by the former heads of the RAAF and the recently sidelined head of RAAF air warfare studies.
See what you think and draw your own conclusions.
LEE.
[edit on 30-10-2007 by thebozeian]
Seems quite a few credible people are less than impressed, and our defence minister has some explaining to do. View it here on the 4 corners website. It also reveals some very unsettling news about how they arrived at the wrong conclusion that the F-111 was in danger of suffering from structural failures. There are also some interesting little scenarios played out by the former heads of the RAAF and the recently sidelined head of RAAF air warfare studies.
See what you think and draw your own conclusions.
LEE.
[edit on 30-10-2007 by thebozeian]
Well I read the article under the pic. It leads me to ask, 1) if its so inferior to the Su-27 then why does the USA sill fly a large number of them?
2) Exactly who does Australia need to defend itself from? Can China sneak up on Australia in a fleet of Su-27's? I doubt it because they would need
to be midair refueled and China doesnt have any supercarriers so they cant bring them to Australia's homeland in any great number without abviously
showing hostility.
And I say China while leaving ou Russia and the others since China would have the best chance at getting to Australia by surprise why any kind of plane because of it location.
Australia to my limited knowledge doesnt have the security probels the US and European countries face. They are isolated and relatevely safe from a sneak attack. But if one where to ake place you can bet the US's supercarriers in the Indian Oceana and Pacific Ocean would be steaming south to assist in any way needed.
The Super Hornet is a great plane. Is is older? Of course. But its electronics; aviation, weapons, logistics.... are all well updated and likely the best the US has. Can the Su-27 out manuever it and outperform as far as plane structural usage, probably but I doubt it weapons system is as good and today most ingagements are dont when flying straight on and shooting the other guy BVR.
On the Australian side; keep the F-111's unless you expect a major conflict before 2014. Go ahead and put that money into F-35 ordes since we need as many as we can get.
On the US side; order all that are available so the DoD can use that money for more R&D and purchases of its own.
And I say China while leaving ou Russia and the others since China would have the best chance at getting to Australia by surprise why any kind of plane because of it location.
Australia to my limited knowledge doesnt have the security probels the US and European countries face. They are isolated and relatevely safe from a sneak attack. But if one where to ake place you can bet the US's supercarriers in the Indian Oceana and Pacific Ocean would be steaming south to assist in any way needed.
The Super Hornet is a great plane. Is is older? Of course. But its electronics; aviation, weapons, logistics.... are all well updated and likely the best the US has. Can the Su-27 out manuever it and outperform as far as plane structural usage, probably but I doubt it weapons system is as good and today most ingagements are dont when flying straight on and shooting the other guy BVR.
On the Australian side; keep the F-111's unless you expect a major conflict before 2014. Go ahead and put that money into F-35 ordes since we need as many as we can get.
On the US side; order all that are available so the DoD can use that money for more R&D and purchases of its own.
Originally posted by SenHeathen
Well I read the article under the pic. It leads me to ask, 1) if its so inferior to the Su-27 then why does the USA sill fly a large number of them?
Because the US would never buy someone else's aircraft, and they're still producing stuff that's considered better.
2) Exactly who does Australia need to defend itself from?
Actually, I've been asking the same question as well, except with Canada instead of Australia.
Can China sneak up on Australia in a fleet of Su-27's?
A better question: Can you sneak up on anything with a single Su-27, let alone a fleet of them?
On the Australian side; keep the F-111's unless you expect a major conflict before 2014. Go ahead and put that money into F-35 ordes since we need as many as we can get.
I don't know, I'd say that the F-35 is overkill for Australia. My advice would be to either a) wait until the F-35 enters full production, and then get the Super Hornets at a cheaper price than they are now (and thus skip the F-35) or b) buy Russian. I'll get assailed for this, but there's nothing wrong with aircraft that perform for a cheap price. They've got fair ranges, and they're no slouches.
On the US side; order all that are available so the DoD can use that money for more R&D and purchases of its own.
Just what the DoD needs, more money for new toys .
[edit on 10/30/2007 by Darkpr0]
Watched like half of it, and I found it to be extremely biased. They only interviewed people against the F-18 and didn't even bother to look at
things from the other side.
Having said that, I don't understand why in the world Australia can't wait about 7 more years for the F35. It's not like there's an imminent threat or anything like that.
Having said that, I don't understand why in the world Australia can't wait about 7 more years for the F35. It's not like there's an imminent threat or anything like that.
Right. A few thoughts from someone who understands some of these issues. I’ll state up front that this is all my opinion, and no-one else’s. It
does not necessarily represent Defence’s view, or the view of any other party. It does not contain any classified information, or provide insights
that could compromise classified information. I haven’t watched the program, but have simply read the transcript. All quotes below are from this
transcript, which can be found at:
Transcript
Yes, the Sukhois are a good platform. But you just can’t analyse the platform in isolation from other considerations – training, tactics, supporting infrastructure, network centricity, operational environment. It flies higher? Than what? In what context? And herein lies the problem people – failure to compare apples with apples. Sure, the Su series have certain strengths, but so do other aircraft, especially the Super Hornet. Generalising the Sukhois as just “better” is like saying a BMW is just “better” than any other car. Which may be true in some areas, but not others. And as for weapons, if the Wing Commander truly believes this, then I worry about any air warfare strategy he has worked on in the last six years.
No Carlo, it isn’t that simple. I’m sure you’d like the viewership to believe it is, but anyone who has even a basic understanding of air combat will realize that it isn’t simple by any stretch of the imagination.
So what? No one has bought the Rafale, does this make it a bad fighter? Only one other country has bought the Typhoon. Sales does not equal capability. If it did, then yes, the Sukhois would be the greatest fighter ever built.
Neither can I Peter. Which is why I have confidence that this isn’t the case. Did the Government do the usual level of capability analysis to arrive at a decision such as this? I don’t think so, and it is my biggest criticism of the purchase. But that does not necessarily mean it is the wrong purchase.
Peter Criss didn’t leave the military on good terms. Here’s a link that goes into details. I’m not going to comment on whether the allegations are true or not – I simply don’t know. But viewers (or readers) should at least realize that Peter’s point of view is likely to be negative based on his experiences. Another thing to consider is Peter’s understanding of the modern air combat environment. His knowledge is based on Sabre, Mirage and F-111 flying. And the senior ranks don’t have the in-depth understanding of the modern air combat platforms. Without going into detail of how headquarters and air operations centres are structured and function, it is still the FLTLT/SQNLDR level weapons qualified aircrew that have this knowledge, and provide advice to the commander on what to do.
www.smh.com.au...
This is a good opportunity to look at the F-111 purchase, considering the vitriol about the F-35 purchase. People seem to have forgotten the problems surrounding the F-111, the criticism that it didn’t meet any identified needs, that it needed substantial upgrades just to keep it relevant and flying. And check out the time stamp. “At least to 1985”. And here we are 20 years later and it is still flying. Not bad for a platform that was so maligned in it’s early days.
No, it has contributed to Australia’s air superiority. And in fact, if you took the F-111 out of the equation, we could still maintain air superiority through legacy Hornets (albeit at a much reduced level). Take the Hornets out, and leave the F-111, and you can’t attain air superiority in any circumstance (the F-111 has only the barest minimum of air to air capability, being self protection only). Don’t get me wrong, the F-111 ability to conduct offensive counter air is great, but it isn’t the be all and all.
Here’s another fundamental error. You don’t replace systems, you replace capability. You can’t simply say that because the F-111 can go this fast, this high, and drop this many bombs, that the replacement needs to do this as well. You replace capability based on identified requirements or needs. In fact, an aircraft may not be the solution. And again, I agree that this has been the fundamental flaw in the JSF/Super Bug purchase – lack of rigorous capability analysis.
So, he was a contractor? Maybe he too has a clouded view of Defence at the moment. Context is everything. When did he leave the RAAF? He isn’t exactly well known in the fighter world.
You can make any aircraft fly for “virtually forever”. Whether it still delivers the required level of capability is a totally different question. And would have been a better question. The Spitfire still flies. Doesn’t mean it can take out a Flanker. But then again, what can?
A force of Sopwith Camels could have done it given the terrible state of Indonesia’s ground based air defence capability, lack of flight hours, and pitiful weapon supply.
I’m going to assume that he said A4s in the actual show rather than A9s. Because that would be embarrassing. But at least he confirms my understanding of the Indonesian Air Defence System.
16 000 pounds!? Jesus, how big is this communications headquarters? And what is the actual effect you are trying to achieve? If it is to simply stop communications, there are better ways to do it. And with less high explosive floating around. Collateral damage anyone?
More to follow...
Transcript
WING COMMANDER CHRIS MILLS (RTD), DEFENCE AIR WARFARE STRATEGIST 2001-07: It’s a formidable weapon, flies higher, faster, further, it turns better and it's got better weapons.
Yes, the Sukhois are a good platform. But you just can’t analyse the platform in isolation from other considerations – training, tactics, supporting infrastructure, network centricity, operational environment. It flies higher? Than what? In what context? And herein lies the problem people – failure to compare apples with apples. Sure, the Su series have certain strengths, but so do other aircraft, especially the Super Hornet. Generalising the Sukhois as just “better” is like saying a BMW is just “better” than any other car. Which may be true in some areas, but not others. And as for weapons, if the Wing Commander truly believes this, then I worry about any air warfare strategy he has worked on in the last six years.
DR CARLO KOPP, AIR POWER AUSTRALIA: In most of the engagements scenarios that we could postulate the Super Hornet would get shot down. It’s as simple as that.
No Carlo, it isn’t that simple. I’m sure you’d like the viewership to believe it is, but anyone who has even a basic understanding of air combat will realize that it isn’t simple by any stretch of the imagination.
ANDREW FOWLER: Australia is the only country in the world to have purchased the Super Hornet outside America.
So what? No one has bought the Rafale, does this make it a bad fighter? Only one other country has bought the Typhoon. Sales does not equal capability. If it did, then yes, the Sukhois would be the greatest fighter ever built.
AIR VICE-MARSHAL PETER CRISS (RTD), AIR COMMANDER AUSTRALIA 1999-2000: I cannot believe that we would waste $6.6 billion of the taxpayer’s money on an aeroplane that has no practical use against any modern, new generation fighter coming into our arc of interest to our north.
Neither can I Peter. Which is why I have confidence that this isn’t the case. Did the Government do the usual level of capability analysis to arrive at a decision such as this? I don’t think so, and it is my biggest criticism of the purchase. But that does not necessarily mean it is the wrong purchase.
Peter Criss didn’t leave the military on good terms. Here’s a link that goes into details. I’m not going to comment on whether the allegations are true or not – I simply don’t know. But viewers (or readers) should at least realize that Peter’s point of view is likely to be negative based on his experiences. Another thing to consider is Peter’s understanding of the modern air combat environment. His knowledge is based on Sabre, Mirage and F-111 flying. And the senior ranks don’t have the in-depth understanding of the modern air combat platforms. Without going into detail of how headquarters and air operations centres are structured and function, it is still the FLTLT/SQNLDR level weapons qualified aircrew that have this knowledge, and provide advice to the commander on what to do.
www.smh.com.au...
REPORTER: These F-111s are the aircraft on which Australia will rely as its main strike force at least until 1985.
This is a good opportunity to look at the F-111 purchase, considering the vitriol about the F-35 purchase. People seem to have forgotten the problems surrounding the F-111, the criticism that it didn’t meet any identified needs, that it needed substantial upgrades just to keep it relevant and flying. And check out the time stamp. “At least to 1985”. And here we are 20 years later and it is still flying. Not bad for a platform that was so maligned in it’s early days.
For more than 30 years the F-111 has ensured Australia’s air superiority in the region.
No, it has contributed to Australia’s air superiority. And in fact, if you took the F-111 out of the equation, we could still maintain air superiority through legacy Hornets (albeit at a much reduced level). Take the Hornets out, and leave the F-111, and you can’t attain air superiority in any circumstance (the F-111 has only the barest minimum of air to air capability, being self protection only). Don’t get me wrong, the F-111 ability to conduct offensive counter air is great, but it isn’t the be all and all.
Whatever was to replace the F-111 would have to be an extraordinary aircraft.
Here’s another fundamental error. You don’t replace systems, you replace capability. You can’t simply say that because the F-111 can go this fast, this high, and drop this many bombs, that the replacement needs to do this as well. You replace capability based on identified requirements or needs. In fact, an aircraft may not be the solution. And again, I agree that this has been the fundamental flaw in the JSF/Super Bug purchase – lack of rigorous capability analysis.
Chris Mills is a former fighter pilot. He’s speaking out for the first time. Until three months ago he was contracted to the Defence Department as an Air War Strategist. He knows the F-111 back to front.
So, he was a contractor? Maybe he too has a clouded view of Defence at the moment. Context is everything. When did he leave the RAAF? He isn’t exactly well known in the fighter world.
WING COMMANDER CHRIS MILLS (RTD), DEFENCE AIR WARFARE STRATEGIST 2001-07: It’s fast, can fly high, it can fly for extremely long distance and with some investment it could be made extremely competitive.
ANDREW FOWLER (to Chris Mills): How long could it fly for?
WING COMMANDER CHRIS MILLS (RTD), DEFENCE AIR WARFARE STRATEGIST 2001-07: Virtually forever.
You can make any aircraft fly for “virtually forever”. Whether it still delivers the required level of capability is a totally different question. And would have been a better question. The Spitfire still flies. Doesn’t mean it can take out a Flanker. But then again, what can?
ANDREW FOWLER: His mission - to take out a military communications headquarters on the outskirts of Jakarta. Could a force of F-111’s have been capable of such an operation?
A force of Sopwith Camels could have done it given the terrible state of Indonesia’s ground based air defence capability, lack of flight hours, and pitiful weapon supply.
WING COMMANDER CHRIS MILLS (RTD), DEFENCE AIR WARFARE STRATEGIST 2001-07 (in war room): I don't have any really competent surface-to-air missiles that are going to operate in that environment. I've got some F-16s and A9s and no surface-to-air missiles.
I’m going to assume that he said A4s in the actual show rather than A9s. Because that would be embarrassing. But at least he confirms my understanding of the Indonesian Air Defence System.
ANDREW FOWLER: The F-111s can fly more than a 1000 nautical miles. On this mission four F-111s will drop 16,000 pounds of laser guided bombs on the communications headquarters.
16 000 pounds!? Jesus, how big is this communications headquarters? And what is the actual effect you are trying to achieve? If it is to simply stop communications, there are better ways to do it. And with less high explosive floating around. Collateral damage anyone?
More to follow...
Continued...
And this proves what exactly? That F-111’s can bomb a target in a third world air defence system? So what?
Wow, another “F-111 admirer”. Kopp is another. Criss and Mills flew them. Anyone detecting a trend here? Where are the ex-Hornet pilots pooh-poohing the JSF and Super Hornet purchase?
What, like the current Chief of Air Force who is an F-111 pilot?
Finally, someone who is talking capability needs (based on threats and operational risk). Shame they don’t let him go into more detail.
Gunrunner twaddle. It is 4.5 gen at best. It certainly ain’t fifth gen.
Most of the next section goes into the Super Hornet sales pitch by Boeing. I’ve discussed this elsewhere on ATS, so won’t bore you with the details. They did an awesome marketing strategy, as you would expect any corporate entity to do. Nothing stopped Dassault, Eurofighter and Sukhoi from doing the same.
Once again, absolutely no context here. And “if the weapons don’t work”? Really, I’ll put my faith in US weapons over Russian weapons any day of the week. Now, for the countries mentioned with Flankers, India is looking to produce a fifth gen fighter, as is China. Malaysia is considering other future purchases, and Indonesia got what it could afford. Half the price and twice as good? Can anyone come up with an example anywhere in life where this true? And I’d argue the figures about the Flankers ability to operate with a weapon load at 55 k feet…
Indonesia’s going to have 16 by 2012? First I’ve heard of this. Hope they have time to get their tactics, weapons and training sorted out.
Not sure what orifice he plucked this out of, but I can guess. The one that didn’t consider our offensive counter air mission, our defensive sweep, our superior AESA radar, our AEW&C, our superior long range air to air missiles, our self-protection suite, our intelligence support capabilities, oh and the thirty or so Classic Hornets flying in support.
I’m relieved too Pete. Because even with a dud scenario, we only lost 30% of our strike force prior to JASSM launch. Which for a high risk mission is actually bloody awesome. So if that is what we do in a dud scenario, imagine what we could do in one based on reality. And given the Australian tax payer is basing their opinion on the biased and ill-informed opinion presented here, then hopefully they feel a little better to.
Range from Darwin to Jakarta is about 1500 nautical miles. We’re launching JASSM (or more correctly JSOW, which is what our order to the US is according to the FMS notification posted recently, but let’s not squabble over actualities…) at 200 nm. We refuel on our way to the launch point. We have two air to air CAPs on the way, which rotate through the tanker. For the Flankers to hurt us, they need to expend a lot of fuel in burner to catch up the 200 nm range deficit, while fighting through fully fuelled CAPs, to catch platforms that have already achieved their mission, and then the Flankers need to get home again. Do you really think the Indonesians would risk their scarce resource (16 wasn’t it?) just to prove a point? I don’t think so. And of course, no basis is provided to the assessment that “losses will be unacceptable”. Losses can be acceptable in certain circumstances. But the risk is higher for the Indonesians, with a lower pay off. And we can always come back tomorrow. Not so Indonesia.
More to follow...
This mission, this hypothetical mission we’ve just exercised here encapsulates the power that was resonate here and is still resonate in our aircraft. In the late 80s we updated with an infra-red targeting system, in the mid 90s we upgraded the avionics, ring loads and gyros, GPS coupled. It’s as good as any strike platform in the world at the end of 1999.
And this proves what exactly? That F-111’s can bomb a target in a third world air defence system? So what?
ANDREW FOWLER: Peter Goon served more than 14 years in the RAAF - two and a half years as the F-111 air worthiness project officer. He’s an open admirer of the F-111, but he says the plane has always had its opponents.
Wow, another “F-111 admirer”. Kopp is another. Criss and Mills flew them. Anyone detecting a trend here? Where are the ex-Hornet pilots pooh-poohing the JSF and Super Hornet purchase?
PETER GOON, FORMER F-111 PROJECT OFFICER: As far as the F-111 is concerned one’s got to realise that ever since we bought the aircraft there’s always been a pro F-111 lobby and an anti-F-111 lobby in the air force, and depending upon where the stars align and what the ascendancy is at the time in the senior ranks, governs how popular the aircraft is or unpopular. In the latter part of the last five years or so, or seven years or so, the anti-F-111 lobby has been in the ascendancy.
What, like the current Chief of Air Force who is an F-111 pilot?
GROUP CAPTAIN STEVE ROBERTON, RAAF: The F-111 is a fantastic aircraft, it’s been the stalwart of Australian strike aviation for thirty years, but it is an ageing airframe. We’re getting increasingly maintenance problems which are reducing its effectiveness, and certainly with the emerging threats through the next decade it starts operating at more at an operational risk.
Finally, someone who is talking capability needs (based on threats and operational risk). Shame they don’t let him go into more detail.
RICARD TRAVEN, BOEING CHIEF F/A-18 TEST PILOT: The Super Hornet really is a fifth generation aeroplane ...
Gunrunner twaddle. It is 4.5 gen at best. It certainly ain’t fifth gen.
Most of the next section goes into the Super Hornet sales pitch by Boeing. I’ve discussed this elsewhere on ATS, so won’t bore you with the details. They did an awesome marketing strategy, as you would expect any corporate entity to do. Nothing stopped Dassault, Eurofighter and Sukhoi from doing the same.
DR CARLO KOPP, AIR POWER AUSTRALIA: It out ranges the Super Hornet, out climbs the Super Hornet, out accelerates the Super Hornet, out turns the Super Hornet.
ANDREW FOWLER: Half the price of the Super Hornet and some say twice as good; the air forces of China, India, Malaysia, and most importantly Indonesia, have all armed themselves with this formidable fighter-bomber.
WING COMMANDER CHRIS MILLS (RTD), DEFENCE AIR WARFARE STRATEGIST 2001-07: The Sukhoi's top speed is Mach 2.350 and the Super Hornet's is Mach 1.6. This means that if its weapons don’t work, the Super Hornet can get into a fight but it can’t get out of a fight, right? And it can be run down. The Super Hornet is struggling with a weapon load above, much above 40,000 feet and the Sukhoi is quite comfortable up to about 55,000 feet.
Once again, absolutely no context here. And “if the weapons don’t work”? Really, I’ll put my faith in US weapons over Russian weapons any day of the week. Now, for the countries mentioned with Flankers, India is looking to produce a fifth gen fighter, as is China. Malaysia is considering other future purchases, and Indonesia got what it could afford. Half the price and twice as good? Can anyone come up with an example anywhere in life where this true? And I’d argue the figures about the Flankers ability to operate with a weapon load at 55 k feet…
AIR VICE-MARSHAL PETER CRISS (RTD), AIR COMMANDER AUSTRALIA 1999-2000 (in war room): It’s a pretty reliable aircraft and I’m going to come out with a fleet of 16. So basically you’ve got four packs of four coming towards you.
Indonesia’s going to have 16 by 2012? First I’ve heard of this. Hope they have time to get their tactics, weapons and training sorted out.
AIR VICE-MARSHAL PETER CRISS (RTD), AIR COMMANDER AUSTRALIA 1999-2000 (in war room): And we’re all approaching. We’re going to do a simultaneous launch across that 90 degrees. Here come the JZMs.
How many have you taken out before we've even reached that point? Time for you to put your money where your mouth is.
WING COMMANDER CHRIS MILLS (RTD), DEFENCE AIR WARFARE STRATEGIST 2001-07 (in war room): I think I’ve got a chance of getting about 30 per cent of them.
Not sure what orifice he plucked this out of, but I can guess. The one that didn’t consider our offensive counter air mission, our defensive sweep, our superior AESA radar, our AEW&C, our superior long range air to air missiles, our self-protection suite, our intelligence support capabilities, oh and the thirty or so Classic Hornets flying in support.
AIR VICE-MARSHAL PETER CRISS (RTD), AIR COMMANDER AUSTRALIA 1999-2000 (in war room): Hey that’s good. It sounds terrible I know probably to the Australian taxpayer but I'm relieved. I thought it would have been more than that.
I’m relieved too Pete. Because even with a dud scenario, we only lost 30% of our strike force prior to JASSM launch. Which for a high risk mission is actually bloody awesome. So if that is what we do in a dud scenario, imagine what we could do in one based on reality. And given the Australian tax payer is basing their opinion on the biased and ill-informed opinion presented here, then hopefully they feel a little better to.
WING COMMANDER CHRIS MILLS (RTD), DEFENCE AIR WARFARE STRATEGIST 2001-07 (in war room): Well I’m going to attack you on the way home again...
ANDREW FOWLER: Some of the Super Hornets will get through, but on their way home, the refuelling tankers will prove their Achilles heel.
WING COMMANDER CHRIS MILLS (RTD), DEFENCE AIR WARFARE STRATEGIST 2001-07 (in war room): If I can get the tanker and drop the tanker, I also get as a by-product the Super Hornets because on the way home those aircraft don’t have enough fuel for a diversion, they go into the water.
AIR VICE-MARSHAL PETER CRISS (RTD), AIR COMMANDER AUSTRALIA 1999-2000 (in war room): Yeah, this is the hurt point, you know ...
ANDREW FOWLER: The Super Hornet losses will be unacceptable. They proved unable to dominate the skies.
Range from Darwin to Jakarta is about 1500 nautical miles. We’re launching JASSM (or more correctly JSOW, which is what our order to the US is according to the FMS notification posted recently, but let’s not squabble over actualities…) at 200 nm. We refuel on our way to the launch point. We have two air to air CAPs on the way, which rotate through the tanker. For the Flankers to hurt us, they need to expend a lot of fuel in burner to catch up the 200 nm range deficit, while fighting through fully fuelled CAPs, to catch platforms that have already achieved their mission, and then the Flankers need to get home again. Do you really think the Indonesians would risk their scarce resource (16 wasn’t it?) just to prove a point? I don’t think so. And of course, no basis is provided to the assessment that “losses will be unacceptable”. Losses can be acceptable in certain circumstances. But the risk is higher for the Indonesians, with a lower pay off. And we can always come back tomorrow. Not so Indonesia.
More to follow...
Continued from above...
It is stealthy – to a point. It doesn’t have to be VLO. It just needs to get as much range advantage as possible to close the launch gap to improve the probability of kill. And as for the “It’s just vulnerable from the word go”, your own scenario Pete, hopeless as it was, had 70% of the Super Hornets getting their JASSMs off. Enough generalizations and scare-mongering please.
Glad they gave the one guy who actually probably understands the true capabilities of the Super Hornet, and who will actually have to fly it in combat, all of thirty seconds during the show. Good balanced reporting Four Corners…
The most sensible comment made thus far.
Like the F-111 in the sixties? And while Chris might think it will be “late, under capability and over cost”, I know others who think it will be on time, meet all our requirements, and within expected production cost increases. And opinions in between both these extremes. It just depends who you ask.
Sorry, who the hell is this guy? I analyse the sports pages of the Daily Telegraph, that doesn’t mean I know jack about the NRL’s future corporate structure. I love these guys who are used for one comment that supports the obvious bias/opinion of the program. 15 years from now is 2022. I promise to run naked from Sydney to Melbourne if JSF isn’t at a combat squadron by this time.
I’m not going to go through the rest of the transcript, as it is superfluous to issue at hand (Chris Mills’s personal beef with Defence is neither here nor there, but again makes you wonder whether he has clouded judgement).
On the whole, a terrible piece of journalism. It was biased, didn’t look at both sides of the story, used flawed analysis, failed to consider other assets that will operate in conjunction with the Super Hornet, considered the capabilities of the original Super Hornet rather than the Block II, and focused on four people with obvious agendas and issues with the Defence Department. There are certainly issues with the acquisition process for both Super Hornet and JSF, but to dismiss them out of hand, while extolling the virtues of the Flanker and F-111 as the be all and end all of air combat, is quite staggering, and totally misleading.
AIR VICE-MARSHAL PETER CRISS (RTD), AIR COMMANDER AUSTRALIA 1999-2000: Contrary to claims, it’s not a fifth generation fighter. It’s not stealthy. You can’t have a stealthy aeroplane when every bit of ordinance you carry has got to be carried externally. It’s not fast. It can’t carry a lot of weapons. It can’t run. It’s just vulnerable from the word go.
It is stealthy – to a point. It doesn’t have to be VLO. It just needs to get as much range advantage as possible to close the launch gap to improve the probability of kill. And as for the “It’s just vulnerable from the word go”, your own scenario Pete, hopeless as it was, had 70% of the Super Hornets getting their JASSMs off. Enough generalizations and scare-mongering please.
GROUP CAPTAIN STEVE ROBERTON, RAAF: I have every confidence that if a SU-30 comes up against a Super Hornet it’s going to be a very negative outcome for the SU.
Glad they gave the one guy who actually probably understands the true capabilities of the Super Hornet, and who will actually have to fly it in combat, all of thirty seconds during the show. Good balanced reporting Four Corners…
PROFESSOR HUGH WHITE, DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEFENCE 1995 - 2000: It might be that in the fullness of time, if it does turn out that we are facing a serious capability gap, and if it does turn out that the F-18 is the best way to solve it, then buying the Super Hornet might prove to have been in retrospect a good choice. My concern is that we don’t know that and neither does the Government because it hasn’t worked hard enough to make that decision fully informed of the facts.
The most sensible comment made thus far.
WING COMMANDER CHRIS MILLS (RTD), DEFENCE AIR WARFARE STRATEGIST 2001-07: I wrote a number of papers for him and they were private papers and I made the observation that I thought that an aircraft like the Joint Strike Fighter would be like every other aircraft. It would be late, under capability and over cost.
Like the F-111 in the sixties? And while Chris might think it will be “late, under capability and over cost”, I know others who think it will be on time, meet all our requirements, and within expected production cost increases. And opinions in between both these extremes. It just depends who you ask.
JAMES STEVENSON, MILITARY ANALYST: So you have to ask yourself, why are they building such an aeroplane? And as a good friend of mine says, it’s welfare for the technologists. The JSF will be built in the thousands, everybody tells us. We’ve heard that before. I doubt that this aeroplane will fly or be in production and in the combat squadrons any time within the next 15 or 20 years. So the fact that Australia is planning on it coming in at a certain time, that’s just a wet dream as far as I’m concerned.
Sorry, who the hell is this guy? I analyse the sports pages of the Daily Telegraph, that doesn’t mean I know jack about the NRL’s future corporate structure. I love these guys who are used for one comment that supports the obvious bias/opinion of the program. 15 years from now is 2022. I promise to run naked from Sydney to Melbourne if JSF isn’t at a combat squadron by this time.
I’m not going to go through the rest of the transcript, as it is superfluous to issue at hand (Chris Mills’s personal beef with Defence is neither here nor there, but again makes you wonder whether he has clouded judgement).
On the whole, a terrible piece of journalism. It was biased, didn’t look at both sides of the story, used flawed analysis, failed to consider other assets that will operate in conjunction with the Super Hornet, considered the capabilities of the original Super Hornet rather than the Block II, and focused on four people with obvious agendas and issues with the Defence Department. There are certainly issues with the acquisition process for both Super Hornet and JSF, but to dismiss them out of hand, while extolling the virtues of the Flanker and F-111 as the be all and end all of air combat, is quite staggering, and totally misleading.
We have discussed this issue previously...... at this thread
Australian Super Hornet purchase under a Parlimentary inquiry cloud.
The requirement, or otherwise is discussed there.
That it is all coming to light publicly at the moment is that we are just over three weeks out from a Federal Election!
boseian,
Although there was really nothing new in the program as far as our previous discussion, a couple of points stuck out for me.
Firstly, the current project officer (Roberton) is most obviously a knuck - in that all he had to say about the Super Bug was from the viewpoint of fighter v fighter - and that is NOT how we will employ them. The comparison HAS to be with the F-111 (which it will replace) and its ability to strike (for the sake of a target) Jakarta from Australia without unacceptable loses and get home again. From our perspective it is totally irrelevant whether the Super Bug can defeat an Su-27 in close combat - the strike mission is to get in, do the damage and get out again!
Secondly, the point was made that there is (and always has been) a pro and an anti F-111 lobby. Just for the record Peter Criss is an ex F-111 driver, so take that for what it's worth.
I have to say that I agree with him that the Super Bug cannot do the job we need done as well as the F-111, at least not without a carrier (which we don't have) or putting tankers in harms way. If the spares are available and the wing problem is a furphy, then I have to agree that the purchase is, at best. a bad joke - at worst... well who knows.... but integrity in government is looking pretty shakey!!!
The Winged Wombat
Australian Super Hornet purchase under a Parlimentary inquiry cloud.
The requirement, or otherwise is discussed there.
That it is all coming to light publicly at the moment is that we are just over three weeks out from a Federal Election!
boseian,
Although there was really nothing new in the program as far as our previous discussion, a couple of points stuck out for me.
Firstly, the current project officer (Roberton) is most obviously a knuck - in that all he had to say about the Super Bug was from the viewpoint of fighter v fighter - and that is NOT how we will employ them. The comparison HAS to be with the F-111 (which it will replace) and its ability to strike (for the sake of a target) Jakarta from Australia without unacceptable loses and get home again. From our perspective it is totally irrelevant whether the Super Bug can defeat an Su-27 in close combat - the strike mission is to get in, do the damage and get out again!
Secondly, the point was made that there is (and always has been) a pro and an anti F-111 lobby. Just for the record Peter Criss is an ex F-111 driver, so take that for what it's worth.
I have to say that I agree with him that the Super Bug cannot do the job we need done as well as the F-111, at least not without a carrier (which we don't have) or putting tankers in harms way. If the spares are available and the wing problem is a furphy, then I have to agree that the purchase is, at best. a bad joke - at worst... well who knows.... but integrity in government is looking pretty shakey!!!
The Winged Wombat
Originally posted by Willard856
Without going into detail of how headquarters and air operations centres are structured and function, it is still the FLTLT/SQNLDR level weapons qualified aircrew that have this knowledge, and provide advice to the commander on what to do.
Willard,
I have to take you to task here. Flt Lt / Sqn Ldr rank is 'the workers' and you know it. At this rank you are talking about people who have flown only one type, have no staff or strategic battle planning training and have little appreciation of anything other than the role of the aircraft they fly.
I'll not argue with you the merits or otherwise of the experience (often long out of the driver's seat) of senior staff officers, but the fact remains that while a Squadron Leader may have considerable experience on type, his job is to manage HIS Squadron, not to plan the war, and his training up to that point in his career is directed to that end. It is beyond that point that officers are selected to progress to planning appointments.
As I said, I won't argue whether this is a good or bad system - it just is, OK - and I don't know how you maintain efficient squadrons if you take potential senior leaders out of them earlier to do force planning.
One point in the article concerning Peter Criss' departure from the RAAF is incorrect. They state that his rise in rank and position was somewhat meteoric - this is not true. Peter graduated from 70 Pilot's Course in 1969 and was certainly NOT the first Air Commander from that course. It is probably more correct to say that (of those members of the course that remained in the RAAF) his rise was average (indeed I think he would be the last from the course to hold the position - if any are still in the force - which I doubt).
The Winged Wombat
reply to post by NuclearHead
It's a report, not a documentary, they say that at the beginning. They may not talk to the pro-F/A-18F lobby, but they state teh reasoning given for ditching the current aircraft.
The biggest problem isn't the choice of the SuperHornets, it's the bypassing of the accepted method for military acquisitions. The last time it was done this way we got the F-111 itself and we got it so incredibly late people were wondering if they'd ever arrive.
By using the correct method, the Army has replaced its Leo 1s with Abrams 1s. To my knowledge, there were exactly two tanks in serious contention, M1 and Challenger 1. The Germans were hoping to make it Leo2s to replace the 90 Leo 1s we bought to replace the Centurion.
By using the incorrect method, Brendan Nelson chose Super Hornet and Australia contributed F/A 18Cs to Operation Iraqi Freedom for the express purpose of defending AWACS. Against what? Any fool who watched Desert Storm could have told you the Iraqis weren't going to fly. What would have been of far more use to the planners would have been our Pigs, dedicated strike aircraft that in 1991 proved how far they had come since VN.
source: www.pbs.org...
Um, yes, well...
source:
en.wikipedia.org...
And how many country's will operate the Typhoon?
F/A18Cs cannot project air-power outside Australia.
You replace systems, not capability. Systems become outdated, or unnecessary (not meeting capability), but it is still physical systems that are replaced. Which you may choose to dismiss as language semantics. However, you can simply say that. The M16 replaced the M14.
You can simply say that the next strike aircraft in the inventory must be able to destroy what F-111 can. You can say the next strike aircraft in the inventory must be able to fly/return unrefuelled to Jakarta because we can't spare the tankers.
Now I'm going to nit-pick
Do any of these better ways involve an unrefuelled flight of four jets? Are any of these better ways as simple as this strike mission? Nothing #s up faster than a complicated plan.
How many refuellings is that the KC-10s have to do, exactly, for a single mission?
Which, I believe, is what 4C is saying...
Except that it appears Australia didn't open a competitive bidding process, something that sits at the basis of public management in Australia. John Howard didn't announce a call for tenders...Instead it appears a Liberal Party insider, who happens to be former leader, used his contacts in the government to help his employers push a product on the Australian taxpayer. That isn't fair business, its influence peddling, which in some countries can bring a prosecution.
This seemed fairly important to me...
But what the hell would I know. I mean, in a world of RPGs capable of killing a tank at 600m I keep wondering why we want tanks that carry guns with 2000m+ ranges...
What exactly is the limit of Jakarta's radar? How much early warning will they have? What improvements in SAM do they have? Sounds like their Sukhois (if they are getting them) are the perfect jet to defend their territory, a bit like Spitfire was so good for defending UK, but a little difficult for going to Berlin...
You want us to go play in MiG Alley after we've already tanked once, putting us out of range from land-based support, because that also has to tank...and you're planning on using how many aircraft to do this?
Totally out of context, but you'll take an Armalite over a Kalashnikov? Not my first choice...
Are you talking about the LCA?
Err, again, nitpicking, but you asked the question, so...Quite easily. I'll take a Lada Niva (had one in 1989) over a Toyota Land Cruiser any day of the week. Back then they were less than half the price and more than twice as good (providing you didn't get a lemon, which a bunch of people did, oh, look, arguments about Russian QC...). How abut we go back to the AK 47?...
And, really, this is the point, right here
Nelson got sold a bill of goods and he sold us a bigger croc, for A$6,600,000,000, looks like he was taking lessons from Mr "I'm the Decider".
It's a report, not a documentary, they say that at the beginning. They may not talk to the pro-F/A-18F lobby, but they state teh reasoning given for ditching the current aircraft.
The biggest problem isn't the choice of the SuperHornets, it's the bypassing of the accepted method for military acquisitions. The last time it was done this way we got the F-111 itself and we got it so incredibly late people were wondering if they'd ever arrive.
By using the correct method, the Army has replaced its Leo 1s with Abrams 1s. To my knowledge, there were exactly two tanks in serious contention, M1 and Challenger 1. The Germans were hoping to make it Leo2s to replace the 90 Leo 1s we bought to replace the Centurion.
By using the incorrect method, Brendan Nelson chose Super Hornet and Australia contributed F/A 18Cs to Operation Iraqi Freedom for the express purpose of defending AWACS. Against what? Any fool who watched Desert Storm could have told you the Iraqis weren't going to fly. What would have been of far more use to the planners would have been our Pigs, dedicated strike aircraft that in 1991 proved how far they had come since VN.
. In what became known as "tank plinking" the F-111s were credited with over 1500 verified armor kills. In over 4,000 sorties, the 84 deployed F-111s had a mission capable rate of over 85% --- approximately 8% higher than peacetime rates. One Wing Commander reported that his unit flew over 2100 sorties with no maintenance non-delivers. These platforms delivered the precision munitions on the manifolds which stopped the oil Saddam was dumping into the Gulf.
source: www.pbs.org...
Originally posted by SenHeathen
The Super Hornet is a great plane. Is is older? Of course. But its electronics; aviation, weapons, logistics.... are all well updated and likely the best the US has.
Um, yes, well...
F-111C aircraft have been equipped to carry Pave Tack FLIR/laser pods, and later underwent an extensive Avionics Upgrade Program, with AN/APQ-169 attack radar replacing the elderly AN/APQ-113, Texas Instruments AN/APQ-171 terrain-following radar, twin Honeywell H423 ring-laser gyro INS, GPS receiver, modern digital databus, mission computer, and stores-management system, and cockpit multi-function displays (MFDs). Their engines were updated to TF30-P-108/109RA standard, with 21,000 lbf (93 kN) thrust.
source:
en.wikipedia.org...
Originally posted by Willard856
Only one other country has bought the Typhoon.
And how many country's will operate the Typhoon?
Australia’s air superiority. And in fact, if you took the F-111 out of the equation, we could still maintain air superiority through legacy Hornets (albeit at a much reduced level).
F/A18Cs cannot project air-power outside Australia.
Whatever was to replace the F-111 would have to be an extraordinary aircraft.
Here’s another fundamental error. You don’t replace systems, you replace capability. You can’t simply say that because the F-111 can go this fast, this high, and drop this many bombs, that the replacement needs to do this as well.
You replace systems, not capability. Systems become outdated, or unnecessary (not meeting capability), but it is still physical systems that are replaced. Which you may choose to dismiss as language semantics. However, you can simply say that. The M16 replaced the M14.
You can simply say that the next strike aircraft in the inventory must be able to destroy what F-111 can. You can say the next strike aircraft in the inventory must be able to fly/return unrefuelled to Jakarta because we can't spare the tankers.
Now I'm going to nit-pick
If it is to simply stop communications, there are better ways to do it
Do any of these better ways involve an unrefuelled flight of four jets? Are any of these better ways as simple as this strike mission? Nothing #s up faster than a complicated plan.
We refuel on our way to the launch point. We have two air to air CAPs on the way, which rotate through the tanker.
How many refuellings is that the KC-10s have to do, exactly, for a single mission?
RICARD TRAVEN, BOEING CHIEF F/A-18 TEST PILOT: The Super Hornet really is a fifth generation aeroplane ...
Gunrunner twaddle. It is 4.5 gen at best. It certainly ain’t fifth gen.
Which, I believe, is what 4C is saying...
Most of the next section goes into the Super Hornet sales pitch by Boeing. I’ve discussed this elsewhere on ATS, so won’t bore you with the details. They did an awesome marketing strategy, as you would expect any corporate entity to do. Nothing stopped Dassault, Eurofighter and Sukhoi from doing the same.
Except that it appears Australia didn't open a competitive bidding process, something that sits at the basis of public management in Australia. John Howard didn't announce a call for tenders...Instead it appears a Liberal Party insider, who happens to be former leader, used his contacts in the government to help his employers push a product on the Australian taxpayer. That isn't fair business, its influence peddling, which in some countries can bring a prosecution.
Once again, absolutely no context here.
This seemed fairly important to me...
It out ranges the Super Hornet, out climbs the Super Hornet, out accelerates the Super Hornet, out turns the Super Hornet.
But what the hell would I know. I mean, in a world of RPGs capable of killing a tank at 600m I keep wondering why we want tanks that carry guns with 2000m+ ranges...
What exactly is the limit of Jakarta's radar? How much early warning will they have? What improvements in SAM do they have? Sounds like their Sukhois (if they are getting them) are the perfect jet to defend their territory, a bit like Spitfire was so good for defending UK, but a little difficult for going to Berlin...
You want us to go play in MiG Alley after we've already tanked once, putting us out of range from land-based support, because that also has to tank...and you're planning on using how many aircraft to do this?
And “if the weapons don’t work”? Really, I’ll put my faith in US weapons over Russian weapons any day of the week.
Totally out of context, but you'll take an Armalite over a Kalashnikov? Not my first choice...
India is looking to produce a fifth gen fighter, as is China.
Are you talking about the LCA?
Half the price and twice as good? Can anyone come up with an example anywhere in life where this true?
Err, again, nitpicking, but you asked the question, so...Quite easily. I'll take a Lada Niva (had one in 1989) over a Toyota Land Cruiser any day of the week. Back then they were less than half the price and more than twice as good (providing you didn't get a lemon, which a bunch of people did, oh, look, arguments about Russian QC...). How abut we go back to the AK 47?...
And, really, this is the point, right here
Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
I have to say that I agree with him that the Super Bug cannot do the job we need done as well as the F-111, at least not without a carrier (which we don't have) or putting tankers in harms way. If the spares are available and the wing problem is a furphy, then I have to agree that the purchase is, at best. a bad joke - at worst... well who knows.... but integrity in government is looking pretty shakey!!!
Nelson got sold a bill of goods and he sold us a bigger croc, for A$6,600,000,000, looks like he was taking lessons from Mr "I'm the Decider".
Anyone who says Oz faces no potential threats may be a little ignorant about SE Asia. Indonesia is loading up on Russian military hardware, including
new figheter jets and carrier killer cruise missiles. Malaysia is also buying Russian fighters. Oz is an underpopulated extremely mineral rich
country that China, as it munches through everything it can get its hands on, may at some point in the future attempt to move on the NW of Oz where
most of the minerals are located. An Asian crisis could flare up tomorrow over Taiwan, Korea, Japan or China, and Indonesia is now very muich in the
Russian/Chinese camp in this regard.
Oz badly needs a heavy long range bomber that's cruise missile capable, in addition to increased naval assets such as submarines. It's vital that Oz has an independant capacity to deter and defend itself from an Asian conflict which could and probably will flare up very quickly. Recent history has shown many examples of events that were previously considered incomprehensable suddenly occurring, such as the attack on Pearl Harbour, the fall of Singapore in 1941 and more recently 911. Oz needs the JSF, plus upgraded F-111's if necessary, and maybe even a handful of second hand B1's. Short term twice as many highly upgraded 2nd hand F-15's at the same price as the new F-18's would probably be more appropriate for Oz needs in SE Asia.
The new Indonesian carrier killer cruise missile, if nuclear tipped, could easily take out Darwin, probably launched from the Indon islands, naval ships or the new Russian aircraft. Perhaps the Russians or Iranians will furnish the Indons with the material required to make their new cruise missiles nuclear tipped? Oz certainly doesn't have any carriers for the Indons to kill, and it would be a waste of resources using a conventional carrier killer missile against a mainland target. So if they're not going to be nuclear tipped why does Indonesia want these missiles in the first place? The answer is obvious. As for Brendon Nelson, I think that sometimes politicians get wined and dined, egos inflated and deals signed due to the actions of schmoozing defence contractors. Some politicians and senior defence department officials exist in a warm and cozy bubble of self congratulatory delusion that's sometimes devoid of cold hard reality.
[edit on 31-10-2007 by and01]
Oz badly needs a heavy long range bomber that's cruise missile capable, in addition to increased naval assets such as submarines. It's vital that Oz has an independant capacity to deter and defend itself from an Asian conflict which could and probably will flare up very quickly. Recent history has shown many examples of events that were previously considered incomprehensable suddenly occurring, such as the attack on Pearl Harbour, the fall of Singapore in 1941 and more recently 911. Oz needs the JSF, plus upgraded F-111's if necessary, and maybe even a handful of second hand B1's. Short term twice as many highly upgraded 2nd hand F-15's at the same price as the new F-18's would probably be more appropriate for Oz needs in SE Asia.
The new Indonesian carrier killer cruise missile, if nuclear tipped, could easily take out Darwin, probably launched from the Indon islands, naval ships or the new Russian aircraft. Perhaps the Russians or Iranians will furnish the Indons with the material required to make their new cruise missiles nuclear tipped? Oz certainly doesn't have any carriers for the Indons to kill, and it would be a waste of resources using a conventional carrier killer missile against a mainland target. So if they're not going to be nuclear tipped why does Indonesia want these missiles in the first place? The answer is obvious. As for Brendon Nelson, I think that sometimes politicians get wined and dined, egos inflated and deals signed due to the actions of schmoozing defence contractors. Some politicians and senior defence department officials exist in a warm and cozy bubble of self congratulatory delusion that's sometimes devoid of cold hard reality.
[edit on 31-10-2007 by and01]
Great series of posts Willard. I too take issue with the rational of the people who seem to have a problem with the Super Hornet. To say nothing
of their ridicules war scenarios and irrational comparisons I will focus on the bad logic use to oppose this deal. There is no argument that the Rhino
is not in the same class as the F-111. These two planes are designed for two different mission and both have their own set of abilities. As such, I
take no issue with the fact that the Rhino cannot offer the range and payload of the F-111. If Australia would like to replace the F-111 is would be
better suited buying the Strike Eagle. Now, what the Super Hornet lacks (in comparison to the F-111) in long range strike capability is makes up for
in air superiority and anti ship missions. I do not share the view that it is inferior to the Flanker variants in South East Asia nor that it is
useless in the air defense role. Still, if the Flanker issue is so great why bring up the F-111? It is embarrassing to have such high ranking
officials and self professed experts claiming that somehow the Aardvark is gong to provide superb air superiority against these very same Flankers who
supposedly outclass the F/A-18E/F. I sincerely hope that the plans these people have come up with do not include using F-111's primarily for the air
superiority role or tying to make them go toe to toe with Flankers. They bring up the issue of speed, maneuverability and avionics, well the Flankers
have all of these features primarily optimized for air combat, and the Aardvark does not.
One more thing, it is very revealing to have the pilots who fly the aircraft and are fully aware of it capabilities and abilities support it.
It depends on the context; as such you cannot call it "inferior" without giving a situation. In the case of Australia I do not view it as being "inferior" for the mission it would likely perform against the Su-27 family.
Name another carrier based fighter in service which offers the US Navy all of the advantages and capabilities the Super Hornet does...
[edit on 31-10-2007 by WestPoint23]
One more thing, it is very revealing to have the pilots who fly the aircraft and are fully aware of it capabilities and abilities support it.
Originally posted by SenHeathen
It leads me to ask, 1) if its so inferior to the Su-27 then why does the USA sill fly a large number of them?
It depends on the context; as such you cannot call it "inferior" without giving a situation. In the case of Australia I do not view it as being "inferior" for the mission it would likely perform against the Su-27 family.
Originally posted by Darkpr0
Because the US would never buy someone else's aircraft...
Name another carrier based fighter in service which offers the US Navy all of the advantages and capabilities the Super Hornet does...
[edit on 31-10-2007 by WestPoint23]
Originally posted by WestPoint23
If Australia would like to replace the F-111 is would be better suited buying the Strike Eagle.
Exactly the view I would take.
Why on earth are they buying a piece of crap airframe instead of a modern strike eagle? There is nothing that a (v)3 equipped Eagle won't do better than a "Super" Hornet (apart from getting shot down).
Originally posted by WestPoint23
Name another carrier based fighter in service which offers the US Navy all of the advantages and capabilities the Super Hornet does...
Name one advantage or capability that is inherent to the Hornet airframe.
The USN f'ed up their procurement of the YF-17 -> F/A-18 A-D and then compounded that with the decision to develop it into the -18 E/F. Fundamentally, the aircraft was not conceived with carrier operations in mind, and its still suffering for it - not alot the people at McAir or Boeing can do about it - the fault is the parameters they had to work within.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
Great series of posts Willard. I too take issue with the rational of the people who seem to have a problem with the Super Hornet. To say nothing of their ridicules war scenarios and irrational comparisons I will focus on the bad logic use to oppose this deal. There is no argument that the Rhino is not in the same class as the F-111. These two planes are designed for two different mission and both have their own set of abilities. As such, I take no issue with the fact that the Rhino cannot offer the range and payload of the F-111. If Australia would like to replace the F-111 is would be better suited buying the Strike Eagle. Now, what the Super Hornet lacks (in comparison to the F-111) in long range strike capability is makes up for in air superiority and anti ship missions. I do not share the view that it is inferior to the Flanker variants in South East Asia nor that it is useless in the air defense role. Still, if the Flanker issue is so great why bring up the F-111? It is embarrassing to have such high ranking officials and self professed experts claiming that somehow the Aardvark is gong to provide superb air superiority against these very same Flankers who supposedly outclass the F/A-18E/F. I sincerely hope that the plans these people have come up with do not include using F-111's primarily for the air superiority role or tying to make them go toe to toe with Flankers. They bring up the issue of speed, maneuverability and avionics, well the Flankers have all of these features primarily optimized for air combat, and the Aardvark does not.
One more thing, it is very revealing to have the pilots who fly the aircraft and are fully aware of it capabilities and abilities support it.
Exactly, Westpoint, you have proved the argument.
The Super Hornet will not do what the F-111 will do! Sure it will do plenty of other stuff, but that's not what we want it to do - that simple.
So why buy anything to replace the F-111 in the role we want it to do as a bridge to the F-35, especially if the F-111 can be kept in service for that time period.
Can you not see that both parties can be right - the Super Hornet can be a wonderful air superiority fighter (a term quite misused in the program, incidentally), but we are not shopping for an air superiority fighter. As a replacement for the F-111 (even as a stop-gap) we might as well buy 2 dozen Cessnas! Yes, 24 Strike Eagles would have been better, so why wasn't it done that way?
We are not canning your precious Super Bug, in fact we don't care if it's any good or not - it's just not the right aircraft to do the job we bought the F-111s to do and that makes its ability (or otherwise) to kill Flankers totally irrelevant in this matter
Certainly the F/A-18F might well be able to mix it with Su-27s, but do you imagine for one moment that we went so far out on a limb to buy F-111s in the first place just to fight someone else's fighters? Just as the Super Hornet doesn't do what the USN bought it for (to fill the gap created by the cancellation of the A-12 Avenger) it won't do the job of the F-111, regardless of it's talents as an air superiority fighter. Man, it's like saying that we should buy KC767s as a replacement for the F-111 - it won't do the job, but hey, it will be a wonderful tanker!
This seems to be a point that is also totally lost on Group Captain Roberton. At no point did he even infer that that Super Bug could do the job of the F-111, he just kept telling us that it could splash Su-27s! Here is a case in point of a reasonably senior officer (still with his bum in the bang seat) who seems to have virtually no understanding of the purpose and role of any other aircraft than the one he flies. Gosh, I wonder if he knows what a C-17 is (other than a possible target that is), and what it is designed to do.
The fact is the Super Hornet is the wrong aircraft to the job of the F-111 (as you have pointed out yourself) and there are better choices available, if in fact the F-111 cannot be maintained in the time frame, and the decision to buy it (and the way it was done) stinks of graft and corruption.
The Winged Wombat
[edit on 31/10/07 by The Winged Wombat]
The F111 is a bomber - yes it was concieved as a fighter (for the navy ) but was too big and had some `interesting` carrier approach properties -
pilots usually like to see the deck there landing on i guess so the airforce took it on and the rest is as they say history
As westpoint sort of said , the super bug is a `multi role` aircraft - just being jack of all trades means its master of none - so trying to replace a dedicated strike package - both the F-111C and the ex-SAC FB-111A (F-111G) - the aardvark can carry 31,500lb of ordnanace (say 24x 500lb bombs) the super hornet cannot carry that much - but, as was also said the hornet is a fighter as well - but not in the same class an a `true` air superiority aircraft so whilst aus would lose ordnanace on target (and range) they gain A2A capability.
I do In My Opinon think that the ideal replacement (actually like westpoint) is a more deicated strike platform - and my choice would be the Torndao GR4 , followed by the F-15E then the SU-34 Fullback (or 1 of those 3 anyway).
Fullback does look the prettiest
www.military.cz...
As westpoint sort of said , the super bug is a `multi role` aircraft - just being jack of all trades means its master of none - so trying to replace a dedicated strike package - both the F-111C and the ex-SAC FB-111A (F-111G) - the aardvark can carry 31,500lb of ordnanace (say 24x 500lb bombs) the super hornet cannot carry that much - but, as was also said the hornet is a fighter as well - but not in the same class an a `true` air superiority aircraft so whilst aus would lose ordnanace on target (and range) they gain A2A capability.
I do In My Opinon think that the ideal replacement (actually like westpoint) is a more deicated strike platform - and my choice would be the Torndao GR4 , followed by the F-15E then the SU-34 Fullback (or 1 of those 3 anyway).
Fullback does look the prettiest
www.military.cz...
Thanks for the responses to my lengthy review of the transcript. I’ll address a couple of people specifically who have asked questions or queried my
logic.
Winged Wombat
That was kind of my point, but I obviously didn’t make it clear enough, so I apologise. The point I was trying to make is that people of Criss’s level would not be doing mission planning or assessment as was shown in the program. Such level of detail is led by the O3/O4 level, the B cat pilots and patch wearers (FCIs) who have an intimate understanding of the platform’s capabilities, systems, and the threat systems they will face. This is supported by intel officers, also at the 03/04 level (though even some at O2 level participate). This level of detailed mission planning takes place in the Wing Operations centre. At the Air Operations Centre, they produce the target list and apportion resources to these targets. This is more what Criss and Mills would be doing. So my overall point is that those in the 4 Corners program are trying to make it seem like they have a level of knowledge of these systems they simply don’t have. Things have changed a lot in 20 years.
Howlrunner
Journalists are supposed to report things in a balanced and fair manner. It is part of their code of ethics. In fact, their very first code is:
www.australian-news.com.au...
I think it is pretty clear that this in no way occurred in the program in question. It is impossible to arrive at a balanced conclusion to the show when it is so biased towards a single point of view.
Which I agree with, and stated so throughout my posts. But it is interesting that we got the F-111 the “wrong” way, yet here are four people going on about how great it is, and irreplaceable. Maybe the same will be said of the Super Hornet in 40 years time?
You’re wrong. We didn’t contribute Hornets just to protect AWACs. We contributed Hornets because they offered flexibility for swing role tasking, and could contribute to Strike/CAS/Interdiction missions once air superiority was attained. The F-111s certainly could have done the latter, but not the former. And it is a fallacy to say that the Iraqi’s weren’t going to fly based on Desert Storm. There was every chance they would have flown, and we expected them to. The fact they didn’t was a bonus, because it accelerated things. Made the F-15C guys sad, but that’s what you get for flying a single role aircraft
My understanding is it was a close run thing between the F-111 and the F/A-18 going to Iraqi Freedom. The multi-role capability of the F/A-18 was most likely the deciding factor.
What, like the Middle East? But anyway, my point was about their contention that the F-111 was the key to Australian air superiority, which is patently untrue. Hornets can achieve air superiority without the F-111. F-111s cannot attain air superiority without Hornets. But combining the two certainly increases the ability to achieve air superiority.
Sorry, wrong again. The system itself is only one part of capability. Capability is a need based on effects-based operational planning. The question around the Pig is whether there is still a capability need for such a platform. From the Defence Capability Planning Manual (which can be found here)
www.defence.gov.au...
So the system (ie the F-111) is only one part of the fundamental inputs. Thus, you replace capability, not systems.
It is important. Which is why I brought it up. There is not context around the claim. Are we talking clean jets, or ones fully bombed up? What role? What fuel state? It goes toward comparing apples with apples. The U2 can fly higher than a Sukhoi. So what? Again, some of the claims may be true. But does it matter? It is a throwaway claim designed to scare those who don’t understand the complexities of air combat.
Excellent questions. Notice how none of this was addressed in the program? The Sukhoi’s are good for Indonesia based on bang per buck. But they don’t have many of them, they don’t get much flying other than air shows, they don’t have robust tactics, the weapon status is a little uncertain, and they don’t have supporting force multipliers such as AEW&C.
Not sure what you are trying to say here. Why wouldn’t we do this? If the risk level is appropriate, there is no reason not to. And my contention is that the scenarios used by the show were not sufficiently detailed to arrive at any conclusion. And the conclusion they reached was that the Super Hornet could actually achieve the mission. I simply disagree with their contention that the Flankers could cream the departing packages.
WAAAY out of context I’m afraid. We’re talking air to air weapons, a significantly different kettle of fish.
No, I wan talking about the recent announcement that India and Russia will be cooperatively developing a fifth generation fighter.
Winged Wombat
I have to take you to task here. Flt Lt / Sqn Ldr rank is 'the workers' and you know it. At this rank you are talking about people who have flown only one type, have no staff or strategic battle planning training and have little appreciation of anything other than the role of the aircraft they fly.
That was kind of my point, but I obviously didn’t make it clear enough, so I apologise. The point I was trying to make is that people of Criss’s level would not be doing mission planning or assessment as was shown in the program. Such level of detail is led by the O3/O4 level, the B cat pilots and patch wearers (FCIs) who have an intimate understanding of the platform’s capabilities, systems, and the threat systems they will face. This is supported by intel officers, also at the 03/04 level (though even some at O2 level participate). This level of detailed mission planning takes place in the Wing Operations centre. At the Air Operations Centre, they produce the target list and apportion resources to these targets. This is more what Criss and Mills would be doing. So my overall point is that those in the 4 Corners program are trying to make it seem like they have a level of knowledge of these systems they simply don’t have. Things have changed a lot in 20 years.
Howlrunner
It's a report, not a documentary, they say that at the beginning. They may not talk to the pro-F/A-18F lobby, but they state teh reasoning given for ditching the current aircraft.
Journalists are supposed to report things in a balanced and fair manner. It is part of their code of ethics. In fact, their very first code is:
1. Report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and disclosure of all essential facts. Do not suppress relevant available facts, or give distorting emphasis. Do your utmost to give a fair opportunity for reply
www.australian-news.com.au...
I think it is pretty clear that this in no way occurred in the program in question. It is impossible to arrive at a balanced conclusion to the show when it is so biased towards a single point of view.
The biggest problem isn't the choice of the SuperHornets, it's the bypassing of the accepted method for military acquisitions. The last time it was done this way we got the F-111 itself and we got it so incredibly late people were wondering if they'd ever arrive.
Which I agree with, and stated so throughout my posts. But it is interesting that we got the F-111 the “wrong” way, yet here are four people going on about how great it is, and irreplaceable. Maybe the same will be said of the Super Hornet in 40 years time?
By using the incorrect method, Brendan Nelson chose Super Hornet and Australia contributed F/A 18Cs to Operation Iraqi Freedom for the express purpose of defending AWACS. Against what? Any fool who watched Desert Storm could have told you the Iraqis weren't going to fly. What would have been of far more use to the planners would have been our Pigs, dedicated strike aircraft that in 1991 proved how far they had come since VN.
You’re wrong. We didn’t contribute Hornets just to protect AWACs. We contributed Hornets because they offered flexibility for swing role tasking, and could contribute to Strike/CAS/Interdiction missions once air superiority was attained. The F-111s certainly could have done the latter, but not the former. And it is a fallacy to say that the Iraqi’s weren’t going to fly based on Desert Storm. There was every chance they would have flown, and we expected them to. The fact they didn’t was a bonus, because it accelerated things. Made the F-15C guys sad, but that’s what you get for flying a single role aircraft
My understanding is it was a close run thing between the F-111 and the F/A-18 going to Iraqi Freedom. The multi-role capability of the F/A-18 was most likely the deciding factor.
F/A18Cs cannot project air-power outside Australia.
What, like the Middle East? But anyway, my point was about their contention that the F-111 was the key to Australian air superiority, which is patently untrue. Hornets can achieve air superiority without the F-111. F-111s cannot attain air superiority without Hornets. But combining the two certainly increases the ability to achieve air superiority.
You replace systems, not capability. Systems become outdated, or unnecessary (not meeting capability), but it is still physical systems that are replaced. Which you may choose to dismiss as language semantics. However, you can simply say that. The M16 replaced the M14.
Sorry, wrong again. The system itself is only one part of capability. Capability is a need based on effects-based operational planning. The question around the Pig is whether there is still a capability need for such a platform. From the Defence Capability Planning Manual (which can be found here)
www.defence.gov.au...
Capability is the power to achieve a desired operational effect in a nominated environment, within a specified time, and to sustain that effect for a designated period. Capability is generated by Fundamental Inputs to Capability comprising organisation, personnel, collective training, major systems, supplies, facilities, support, command
and management.
So the system (ie the F-111) is only one part of the fundamental inputs. Thus, you replace capability, not systems.
This seemed fairly important to me...
It is important. Which is why I brought it up. There is not context around the claim. Are we talking clean jets, or ones fully bombed up? What role? What fuel state? It goes toward comparing apples with apples. The U2 can fly higher than a Sukhoi. So what? Again, some of the claims may be true. But does it matter? It is a throwaway claim designed to scare those who don’t understand the complexities of air combat.
What exactly is the limit of Jakarta's radar? How much early warning will they have? What improvements in SAM do they have? Sounds like their Sukhois (if they are getting them) are the perfect jet to defend their territory, a bit like Spitfire was so good for defending UK, but a little difficult for going to Berlin...
Excellent questions. Notice how none of this was addressed in the program? The Sukhoi’s are good for Indonesia based on bang per buck. But they don’t have many of them, they don’t get much flying other than air shows, they don’t have robust tactics, the weapon status is a little uncertain, and they don’t have supporting force multipliers such as AEW&C.
You want us to go play in MiG Alley after we've already tanked once, putting us out of range from land-based support, because that also has to tank...and you're planning on using how many aircraft to do this?
Not sure what you are trying to say here. Why wouldn’t we do this? If the risk level is appropriate, there is no reason not to. And my contention is that the scenarios used by the show were not sufficiently detailed to arrive at any conclusion. And the conclusion they reached was that the Super Hornet could actually achieve the mission. I simply disagree with their contention that the Flankers could cream the departing packages.
Totally out of context, but you'll take an Armalite over a Kalashnikov? Not my first choice...
WAAAY out of context I’m afraid. We’re talking air to air weapons, a significantly different kettle of fish.
Are you talking about the LCA?
No, I wan talking about the recent announcement that India and Russia will be cooperatively developing a fifth generation fighter.
Winged Wombat
Given they gave Steve the sum total of 30 seconds air time, it is a little hard to judge how much he does or does not understand. I know the guy, and he is a great pilot, and has a great understanding of a range of platforms, capability development, and interoperability considerations. Do you really think they would appoint an idiot to head up this program? Your belitteling of him does you no justice, WW. It was an uncalled for cheap shot.
You continue to say that the Super Hornet is replacing the Pig. Have you considered that the capability need may have changed from what the Pig was bought for back in the sixties? The Super Hornet is not replacing the Pig. It replaces elements of what the Pig can do, but not all of it. So here's a question for all. What exactly are we losing by retiring the Pig that has people concerned?
This seems to be a point that is also totally lost on Group Captain Roberton. At no point did he even infer that that Super Bug could do the job of the F-111, he just kept telling us that it could splash Su-27s! Here is a case in point of a reasonably senior officer (still with his bum in the bang seat) who seems to have virtually no understanding of the purpose and role of any other aircraft than the one he flies. Gosh, I wonder if he knows what a C-17 is (other than a possible target that is), and what it is designed to do.
Given they gave Steve the sum total of 30 seconds air time, it is a little hard to judge how much he does or does not understand. I know the guy, and he is a great pilot, and has a great understanding of a range of platforms, capability development, and interoperability considerations. Do you really think they would appoint an idiot to head up this program? Your belitteling of him does you no justice, WW. It was an uncalled for cheap shot.
You continue to say that the Super Hornet is replacing the Pig. Have you considered that the capability need may have changed from what the Pig was bought for back in the sixties? The Super Hornet is not replacing the Pig. It replaces elements of what the Pig can do, but not all of it. So here's a question for all. What exactly are we losing by retiring the Pig that has people concerned?
Originally posted by kilcoo316
Name one advantage or capability that is inherent to the Hornet airframe.
There are several but don't change the question, a member stated that one of the main reasons the US is purchasing the F/A-18E/F is because we do not buy foreign aircraft. So if you please, list the foreign alternatives currently in service which offer the US Navy and military the advantages and capability the Super Hornet program and aircraft does...
[edit on 31-10-2007 by WestPoint23]
Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
Can you not see that both parties can be right - the Super Hornet can be a wonderful air superiority fighter (a term quite misused in the program, incidentally), but we are not shopping for an air superiority fighter.
Oh "misused" is putting it lightly. They state rather confidently that the Super Hornet is no match for the Flanker and cannot achieve air superiority thereof. Yet in the next sentence they bring up the F-111 as some super air superiority platform, only to mention how good it is at bombing communications and ground targets, rather pathetic and embarrassing to say the least. The Pig is not an air defense fighter, as Willard said it has the bare minim needier for self defense while under escort. Without an advances air escort proving air cover for Austria forces it would not be able achieve air superiority on it's own not be as effective in the strike mission. If the predominant threat is Flankers than it makes sense to purchase and advance multi role fighter unlit the F-35 hits service. The capabilities the F-111 has may no longer be as critical in light of this new threat. And they can be achieved via alternative means if need be, as Willard explained above.
new topics
-
Yellow Brick Road found in the Ocean…
Fragile Earth: 2 hours ago -
TODAY IS A HUGE ELECTION DAY FOR AMERICA - November 5th 2024 - Reports from Around The Nation.
2024 Elections: 10 hours ago -
Joe Rogan Endorses Trump After Musk Interview
US Political Madness: 11 hours ago
top topics
-
TODAY IS A HUGE ELECTION DAY FOR AMERICA - November 5th 2024 - Reports from Around The Nation.
2024 Elections: 10 hours ago, 29 flags -
Joe Rogan Endorses Trump After Musk Interview
US Political Madness: 11 hours ago, 18 flags -
Kamala is running pro Palestine ads While simultaneously running pro Israel ads
2024 Elections: 17 hours ago, 11 flags -
Black Holes Could Be The Mysterious Force Expanding The Universe
Science & Technology: 14 hours ago, 8 flags -
Trump is NOT Racist
Politicians & People: 12 hours ago, 8 flags -
Yellow Brick Road found in the Ocean…
Fragile Earth: 2 hours ago, 7 flags -
"I'm seeing Red" by Jesslee and the Marine
Music: 13 hours ago, 6 flags
active topics
-
TODAY IS A HUGE ELECTION DAY FOR AMERICA - November 5th 2024 - Reports from Around The Nation.
2024 Elections • 36 • : KrustyKrab -
True Voter Surpression and an attack on a voter in North Carolina
US Political Madness • 120 • : Annee -
Look Who's Talking--Tim Walz Calls Musk: "That Gay Guy"
US Political Madness • 28 • : lilzazz -
Almost Home
Short Stories • 9 • : angelchemuel -
Portland Oregon and Washington D.C. Businesses Board up in Preparation for Election Day Unrest
US Political Madness • 22 • : matafuchs -
British Man Jailed for over 2 Years for Shouting at Police During Protest has Died in Prison
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 40 • : Freeborn -
Steal the vote alive and well
2024 Elections • 79 • : UKTruth -
Yellow Brick Road found in the Ocean…
Fragile Earth • 8 • : FullHeathen -
Post A Funny (T&C Friendly) Pic Part IV: The LOL awakens!
General Chit Chat • 7738 • : KrustyKrab -
Predictions for the result
2024 Elections • 112 • : Vermilion