It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Willard856
Even within the current generation, the newest minted C cat Flying Officer flying an F/A-18 is likely more current than his CO on tactics and threat systems.
Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
And what makes you think that your position gives you the highest level of information in this particular situation - in the RAAF perhaps, but for instance the RAAF is not building, selling or marketing the aircraft. Even thought some members of the RAAF are flying the aircraft does not mean they know more about the aircraft than anyone else on earth or that those particular people are any more qualified than any others when it comes to the political matters of national defense policy.
[edit on 14/4/08 by The Winged Wombat]
Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
Look Willard,
If intelgurl said something about SH, for instance would you contradict her because you are in Australia and you have some data on SH? Just an example, OK. You are assuming that because you have some data, then you have all the data - man, that is rather arrogant, don't you think.
Manufacturers always lie to customers - the Macchi MB.326H was supposed to be able to pull 7.5G all day, but we found out during the first course that that was a lie!
The matter of the SH purchase and the controversy surrounding it is not a matter of whether it is the best tactical fighter in existence or even that is available to us.
The matter was initially whether it was suitable to replace the F-111 in the roles that the F-111 was bought for (note not the F-111 airframe itself - that's a matter of whether the airframe could have been maintained or not - now history of course), and whether it was the best choice for that job, at the best price, and done in the correct fashion. If there was no intention to retain the F-111's capabilities, then why provide a stop-gap in the first place? Exactly what is the SH stop-gapping???
That is a matter of National Defense Policy, is it not!
So if you are arguing from the point of view that the SH is the best tactical fighter currently available to us, then fine, I'll agree with you, but until that Flg Off is running National Defense Policy, I'm not convinced that the SH, or indeed F-35 is the right decision for Australia's Defense needs considering the bigger picture, OK.
And, finally, I would have thought that the matter of Defense Reviews would have been somewhat abhorrent to you as it now appears that the 'normal' purchasing system will be 1. Defense Minister buys and orders without reference, followed by 2. Defense Review to validate the order.
Personally I prefer the 'Requirements' system, where the services make representation about what they believe that they need.
While I agree with your analogy concerning Moss and Hamilton, you might do well to remember that F1 is run by Eccleston!
Originally posted by Willard856
1. Old government made snap decision to buy new fighter.
2. Old government gets ousted, new government orders review of major defence acquisitions, including air combat.
Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
I have tried (apparently in vain) to make the observation that if the present government is 'eyeing the purchase' of 'Growler' then the procurement process has, in fact, changed, regardless of the political flavour. I find this somewhat different to a statement that the RAAF might be 'eyeing' the purchase of 'growler', or the RAAF has a requirement for 'growler', or do you not see the difference? Does this not tend to indicate that the government (whatever government) is going to order first and review later?
You seem to think that I am in favour of the F-111 airframe. I just stood in awe that the RAAF seemed to think that it could be maintained and the Minister decided it couldn't. Then the RAAF back-flipped. That it is being de-commissioned, requires some sort of replacement (unless we are to abandon the role for which it was bought).
If I follow your reasoning then it doesn't need a replacement, however if I follow the alternative reasoning that the geo-political situation is basically unchanged then at least some of its capability needs to be replaced and retained, but it isn't going to happen with SH.
If I follow your reasoning then the government has lied to us (both governments actually), because both governments tell us that SH is a replacement for the un-maintainable F-111. So are you saying that the government is lying to us?
Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
No Willard, I am saying that the governments, both current and past are saying and have said that the SH is the F-111 replacement - it was ordered because the F-111 could no longer be maintained (specifically until the F-35 comes into service)!!!!! Need I remind you that the whole purchase of SH hinged upon whether the F-111 could be maintained or not.
Australia aims to retire the F-111 at a time of our choosing, noting the F-111 was planned to retire well before Super Hornet was considered as a bridging capability.
Yet you tell us that it isn't the case and it is an AA stop-gap, so you are in conflict with what the government has said, therefore you are saying that the governments have/are lying to us (oh what a surprise!). Indeed, if what you say is correct then SH would have been purchased without any reference to F-111 at all and if that had been the case then there would have never been any F****** controversy at all!!!!
I agree forchristsake, the F-111 cannot be maintained forever either physically or within the battlefield environment (neither will you after your teeth fall out!), it needs or needed to be replaced, the controversy was that the RAAF didn't appear to believe that this was the time and then back-flipped. I don't see how that adds up to me wanting to keep it in service. If it's done it's done, but that doesn't mean the capability requirement just goes away.
So you think that the ADR should decide the RAAF's future requirements rather than the RAAF via the requirement system as it existed up to 12 months ago? Or perhaps you think that 'Growler' might just be a coincidence - show me the RAAF requirement for 'Growler'. And I'm not talking about - oh gee gosh that would be a good toy, because that's the only 'requirement' that the government has given the public on the subject.
No I didn't make a public submission, but I did make a submission - perhaps you might eventually figure out that some people might actually be in a situation where they can't make a 'public' submission !!!!!!!