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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 01:21 AM
link   
yeah i saw it.
goon and co bashing the JSF as usual.
the best bit i thought was when they were talking about upcoming
threats to the region and showed a Mirage III taking off in
RAAF colours and decals (very old footage)


Still dumbfounds my why the gov would want a single engine fighter
anyway?????????????
We lost nearly half the Mirage's !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 05:52 AM
link   
Ah yes, standard APA. "Promoting debate", as long as that debate is support for their agenda. Why the media gives these idiots credence is anyones guess while actual experts get ignored. I look forward to the point in 10 years or so when they won't be able to whinge anymore because the bloody thing will be in service. Hmmm, nah, they'll still whinge won't they? Maybe they should try a hobby? Something not involving aircraft...



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Willard856
 
Willard, it hardly makes sense to go bashing Kopp/Goon and Co, when the other side shows such an appalling lack of argument. Regardless of what you or I think of APA and their beliefs, surely the response from the Govt, RAAF and LM(and by inference Boeing) should raise more than a few questions in our minds? Once again a story went to air, and once again the SH/F-35 triad (as I will somewhat innacurately call them) failed to offer any response other than a half assed 1 or 2 paragraph standard issue press release frm the manufacturer saying essentially nothing. "Great!" another stonewall job. If the official position is so rooted in engineering, doctrinal, and financial facts, then why not come out and absolutely smash the counter arguments? Instead we get the same sort of suspicious and dodgy obfuscating double speak that was the WHOLE reason APA was brought into being in the first place.

Another thing, with all due respect Willard how do you know that whatever classified data you and others in the RAAF have been given access to on the F-35/Super Hornet by the manufacturer's or their greased wheels in Canberra, is any more reliable, realistic or truthful than anything else published in the common press? Lets face it, defence suppliers are hardly the most reliable or trustworthy when it comes to giving facts on their goods, and taking the RAN'S SH-2G fiasco as a case in point, why should we trust the people or the beauracratic mechanism that lead to this decision after so many appaling failures? Remember these are the same people who supplied (and are continuing to supply) the new minister with his facts. Why should we have any more faith in the F-35 than a plan to re-life and upgrade the F-111 fleet (as a relevant example) taking this into account, than an idea by a private group with NO financial gain to be made? And lets be fair here, its a bit much to start hammering these guys as idiots when so many people who were career senior officers are part of the opposition to this whole official doctrine. It isnt fair for anyone to call ALL of them idiots or cranks or whatever, when they rose up so far in the system and so many of them have come out and hammered the whole SH/F-35 case. Come on mate, are you really saying they are all ignorant and stupid and that the collection of various faceless grey suit Sir Humphrey Applebyites responsible for this and many other shamozzle's are more correct?

Look, I am an unabashed supporter of many (but not all) of APA's arguments, and having conversed with Kopp recently I can understand his frustration and also why sometimes his arguments dont make sense to someone like yourself. In a nutshell he is incredibly frustrated, for years he has talked, studied and lectured on the subject and has felt at times he isn't getting anywhere. I asked if he had considered dumbing down his arguments more so they grabbed the attention of the common press to make it become a more publicly known and debated issue. His response was that he felt if he dumbed down the arguments any more they would loose all accuracy and relevancy. And therein I believe lies his/APA and the counter SH/F-35 arguments greatest mistake. Kopp, APA and others may or may not be entirely right in their beliefs, but in their frustration to get their case heard in the regular press by anybody, they have allowed innacuracies, sensationalism and distortions to enter the argument. They are constantly on the back foot facing the establishment that doesnt have to prove its case (if they did, where once again was their counter argument on the ABC the other night?) so the argument becomes more sensationalised and consequently less rooted in absolute fact.

In an ideal world you should be able to put forward your case and let the court of expert and public opinion decide, but it doesnt work that way. In reality we should be putting pressure on Govt/Defence and Boeing/LM to justify THEIR case for why we should pay $6.6 billion for "interim" fighters and $15 or so billion for the F-35 when there are a lot of hard facts and numbers missing.

LEE.

[edit on 14-4-2008 by thebozeian]



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Sorry Lee, are you actually suggesting that the classified data would be worse (or at least have parity with) the information that APA is using? If you believe that, then no argument from the Government or RAAF will ever satisfy you, because you will never see the classified data, and even if you did, you would question its veracity. And the Sea Sprite issue isn't analagous to the air combat review. The Sea Sprite was an issue with system integration that had never been done before. The Super Hornet is fielded, and is a known quantity (we've flown it). Now, the F-35 is a different matter, but we still haven't commited to buy the F-35 as yet. This will be another outcome of the air combat review.

I find it interesting that a lot of people were jumping up and down in anticipation of Labor canning the Super Hornet. Now Labor is "the other side". What a difference three months makes!

The use of the word idiots may have been a bit harsh on my behalf. Totally ignorant to the actual facts, out of date with their warfighting doctrine and understanding, and overly reliant on inflated Russian gun runner press and SMEs such as "Mishka" (or whatever the retired russian fighter pilot's name is). But not idiots. I retract that word and apologise.

Carlo is frustrated because no-one with any shred of understanding of the realities of modern air combat agree with him. He keeps on pulling out his evolved F-111 paper, a paper that has failed to get any support. His capability comparisons and graphs don't agree with sources that I put far greater stock in. Even if you dumb down the argument, it will still be wrong. Again, can I or anyone in the "establishment" prove it is wrong without comprimising sources and information? No. But the majority of people will rely on the true experts to make the right call. Do mistakes happen? Yes. But the process (when followed) is a helluva lot more robust today than it was even ten years ago.

As for contribution to the media reporting, I made my feelings known about the Four Corners bias, and I'd say the same is true here. The consumer only gets what the producer wants them to get. In the same way that an ADF recruiting ad won't show the bad bits about the ADF. No-one is immune from bias, whether it is the 730 report, Carlo, or even me. The key is knowing what your particular bias is, and not letting it have undue influence in your appreciation of the problem space, and the outcomes that are best for the ADF, and Australia.

In closing, I sense the biggest source of discontent is in the lack of evidence available to the public on these issues. As I said, the underlying justification can't be made public (to the level of fidelity some are seeking). That said, nothing is stopping you or others from joining the RAAF/DMO/Government, or from addressing the matter with you local member. Public submissions were called for during the air combat review. Posting on ATS is not going to give you the answer you are seeking.



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by thebozeian
 


Lee,

It is a generational thing, I'm sure, but it is apparent that there is a feeling that someone thinks that (perhaps because they sit in a particular chair) they have a view that others don't.

It is true, however, that until a person realizes that the view they enjoy is because they 'stand upon the shoulders' of the previous occupants of the chair, then they will not even have a chance of doing the job properly!

It is equally obvious that some think that anyone who came before is either an idiot or is 'out of date' and cannot possibly know anything.

Further, some people in the world seem to believe that they sit in chair that is the ultimate destination or indeed source of all information - how wrong they can be.

Now before anyone thinks I am talking specifically about them - I'm talking about someone in my own family and a current member of the Australian military intelligence community - name withheld for obvious reasons!

It is however, a current and repeating problem which hinders understanding of so many situations.

Why is it that so many people throughout history have told us that the principles of war have changed, when it has been proved every time that they haven't (not that this seems to change their belief, of course). I'm still waiting for a war to be won purely by bombing!

So, apparently because we no longer sit in the chairs, we are all idiots or uninformed - how, I wonder does that compare with - we've been doing it since before you were house trained, sunshine - never mind, we never knew anything and couldn't possibly know anything.

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 14/4/08 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 08:01 PM
link   
The simple fact is some people do have a view that others don't. And will never have. This doesn't mean the answer is wrong. I'm in a fortunate position where I do have the ability to compare both sides of the story. And the APA view is wrong.

As for fighting wars, the fundamentals haven't changed, but the mechanisms certainly have. We talk about effects based operations as if they are new. They aren't, but the method of achieving desired effects have changed, due to new and more accurate systems, improved battlespace awareness, access to enabling capabilities (NCW, AAR, JTACs, as some examples), higher public expectations with regards to losses and collateral damage, and so on. No change in fundamentals, but the actual way the effects are achieved is significantly different, even when you compare Desert Storm to Iraqi Freedom. And certainly when you compare these operations to Vietnam, Korea and World War 2. So, while there is certainly salient points about the fundamentals you can learn from old and bolds, they have no place trying to tell the current generation the specifics of how to fight a war. 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. The "I was doing this while you were in diapers" argument is a weak one, a demand for respect to cover a lack of understanding of the current situation. If you have to fall back on this to justify your viewpoint, then you don't really have an argument.



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 10:10 PM
link   

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.


And here lies the problem.... you confuse this with 'the newest minted C cat Flying Officer flying an F/A-18 is likely more current than his CO about how to defend Australia' !!!

Which is not the same thing at all!

Why not just promote said Flg Off to Prime Minister and cut out all the middle men.

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.

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 14/4/08 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Ah, but that's exactly my point. There is an assumption in previous posts that bureaucrats are making these decisions in isolation. While the original Super Hornet deal was far from perfect in how it was conducted, the ACR decided that it was needed, based on the testimony and support of people who know. Kopp provided input, and the end result was that other inputs were considered more comprehensive and accurate.

I'm not sure what you are arguing here. Is it that people like Criss should have more weight given to their arguments because of their background and experience, or is it that the current generation don't really understand the environment?



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 10:36 PM
link   

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]


So now it's about me? Fair enough. I'd personally prefer to keep things generic.

Other than the RAAF, who do you think in Australia would have a better understanding of the capabilities and systems of the Super Hornet? Carlo? The Army? Qantas? Simple fact is, no-one in Australia has the level of insight into Super Hornet that the RAAF does (feel free to prove me wrong). For this reason, the advice given by the RAAF to government will likely be considered in higher qualitative esteem than others. Is this wrong?

Now you've muddled national defence policy into the equation. I agree that such things can benefit from wider consultation than the services. In fact, such things should be divorced from the services all together. The ADF implements the national strategy, it doesn't define it. Such things can benefit from people like Criss providing input. But in the same way that Stirling Moss shouldn't be telling Lewis Hamilton how to drive an F1 car, Peter Criss shouldn't be telling the RAAF how to conduct air operations. Or trying to convince the public that he can.



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 11:05 PM
link   
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.

So if you want SH, then fine, have it, enjoy it, but exactly what job within the National Defense Structure do you imagine you are getting it for.

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!

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 14/4/08 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 11:48 PM
link   

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.


Re-read my post. I said in Australia, and I said RAAF. Not world, and not me. As to arrogance, I find the form of people like Carlo Kopp, with no experience in air combat operations, telling those who do have such experience that they are wrong and have no idea what they are talking about, arrogant.


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!


Undoubtably. But given that we've flown it, manoeuvred it, tried the radar, and have a better than average understanding of the weapon systems, I'd say our knowledge of the platform is more than reliant on gun-runner pamphlets and claims.


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!


Yes, it is. And the Air Combat Review offered the opportunity for community input into this. In fact, Kopp's F-22/Evolved F-111 solution was exactly that, a claim that we need to maintain a long range strike capability in the form of the F-111. It didn't get up. The gap concerns the Flanker threat, not long range strike. We've discussed this before, the Government has decided we don't need a dedicated long range strike aircraft, the point is therefore moot. The capability gap that SH will plug is an air to air one.


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 you are more than entitled to your opinion. Of course, contributing to the ACR in the form of a submission would have been more effective than posting on ATS, but you chose not to contribute.


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.


Actually the process was:

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.
3. New government determines that there is a gap in capability based on identified requirements drawn from analyis of the future battlespace threat and desired effects, and that Super Hornet will bridge that gap until Air 6000 (the exact solution of which is yet to be decided) comes along.

You were the one who told us the ACR would can SH, because there was no way the new government would validate the purchase. Now you're flipping it to seem like the ACR was rigged to justify the purchase? Wow, more twists and turns than a Greg Louganis dive from the 10m mark. The process is what it is. I don't make the process, I support it when certain specialist advice is needed. Hate the game, not the player!


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!


The services have to provide representation on what they need based on the cascading precedence of documentation, being the White Paper, Defence Update, Planning Guidance, Concepts of Operation and so on. I return again to effects based operations. What effects do we need to achieve? Does it take a Super Hornet to achieve them? I can tell whether a Super Hornet can achieve certain effects, but won't be able to answer if it is the only solution. IntelGurl will know more than me on UCAVs. I never suggested the RAAF (and certainly not me) know everything. But in certain areas, and in a holistic air combat sense, we know more than anyone else in Australia.

Eccleston runs it, so should equal or more credence be placed on my recommendations of future engine requirements compared to, say, a Ferrari driver or tech? I got some good specs off the manufacturers website, and talked to a retired driver who drove for an F1 team in the eighties. I can put together a web site that looks convincing, and might have a chat to the ABC. They love a good controversy...



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Actually Willard your Moss / Hamilton analogy isn't quite right.

There is a vast difference between Moss giving advise about the philosophy of driving and telling Hamilton how he should drive his particular chassis.

You will discover that people such as Niki Lauda, Jackie Stewart, Michael Schumacher, et al are much valued and utilized within F1, both officially and unofficially as mentors and advisers.

Just ask Felipe Massa, who uses Schumacher extensively as his adviser and mentor.

In a way this is a proof that while the specific tools change, the basic principles remain the same.

The Winged Wombat



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Absolutely. But they know what they are talking about. Carlo Kopp does not.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 12:14 AM
link   

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.


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? (they do say that you can tell when a politician is lying - their mouth is moving!)

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 15/4/08 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Willard856
 


Well,

I make no comment other than that is a matter between you and Carlo Kopp. I'm not basing my thoughts on anyone else's (including Kopp or Criss).

The Winged Wombat



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 12:32 AM
link   

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?


Actually this is the first time you've mentioned the Growler. That said, if the all-encompassing ACR determined there is a gap or need for airborne electronic attack, I fail to see why mentioning the Growler is a problem. They haven't said they are going to buy, they simply pointed out commonality with the SH-F. Which given the dearth of other options for the role, isn't such a leap of faith. I'd actaully rather they factor this into current purchases. It costs nothing extra now, but may save money in the future. Why would this be a problem?


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).


Well, you keep bringing it up, despite the fact that I've pointed out multiple times that the SH is not replacing the F-111. But you keep on saying it is. Most F-111 guys I've talked agree that the platform needs to go.


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.


Just because the geo-political situation is unchanged, doesn't mean we need to keep the capability. We've just decided to achieve the desired effects in a different way. But realistically, I think it is clear the situation has changed in the forty odd years that we've had the F-111.


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?


Where has the government said that SH will replace the F-111? It will replace some functions, but I've already told you it is being brought on for AA reasons, not long range AS. You seem to have a mental hurdle in understanding this. As long as you believe that the SH is a one for one replacement for the F-111s capabilities, I can understand why you believe what you do. But it is built on an entirely false assumption.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 01:23 AM
link   
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.

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 !!!!!!!

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 15/4/08 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 04:19 AM
link   
I'm going to drop in quickly and add my two cents, because I've enjoyed the discussion and think that basically both view points are correct. My goal is to present a slightly different perspective. I don't know what acquistion process rules in Australia, but it's not likely more convoluted than the US RFP process.

IF I determined that the -111's were not able to be maintained efficiently, I then have to decide what to spend money on. You have to make that decision somewhat independently of the capabilities of the F-111.

In light of the fact I no longer have F-111's, what aircraft can I spend my money on most efficiently? How can I give my air force the most "bang for the buck"?
Certainly the F-18F will not be able to provide the exact same mission capability despite the fact they will "replace" it. But how many new aircraft on the market right now can fulfill that capability? If there isn't one, which one available makes the most sense based on what your force already has and what it needs? You can't point fingers at the acquisition of the SH because it doesn't have the same abilities, if no other strike aircraft out there does either. You have to make the best decision with what's available.

Again, I'm not sure that retiring the F-111's is the correct move for Australia. It seems to be the only plane available with the payload/range you would like to have in the Pacific. The best decision with what's available may be to just keep the pig and hope against hope that the JSF is on time.

And I'm not sure that the SH is the best "Bang for buck" in the meantime (I do think the Growler if offered as part of the package makes it more interesting as a "new toy", however)

But I DO think Australia should look ahead, because the JSF will almost certainly be behind schedule. And how long can you keep patching the pig to keep it in the air? How long do you have to wait for the F-35? Both of those are relative unknowns.



[edit on 15-4-2008 by _Del_]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 04:59 AM
link   
Calm down WW. We're having an adult discussion, No need to pop a vein over this!


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.


Not according to Defence.


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.


Source


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!!!!


There would have been controversy because the correct process was not followed. There should be no controversy now because a proper review has been conducted, needs identified, and a solution selected (from a number that were considered). The only reason we are still discussing this is because some people don't seem to be able to accept the decision.


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.


Do we need to be able to project air power to hit distant targets? Yes. Can we do this with the planned systems? Yes. Could we do this with legacy systems? No (due F-111 survivability).


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.


The system hasn't changed. The Defence Capability Planning Guidance document is extent. Just because Nelson didn't follow it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And the ACR used it. And yes, the RAAF shouldn't dictate requirements. The Government should tell Capability Development Group what their requirements are (and they do this via the documents I mentioned previously). Aerospace Development Group then produce an operational concept document, from which a number of solutions are considered. Force options testing against scenarios determine the best solution. RAAF are told what this solution is, and they have to see it into service (through DMO). Seems like a decent process to me. Nelson just didn't bother following it.


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 !!!!!!!


Well, previously you said you didn't make a submission. Which is it?

Look, some of you are obviously pretty upset by how things went with the Super Hornet. I wasn't impressed either. But the Air Combat Review has made recommedations based on a proper analysis. I just can't understand why there is heartache over this.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Willard,

You have selective memory. Go back our original discussion about submissions and you will find that I said that I did not make a public submission, but that I had made my submission some time previously, when IMO it would actually be considered or mattered! You read what you wanted to read.

Now go back to the press release and findings of the ADR (which you posted) and you will discover that part of the finding regarding the SH purchase ratification was that the F-111s are already disbanding and that it would be too costly to reverse that. Now is that the government saying that the SH is a replacement for F-111 or that the SH is being bought for an entirely different purpose?

Alternatively, since the RAAF was saying some 18 months ago that it had no foreseeable use or desire for SH then Brendon Nelson actually discovered the AA gap and plugged it all by himself? Doesn't say much for the RAAF then, does it.

Fine, the procedure exists - the fact that nobody appears to be following it is apparently fine also.

The Winged Wombat

And, yes, I did note that you appear to have changed your tune about the need to be able to strike back. So if we now agree on that then perhaps we can discuss whether SH or probably more importantly the single engined F-35 can adequately do that in our backyard.


[edit on 15/4/08 by The Winged Wombat]




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join