RAAF FA-18F purchase problems exposed on TV

Oh certainly, but that still doesn't address the original question of whether SH was the appropriate choice to replace F-111. If you like, that's just Boeing advertising.

If this is the government agenda (to ditch F-35 and stick with SH), then it will require a further purchase of SH (at least another 50) and we will have arrived at a situation where the government has bought the F/A-18 / F-111 replacement without even asking the RAAF what they would like to do the job.

While the government is well within its rights to do this and they make the final decision anyway, it is not the accepted or laid down way of doing it and cuts the taxpayers (the public) out of the loop and sets the precedent that the services are no longer even asked what their preferred option is.

And, to be somewhat cynical about it, if it involves Boeing then recent history would indicate that it will be late, overbudget and won't work! And they will bitch like hell about it.

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 16/4/08 by The Winged Wombat]

I recognized it as a Boeing sales pitch; the quote is from a Boeing VP. I don't know what the Australian Government has decided, only that I thought it might be an interesting wrinkle.

To jump back in boots and all, in answer to the question about what replacement we should be purchasing (I'm ditching the understanding that the Pig is not being replaced, that only its capability is for two reasons: 1, the media keep using the words replace and replacement and 2, the SH clearly cannot replace the Pig's capabilities) I say this:

What replacement?

No-one has yet given me a solid reason for not continuing with Pig until the introduction into service of the JSF-35.

And cost is not a solid reason. If we're going to spend A$6,600,000,000 on the (stop-gap) SH then someone had better show me how continuing with Pig will cost A$6,600,000,001.00.

The SH cannot fly as far, cannot fly as fast and cannot carry as much as the Pig.

If it cannot match the capabilities, how can it replace them?

And that, Royal Australian Air Force types, is your basic problem.

Your secondary problem is this: there appears (to certain interested "outside" parties) to be a clear fight within the RAAF between "Bomber Command" and "Fighter Command" as to who should rule and who will get the toys. Which means this is a political bunfight in a place that should have no politics (which I understand is Shangri-la, pie-in-the-sky dreaming). The boys in "Fighter Command" have decided that they are the most important and should be making the decisions and getting the toys and the boys in "Bomber Command" should shut up and accept the decisions of the betters. That decision being that the RAAF has no problem in unilaterally ditching an operational capability as long as it gets seriously new shiny toys to build up another capability.

And here is my two cents on the subject:

Since 1945, when is the last time the RAAF has been involved in a2a combat?

In Korea 77Sqn deployed with Mustangs, converted to Meteors (thanks, Menzies, fool), proved what was known (that straight-winged, Gen1 WW2 jets couldn't tangle with swept-winged Gen2s) and concentrated on ground attack.

In Malaya the Lincolns dropped a hell of a lot of ordnance on the jungle, probably scared the crap out of the monkeys, well, those that survived, anyway.

In VN the Caribous and Hueys airlifted a lot of men and material and the Canberras flew a lot of bombing missions.

In Gulf War II, the sequel, the Hornets were sent to do escort/a2a duty and wound up flying strike missions instead.

a2a gap? Is that like the famous missile "gap" from the sixties?

Or is it more like the credibility gap that sat exactly in between Andrew Peackock and the Lodge?

I think that about sums it up, apart from a couple of points.

The fact remains (regardless of whether one believes that the SH can or can't do the job of the F-111) that the Australian public has been told nothing else but that the SHs were being purchased because the F-111s could not be maintained until the F-35 is in service.

I think it's fair to accept that the F-111 would be unable to carry out its assigned task in a sky full of Su-30s, at least not without several billion dollars worth of upgrading, however, since F-111 was only supposed to continue until F-35 comes along then one would have to question just how many Su-30s are actually going to be up and in service in our backyard by the time that F-35 gets here (as we are continually told it is not further delayed), and therefore the need to replace (or retire, as you wish) the F-111 at this time.

However, I'm prepared to accept that the de-commissioning process has begun and that it would cost a huge amount to reverse (which was the ADR finding). So apparently a fait accompli.

It is obvious that as far as the RAAF is concerned they want SH for an AA tasking not as a replacement for F-111 (as repeatedly pointed out by Willard but who apparently denies that the government has given the Australian public any reason at all for the SH purchase) and quite rightly pointed out by yourself.

The motivation and internal RAAF situation is, as you point out, quite obvious. The fighter mafia rules (for the time being, and at whatever cost to Australia that may entail).

As I said, it's about time they realized that they are merely employees of the taxpayer, learn a little about the history of warfare, stop being a pack of over-serviced prima donnas, and actually get on and do the jobs they are paid to do!

It has long been said that most of those who stay in the forces beyond a Short Service Commission, do so because they couldn't actually get a job outside the services. I've seen it go both ways, but each to their own opinion.

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 16/4/08 by The Winged Wombat]