The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - May 17, 2008

Advertisement


Advertisement


Advertisement



New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Horent Leader
2.Harpoon 4: Modern Tactical Naval Warfare
3.Empires In Arms

4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge
6.Campaigns of King David
7.Queen of the Celts
8.Danube Front '85
9.Axis and Allies: Guadalcanal
10.Guns of August

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies

Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Australia Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Super Hornets are a go
Berova    3/17/2008 3:35:13 AM
Australia will push ahead with plans to buy 24 Super Hornet. Was there much doubt?

h*tp://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINSYD8719420080317?rpc=44
 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2 3 4   NEXT
gf0012-aust       3/17/2008 3:44:52 AM
I'm proud to announce that I won a few beers today.
 
Rejoice rejoice, the muppets in the clown club have been publicly rejected. /dervish pirouette off
 
we will now see a flurry of howls from them as they desperately struggle to remain media viable ....
 
Quote    Reply

Aussie Diggermark 2       3/17/2008 5:44:50 AM
As a certain average sketch comedy show in Australia used to do, "Aw? Awww... (middle finger extends from pocket during second Aww!)


:)

 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Fitzgibbon's interview   3/17/2008 5:53:11 AM

www.abc.net.au/news/video/2008/03/17/2191868.htm

 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    That's great...   3/17/2008 6:13:59 AM
.... now all we need is for JASSM's to be integrated so that they can actually hit strategic targets like they are supposed to, a quarter of them to be fitted out as EF-18G's so that they can survive an attack by SU-XX's and another couple of Airbus tankers to be ordered to compensate for the fact that they are short legged. Chances of all that happening under this government? Sweet FA.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussie Diggermark 2       3/17/2008 9:45:38 AM

.... now all we need is for JASSM's to be integrated so that they can actually hit strategic targets like they are supposed to, a quarter of them to be fitted out as EF-18G's so that they can survive an attack by SU-XX's and another couple of Airbus tankers to be ordered to compensate for the fact that they are short legged. Chances of all that happening under this government? Sweet FA.

Meaning they won't be able to hit "strategic targets" with JSOW-C or anything else? Please. Even the most ardent critics of the aircraft recognise it is a superlative strike aircraft and JASSM at best will give us a mere 200k extra strike range, assuming we don't opt for JSOW-ER in coming years...

Any SU-XX fighters will be slaughtered before they get a chance to fire their weapons, whether they are facing our Super Hornets OR legacy Hornets and it has little to do with the aircraft itself, but rather our C4ISREW capabilities.


 
Quote    Reply

Arty Farty       3/17/2008 6:29:07 PM
I love how the mindef has at every opportunity (ie. every sentence) tried to bad mouth the previous government.
 
Quote    Reply

fall out       3/17/2008 8:12:27 PM
what a waste of $7B!  worst decision the current govt has made to date.  seems a growing certainty that we will be getting considerably less than 100 JSFs...
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear       3/17/2008 9:58:20 PM
what a waste of $7B!  worst decision the current govt has made to date.  seems a growing certainty that we will be getting considerably less than 100 JSFs...

How so?

We have a product that is nearing the end of its shelf life and the swanky new bells and whistles won't be ready for half a dozen years or so at the least. In order to keep continuity, the Gov will order the best product money can buy as a measure to keep the skills base and potency.

Not sure how that is the worst decision in this instance. Yep, $6bnAUD is alot even over the lifecycle, however, the alternatives are few and lacking in number/abilities.

 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       3/17/2008 10:04:37 PM

Yep, $6bnAUD is alot even over the lifecycle, however, the alternatives are few and lacking in number/abilities.


How do you figure?

There are numerous fast jets which are capable of acting as primary strike aircraft and secondary air-air types in the market place at the moment.  This is not to mention other options for filling the long-range strike requirement, such as ship launched cruise missiles et al.

Australia could have purchased any number of Su 30's, Su 34's, Tornado GR'4's, F15E's, F16 Block 60, Grippen, Typhoon Tranche 2, Rafaels etc.

 
Quote    Reply

DropBear       3/17/2008 10:34:17 PM
How do you figure?

There are numerous fast jets which are capable of acting as primary strike aircraft and secondary air-air types in the market place at the moment.  This is not to mention other options for filling the long-range strike requirement, such as ship launched cruise missiles et al.

Ship launched cruise missiles aren't very good at ACM. Nor can they designate offboard to other A2A platforms. You can't reuse a ship based cruise missile for recon/surveillance.

Australia could have purchased any number of Su 30's, Su 34's, Tornado GR'4's, F15E's, F16 Block 60, Grippen, Typhoon Tranche 2, Rafaels etc.

Flankers are for third world Air Forces and have systems that are not overly compatable with Oz/USA centric support equipment.
 
Tornado GR.4's would need as much new support equipment to any other jet in your list. They are also almost as old as the Pig anyway.
 
F-15's are nearing the end of the production and don't offer much more than a SH in some respects and less in others.
 
Gripen is a lightweight and isn't in the same class as the F-15/Sh let alone a replacement for the Pig.
 
Rafale is French for yoghurt.
 
Typhoon is only just being able to lob bombs as we speak. SH has been doing it for years.
 
SH is ready NOW!
 
 
 

 
 
Quote    Reply

Dr. Kurt       3/18/2008 5:16:34 AM

I love how the mindef has at every opportunity (ie. every sentence) tried to bad mouth the previous government.



Yes, the previous government was above such behaviour. It only took them until after the 2004 election to stop focusing on previous government efforts.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    AD   3/18/2008 7:51:37 AM




.... now all we need is for JASSM's to be integrated so that they can actually hit strategic targets like they are supposed to, a quarter of them to be fitted out as EF-18G's so that they can survive an attack by SU-XX's and another couple of Airbus tankers to be ordered to compensate for the fact that they are short legged. Chances of all that happening under this government? Sweet FA.



Meaning they won't be able to hit "strategic targets" with JSOW-C or anything else? Please. Even the most ardent critics of the aircraft recognise it is a superlative strike aircraft and JASSM at best will give us a mere 200k extra strike range, assuming we don't opt for JSOW-ER in coming years...

Any SU-XX fighters will be slaughtered before they get a chance to fire their weapons, whether they are facing our Super Hornets OR legacy Hornets and it has little to do with the aircraft itself, but rather our C4ISREW capabilities.



Actually the most ardent critic of the type that I have heard speak was Peter Criss, who called it the "Super Dog" and said that it isn't capable of surviving in this region against current threats. I disagree with the good AVM and merely think it is a mediocre airframe with a load of very snazzy avionics that will see it through untill the SU-XX get equally snazzy avionics. "Superlative" definately isn't a word that comes to mind for a 400nm, Mach 1.6 wonder that was bought by the USN as an economy measure to claim the "peace dividend" during the 90's
 
As for JSOW vs strategic targets, we've been through why it doesn't cut the mustard, but I suppose I could explain it to you again. It has a 500lb BROACH warhead, which is suitable for small hardened targets and small soft buildings. If you want to knock out a bunker with more than a 1.5 metre wall (i.e. any command bunker) or destroy a large building like the Iraqi intelligence service building destroyed in 1998 or the Somali chemical factory destroyed after the late 90's Al Quaeda strike, you need at least the 1000lb class warhead carried by a JASSM. Whats more, 130nm (200km+) extra range is a big deal if you are out of range of an important target, distinctly likely since we are operating 400nm radius wonders. It is also a big deal if you are facing SA-10's, which will outrange any current weapon but JASSM or SLAM-ER.
 
The really silly think about these planes not having JASSM integrated is that we are buying them and integrating them on our heritage Hornet fighter force. I would have thought that it was patently obvious that our premier strategic strike unit, the strike/recon force, should be equipped with our premier strategic strike weapon. What this means is that we have to tie up more tankers and a large part of our air to air fighter force on strategic strike, while leaving our strike/recon force at home during strategic strike missions. It also means that our fighter force has to worry about training for strike missions when they shouldn't have to. I'm sorry, but that is just stupid. The USN is not integrating the weapon because they have other strategic strike options , such as the USAF bombers and the TLAM. We don't have the luxury of using the SH in a purely tacticalrole, so we need our premier strike force to be able to do its job with the right weapons.
 
As for SU-XX being slaughtered, I agree so long as they don't get datalinks and AWAC's of their own. With some of the economical Russian and European packages being offered at the moment though, I'd rather have the certainty of some EF-18G's to give us the edge. Don't forget that it is going to be 6 to 7 years before the JSF comes into service. Our potential regional foes could easily become better equipped in that time, so it would be very unwise for us to be blaise about this.

 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    FO   3/18/2008 7:56:43 AM

what a waste of $7B!  worst decision the current govt has made to date.  seems a growing certainty that we will be getting considerably less than 100 JSFs...

Well it was Big Kim who was pushing the need for an interim fighter earlier this decade and it ultimately looks like we got what he suggested. I'm inclined to agree with his analysis and wish we had had a proper competiton 5 years ago like Singapore did in order to get a better fighter. However, we didn't so Nelson decided to get the SH when he got into power late in the piece, which isn't as good or cheap as we could have but which will do the job. As far as I'm concerned it is basically the only decision he could make at that late stage and was the right decision.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussie Diggermark 2       3/18/2008 8:58:08 AM








.... now all we need is for JASSM's to be integrated so that they can actually hit strategic targets like they are supposed to, a quarter of them to be fitted out as EF-18G's so that they can survive an attack by SU-XX's and another couple of Airbus tankers to be ordered to compensate for the fact that they are short legged. Chances of all that happening under this government? Sweet FA.





Meaning they won't be able to hit "strategic targets" with JSOW-C or anything else? Please. Even the most ardent critics of the aircraft recognise it is a superlative strike aircraft and JASSM at best will give us a mere 200k extra strike range, assuming we don't opt for JSOW-ER in coming years...

Any SU-XX fighters will be slaughtered before they get a chance to fire their weapons, whether they are facing our Super Hornets OR legacy Hornets and it has little to do with the aircraft itself, but rather our C4ISREW capabilities.




Actually the most ardent critic of the type that I have heard speak was Peter Criss, who called it the "Super Dog" and said that it isn't capable of surviving in this region against current threats. I disagree with the good AVM and merely think it is a mediocre airframe with a load of very snazzy avionics that will see it through untill the SU-XX get equally snazzy avionics. "Superlative" definately isn't a word that comes to mind for a 400nm, Mach 1.6 wonder that was bought by the USN as an economy measure to claim the "peace dividend" during the 90's

 

As for JSOW vs strategic targets, we've been through why it doesn't cut the mustard, but I suppose I could explain it to you again. It has a 500lb BROACH warhead, which is suitable for small hardened targets and small soft buildings. If you want to knock out a bunker with more than a 1.5 metre wall (i.e. any command bunker) or destroy a large building like the Iraqi intelligence service building destroyed in 1998 or the Somali chemical factory destroyed after the late 90's Al Quaeda strike, you need at least the 1000lb class warhead carried by a JASSM. Whats more, 130nm (200km+) extra range is a big deal if you are out of range of an important target, distinctly likely since we are operating 400nm radius wonders. It is also a big deal if you are facing SA-10's, which will outrange any current weapon but JASSM or SLAM-ER.

 

The really silly think about these planes not having JASSM integrated is that we are buying them and integrating them on our heritage Hornet fighter force. I would have thought that it was patently obvious that our premier strategic strike unit, the strike/recon force, should be equipped with our premier strategic strike weapon. What this means is that we have to tie up more tankers and a large part of our air to air fighter force on strategic strike, while leaving our strike/recon force at home during strategic strike missions. It also means that our fighter force has to worry about training for strike missions when they shouldn't have to. I'm sorry, but that is just stupid. The USN is not integrating the weapon because they have other strategic strike options , such as the USAF bombers and the TLAM. We don't have the luxury of using the SH in a purely tacticalrole, so we need our premier strike force to be able to do its job with the right weapons.

 

As for SU-XX being slaughtered, I agree so long as they don't get datalinks and AWAC's of their own. With some of the economical Russian and European packages being offered at the moment though, I'd rather have the certainty of some EF-18G's to give us the edge. Don't forget that it is going to be 6 to 7 years before the JSF comes into service. Our potential regional foes could easily become better equipped in that time, so it would be very unwise for us to be blaise about this.


 


Ah, ha, ha, ha, ha!

Firstly, we possess a MASSIVE degree of overmatch against ANY likely regional agressor right NOW.

Wedgetail, KC-30B and Vigilaire expand upon this to a degree that our "friends" within SEA can only wish for. NONE of them ARE acquiring capabilities to this level, (except for Singapore) let alone beyond. Should the SU-XX manage to "equal" or exceed the SH someday (and this result in an equivalent lack of RAAF combat power),  why could ADF NOT expand to meet this "dire" threat?

Hence why RAAF was so confident in it's planned force structure, which would have comprised Hornets as it's sole combat aircraft. Unfortunately CBR has not proven quite as effective as RAAF had planned.

The fact that we are gaining an ADDITIONAL strike aircraft is a bonus.

There is "nothing" stopping our regional "adversaries" matching our force structure, except they don't have the budget nor the will to do so.

As to the Super Hornet, well, belive what you will my friend. It should be illuminating that even Joel Fitzgibbon has been forced to remove his tin foil hat since becoming Defmin...

 The Russians and Chinese are somehow going to bridge the technological gap the US has created through sustained funding and research on a TENTH (if that) budget are they?

Yeah. And little green men and "Black" helicopters are just around every other corner too...




 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       3/18/2008 9:47:32 AM


SH is ready NOW!

 
Come now Dropbear - you know as well as I do that any number of the platforms I mentioned could do just as good a job as the SB in the strike role.  Even the Grippen, if paired with suitable tanker support.  I am not knocking the SB here, but claiming that other aircraft are not available or are lacking in capability is a non-truth.

Myself, I don't see what the drama is.  Australia is not suffering from any lack of capability - it isn't like Singapore is your arch enemy or anything.  Indonesia is hardly more likely to try and invade and win air-superiority over the Australian mainland with their 5 Su 30's or whatever they have.  You would be better off forgetting about an interim type and saving the money.  The RN losing Harrier FA2 - now that is a capability gap. 
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2 3 4   NEXT

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2008StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy