Shornet announcement tomorrow morning

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: Shornet announcement tomorrow morning
gf0012-aust 2/26/2009 5:03:28 AM

compliments of abe, via T5C, via press release: DEFENCE MINISTER TO MAKE MAJOR CAPABILITY ANNOUNCEMENT IN RELATION TO AUSTRALIA’S FUTURE AIR COMBAT CAPABILITY Who: The Hon Joel Fitzgibbon MP, Minister for Defence. What: Defence Minister will a make major capability announcement, whilst welcoming the Boeing and United States Navy Super Hornet team, visiting Australia for the Australian International Air Show. Where: RAAF Base Williamtown, Medowie Road, Williamtown. When: Friday, 27 February 2009. Time: 7:30am. Media should gather at the security gate for pass issue. The Minister will meet the Super Hornet team, which is in Australia for the Australian International Airshow at Avalon, Victoria, on 10-15 March 2009. A United States Navy early model Block I F/A-18F Super Hornet and one of the Royal Australian Air Force’s classic F/A-18 Hornet aircraft will be on display.

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

AdvanceAustralia Volkodav 2/28/2009 2:17:41 AM

"...had the issue of replacing the F-111 been tackled earlier other options could have been considered." - correct.

"...short of surplus B-1B's nothing available to the RAAF in the last 20 years could seriously replace the F-111..." - please excuse the way I've selectively used your words but you are again correct. Nothing else had the range. Nothing else had the payload. I doubt anything else had the survivability.

The B1b, of which there were/are surplus (and I believe some were offered to us), were by far the most suitable replacement for the F111. They possess the range that would give us options beyond that of even the F111, a payload that would give us more options while using less aircraft, and they are far more survivable. We would not have needed as many as the F111 so would not have needed many more aircrew to make up the 4 man crews. Their range would have negated, or at least reduced, the need for in-flight refuelling. While I agree we need AAR for the RAAF generally, air refuelling should be avoided on a strike mission if at all possible. AAR aircraft are vulnerable and require protection. They also stick out like the proverbial on the bad guy's radar and would negate the reduced signature advantage of the B1bs.

Of course, that's all a bit academic now. It's probably too late to bring the B1b into service. I've seen Herald refer a couple of times to what he calls the "10 hour bomber". This sounds like a good idea but would take years to develop and in the meantime we have a major capability gap. F35 with AAR seems to be all we'll get.

Cheers.

Quote Reply

Volkodav 2/28/2009 6:02:37 AM

I would love to have seen a squadron of B-1B's in service with the RAAF. In terms of capability it would have been the best choice, however politically it could never have happened.

There was a time when the Commonwealth insisted on the best gear possible for the ADF to guarantee our security through regional superiority, unfortunately that is no longer the case. Even the best of the stuff currently on order is no better than, or sometimes actually inferior to, the gear being bought elsewhere in our region. The best example of this is the F-35, while it is without doubt a very capable platform, the US is also selling it to almost any country that wants it. There is no tactical or strategic advantage to having them if every else does too.

To maintain regional over match we would need qualitive superiority which can only be provided through the best high end equipment money can buy. These days that means B-1B or B-2 and F-22, with numbers being filled out with a cheaper fighter attack or even pure attack type. It's not just air power where this is an issue but it is the area where it is probably the most critical to the defense of our sovereignty.

Basically we might as well get used to having sand kicked in our face.

Quote Reply

Aussiegunneragain AA 2/28/2009 9:20:29 AM

So after all the carry on by Labor (in both opposition and government) that the previous Government was wasting money buying SHs they now admit it was a good idea?

Cheers.

As much as I'd like to agree with you the process for ultimately buying the Shornet appears very flawed. It had been patently obvious for years that Australia needed an interim F-111 replacement and by failing to deal with this until the last minute the former Government did us out of the opportunity to run a competition to get a better cost/capability mix. There are also residual problems like the fact that our strike recon group aircraft won't be being fitted with JASSM while the F-18A's will, because of the original half arsed plan to have them cover for the F-111's. That makes it more difficult for each formation to specialise in its intended role during training and operations. The only possible excuse that the former government has is that the promise of buying up to 100 F-35's may have gotten us a better deal for industry in the F-35 program, but I haven't seen any evidence to that effect and I don't think that a 100 F-35 buy is incompatable with an interim aircraft in any case. It would just be spread out over a longer period and would allow us access to later blocks of F-35's, as well as reducing the risk of block obsolescence.

Quote Reply

AdvanceAustralia 2/28/2009 1:42:18 PM

Labor's criticism of the previous Government's decision to buy the SH appeared, in my view, to be more politically motivated than the outcome of any expertise in the matter. Labor was desperate to appear not only economically conservative and responsible but also strong on defence matters. It's never been either.

Nevertheless, one of the previous Government's first defence priorities should have been the timely replacement of, if not the aging F111, then at least the capability provided by it. They failed to do this. The biggest hurdle to overcome was that our American friends did not develop a direct replacement for the F111. Nor did anyone else we buy weaponry from (none of them have the long range problem we have). And, of course, we never developed the capability to do so. Our American friends seemed to rely on steaming a carrier strike group (or a cruiser or nuke sub) within range and firing off a seemingly limitless number of cruise missiles. Assets we don't have. Of course, they also have their B1s...

In short, our unique range problem makes this whole question rather tricky without a little more political will (from both sides) to deal with it.

Cheers.

Quote Reply

HERALD1357 Ed Heinenmann birds were among the best ever designed. 2/28/2009 3:43:25 PM

Well upgraded Skyhawks are a bit of a stretch, but you get my drift.

at the time they would have been good FACs and fast jet trainers...

The A-4 was and is the bumblebee of carrier aviation. Some people are still amazed that it can fly with such heavy loads so far and still be so agile.

I am one of those people!

Herald

Quote Reply

Aussie Diggermark 2 2/28/2009 7:47:22 PM

So after all the carry on by Labor (in both opposition and government) that the previous Government was wasting money buying SHs they now admit it was a good idea?

Cheers.

Who says JASSM is NOT going on to the Super Hornets?

DMO certainly thinks it is...

Quote Reply

Aussiegunneragain AD 3/1/2009 9:42:57 AM

So after all the carry on by Labor (in both opposition and government) that the previous Government was wasting money buying SHs they now admit it was a good idea?

Cheers.

Who says JASSM is NOT going on to the Super Hornets?

DMO certainly thinks it is...

News to me, I didn't even think it was integrated. Do you have a source?

Anyway, I'd be happy to be proven wrong on this one.

Quote Reply

Aussiegunneragain Herald 3/1/2009 9:46:19 AM

Well upgraded Skyhawks are a bit of a stretch, but you get my drift.

at the time they would have been good FACs and fast jet trainers...

The A-4 was and is the bumblebee of carrier aviation. Some people are still amazed that it can fly with such heavy loads so far and still be so agile.

I am one of those people!

Herald

I reckon that the A-4 was so good that if a company wanted to make a decent number of sales of an economical strike fighter to third world nations, all they would have to do would be to get the original plans from the 50's and start a newbuild production line using updated engines, avionics and composite materials.

Quote Reply

Aussie Diggermark 2 AG 3/1/2009 10:29:54 PM

Follow-on Stand Off Weapon - AIR 5418 Phase 1

TOP

Prime contractor: An FMS case was established with the US Air Force in July 2006 to supply AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles (JASSM). A commercial contract was signed with Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control in September 2006 for support for integration of JASSM with F/A-18F aircraft and supply of technical data and documentation

This project is acquiring JASSM for integration onto the F/A-18A/B aircraft to improve weapon terminal effectiveness against well defended targets.

ww.defence.gov.au/dmo/lsp/further_LSP.cfm

Quote Reply

Nichevo 3/4/2009 12:41:28 PM

Well upgraded Skyhawks are a bit of a stretch, but you get my drift.

at the time they would have been good FACs and fast jet trainers...

The A-4 was and is the bumblebee of carrier aviation. Some people are still amazed that it can fly with such heavy loads so far and still be so agile.

I am one of those people!

Herald

Some airframes are just gifted. Herald, I think he's got a good idea. I wonder if the patents have expired? Sounds like a viable business plan

http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emteeth.gif" align="absmiddle" border="0" alt="" /> - and a good first subject for out virtualized manufacturing concept.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT