Thanks for the comments. 

 

I was a little surprised to hear that we were getting the RAAF F-18F's back because I assumed that if that had been the case, then we would have leased them to the RAAF.  I had read that they were bridging a capability gap between the F-18's and the F-35, I just thought that the RAAF would operate them until their useful life was up. My mistake. 

 

Would someone care to elaborate on the "australiazation" of the wedgetail project?  I have read a little about the wedgetail.  I know it's the RAAF AWACS and is running late.  I thought that it was Boeing's fault.  How is it that the RAAF caused it to be late?

 

"It will also enable Australia to effectively contribute to regional security and enhances opportunities for interoperability and commonality to support future coalition operations" Air Marshal Binskin said.

 

 It seems that Austrailia along with Canada tend to lean more towards the U.S. than Europe in terms of military procurement.  Britain tends to be split, and France and Germany tend to hate all things American.  Now I get why Canada wants/needs interoperability with the U.S. since our militaries work together at so many levels, but why does Australia tend to lean our way?  If Australia bought European equipment, you'd still have "interoperability and commonality" with NATO (whom I assume Air Marshal Binskin is referring to).  I come to my conclusion that Australia leans toward the U.S. due to your military acquiring the C-130, C-17, Abrams, F-111, F-18, and due to our militaires' co-operation and joint exercises.

 

 

I would like to understand why Australia doesn't participate in European ventures such as the Eurofighter and the A400M.  I was stationed in England for a while and ever since then I've been interested in the RAF and the RAAF.  It's kind of funny, 'cause I know more about your militaries than I do about the Canadians, and they live directly to my north!  So, I would greatly appreciate the Australian perspective whether you agree or disagree with my conclusion. 

 

To gf - I was reading a thread (I'm sorry I don't remember which one) and you mentioned how the American civil war was the first modern war that had subs, machine guns, etc..  You probrally already knew this, but it was also the first time two ironclads engaged each other ( USS Monitor vs CSS Virginia (Merrimack)).  I find it interesting since these two ships made every other ship in the world obsolete.  While I have your attention, I just wanted to say that I read alot and don't usually post, but its always good to read your comments because you are one of the few posters on this site that seems knowledgeable and cool headed.  If it wasn't for posters such as yourself, I probably wouldn't bother with this site.  So, thanks to all those level headed people who aren't here to wave your flag around!

 

And thanks again in advance for your posts.

Speaking of lightening the a/c, I was wondering if you could answer something else?  USN a/c have stronger (and heavier) landing gear due to carrier operations.  Since you don't have a need for the heavier landing gear, do the RAAF F-18s have USAF comparable landing gear (strength and weight wise) or do you keep the USN comparable landing gear?  If you want to reduce weight, that seems like a good place to start, but I don't know if you'd have to pay more for the mod, or if it'd even be financially worth it in terms of fuel savings. 

 

Thanks in advance.

unfortunately there's been a number of times when I've not been cool headed at all and have been an absolute knob.  you must have been away on those days (thank god).

re US gear as opposed to european and UK gear.  australia has a high degree of interoperability and significant exchanges that go on with the US (proportionately to our other major allies).  ewarfare, esensors, batlefield management systems, exchanges with personnel etc...  eg selected US submariners do part of their Perisher in Aust and a number of them are attached and do tours on our subs, - conversely we have people who exchange into US progs and courses.  We have people in senior exchanges, and together with the UK are the only 2 US allies that are embedded in some of their significant command structures, so the interaction and interoperability is quite high.

we do exchange with other forces but on ration and on practicality issues its not as great.  eg Oz special forces actively train and work with 26 other countries, but that is less visible, so most people would just assume that we play with US, UK, NZ, Can, Germany, Norway, France, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia etc...  but we train in a variety of different locales and vice versa.

its not that there is a "push" to US gear, its just that on ease of integration and force sympathy, its far easier working with the US (and UK) than with others.  There is no "preference" for US gear over Euro, but ultimately it will get down to integration issues, and that covers a multitude of definition sins.  So, commonality is across a number of areas, hardware, training (although US Army is different to USMC), tactical/strategic doctrine and culture.  Although if you put US, UK, Can, NZ and Aust in the one room, even though we all think we speak english, we culturally are all quite different.  

Speaking of lightening the a/c, I was wondering if you could answer something else?  USN a/c have stronger (and heavier) landing gear due to carrier operations.  Since you don't have a need for the heavier landing gear, do the RAAF F-18s have USAF comparable landing gear (strength and weight wise) or do you keep the USN comparable landing gear?  If you want to reduce weight, that seems like a good place to start, but I don't know if you'd have to pay more for the mod, or if it'd even be financially worth it in terms of fuel savings. 

 

Thanks in advance.

Speaking of lightening the a/c, I was wondering if you could answer something else?  USN a/c have stronger (and heavier) landing gear due to carrier operations.  Since you don't have a need for the heavier landing gear, do the RAAF F-18s have USAF comparable landing gear (strength and weight wise) or do you keep the USN comparable landing gear?  If you want to reduce weight, that seems like a good place to start, but I don't know if you'd have to pay more for the mod, or if it'd even be financially worth it in terms of fuel savings. 

These aircraft are supposed to be vanilla USN as much as possible.  The USN gave us entry into one of their slots to be neighbourly.  What we're not supposed to do is go out and do anything which could delay a production run for them.  Going in and modifying the aircraft would mean issues of recertification - esp if it means an impact on weight as that would automatically impact on things like centre of gravity, handling, flight characteristics etc....  They're also supposed to be minimal changed because the Govt does not want to see RAAF slipping in things and leading to scope and build creep.  

The reason why these things are ahead of time and on budget is because RAAF hasn't been able to do its usual dick around and the project team is focussed and not getting distracted by widget seduction.

MOTS is actually a fallacy with the simple act of selecting an existing design forcing the adaptation and modification of the design if for no other reason than to address obsolescents.

 

The SH's, coming from a US production lot, are an exception to a degree; however most off the shelf gear we buy is built after the original program has run down.  What this means is that technology has moved on, original components are no longer available and the new components have a different foot print on the platform, i.e. different size, weight, shape, size, heat load, power requirement etc.

 

It all adds up and even a minor change can have a significant (detrimental) impact on the platform. This means that sometimes you are better off taking a more holistic approach and embracing major change rolling the forced small change into a larger capability enhancement, rather than suffer degraded performance through a compromised fix.

Then we would be in the EXACT same position as we are now and as we were when we ran Miracles.

 

Australia currently operates one type of operational fighter aircraft - the F/A-18A/B Hornet. This will change when Super Hornet comes on line as it changed when we leased Phantom II's when the F-111's were delayed, but this situation is not the norm. The norm for the last 40 odd years is RAAF operating one single fighter type. 

 

Operating JSF is little different to the current situation. If the Hornet fleet were grounded today, Australia would have no dedicated air to air combat capability. It would still possess a strike capability from the F-111, and would continue to possess other surface to air based defences, but F-111 does not offer a significant air to air combat capability and so cannot be considered a "fall back position" in case the Hornet fleet is grounded. Super Hornet will, but it is a temporary measure at present. I do not perceive that the retention of a dual fighter force is an unrealistic burden on Australia's resources, but the "headsheds" do, so it won't happen...

 

Strike capability in future years is being diversified through increased land and naval strike capability. This will significantly reduce the reliance upon RAAF to provide ADF's overall strike capability and RAAF will concern itself with "high end" A2A, A2G and strike capabilities (amongst it's many other responsibilities of course).

 

It is all part of the growing "joint" force ADF is attempting to become... Make no mistake though, under current plans, RAAF will operate only one single strike fighter type. A UCAV might become a possibility at some point, but I get the feeling an Australian Government will want to see a foreign force operate it for some years before we ever acquire it...