The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Minding the gap - the Joint Strike Fighter and Australia's air capability > Comments

Minding the gap - the Joint Strike Fighter and Australia's air capability : Comments

By Robert McClelland, published 29/9/2006

Australia’s regional standing and influence has a direct relationship to our air combat capability.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Excuse my ignorance but if cost is such a limitation and the technology so expensive is there any way to design and manufacture suitable aircraft "in house"?

RAAF technicians know every square cm of the existing technologies and should be able to contribute something and even if we needed to recruit overseas talent for some parts of the process wouldn't it help alleviate some of the current dilemmas.
Posted by mjpb, Tuesday, 24 October 2006 8:51:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sounds like our Defence Minister has been listening to good advice (or reading this thread :)

The Australian, December 15, 2006, states:

"Australia may buy a squadron of 24 F-18F Super Hornet fighter jets as back-up amid growing concerns over delays in the delivery of the JSF.

Fairfax newspapers reported that Defence Minister Brendan Nelson had confirmed that the Government was in discussions with the US government for the purchase of the Super Hornets.
The aircraft are likely to cost about $90 million each.

The move is an apparent about-face for the government, which has repeatedly said there would be no need for a stop-gap to fill the hole between the phase-out of the RAAF's fleet of aging F/A-18 Hornets and F-111s and the introduction of the JSF"

see http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20932315-1702,00.html

Probably a complete delusion but comments on OLO may be listened to now and then.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com
Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 15 December 2006 10:48:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We all of course live in hope re the minister actually reading public domain information. In correspondence from a Ministers (Defence) Aid, public domain information is regard as unreliable and therefore ignored (further indication of the attitude of the Government and the ADF to "not in the loop" Australians.) A very poor state of affairs.

In further review of available fast jets I would actually prefer an Australian modified version of the F-15, similar to the Korean F -15K. Much greater range and weapons lift than the Super Hornet.

I would be quite happy though if we purchased about 150 Super Hornets with additional in flight refueling tankers (at least 20). No F -35 program.

It does not make sense that we spend millions repairing upgrading an already past use by date F/A 18 and then purchase 24 "newer models". The RAAF may have an ulterior motive, converting the Super Hornets to electronic warfare aircraft, similar to the AMPHIB project being thinly disguised fixed wing VTOL carriers (perhaps for VTOL F-35 versions)after the arrival of the F-35.

Sadly every time I take a good look at most current major defence projects and combine a little basic research the question of why? is always raised.

The Abrahams tank purchase (why?)and the continued additional costs of this tank purchase, reinforces my belief that the ADF at an executive level is out of control, combined with a Government that seems to be in panic mode in relation to Australia's defence and security.
Posted by PaulJP, Saturday, 16 December 2006 8:22:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PaulJP

Your first statement

"In further review of available fast jets I would actually prefer an Australian modified version of the F-15, similar to the Korean F -15K. Much greater range and weapons lift than the Super Hornet."

An "Australian modified version" almost always means means 5 year minimum lead-time BEFORE production for what is mean't to be an Interim fighter. It would get here too late.

Your next statement "I would be quite happy though if we purchased about 150 Super Hornets with additional in flight refueling tankers (at least 20)."

That would effectively double the size of our airforce (without justifying threat projections) and further strain our stretched pilot pool. Its also better not to effectively centre all our fighter/strike/bomber expectations around one aircraft (ie the Super Hornet) on the off chance it falls short of performance.

See the story in today's Australian further confirming Nelson's Super Hornet decision. Note the statement "The Super Hornet offers some commonalities with the Australian air force's existing Hornet fleet and a relatively easy conversion for air crew, air force sources say."

Sounds like advice written elsewhere on this string...

Have a good Christmas.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/
Posted by plantagenet, Wednesday, 20 December 2006 4:17:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JSF has shown itself to be in a 5th generation league of its own - I don't know if, in fact, any other program will join it! I predict JSF will be everything the Raptor is proving not to be. [the Raptor is having major maintenace issues!]. JSF benefits from all the issues the Raptor has encountered during its develop and initial operations - in effect, JSF nations are getting what the Raptor was meant to be at ALOT LESS dollars. The suggestion we look to acquire existing European alternates is factually incorrent, as these aircraft are simply not in the JSF technology or program management league.

Further, the recent suggestion by the Commonwealth of acquiring F/A 18F aircraft would appear a reasonable decision, not only in its intended role of F111 replacement, but of meeting the one concern I have about JSF - not about the aircraft itself - but, of having a "1 plane" [combat elements] air force - 2 planes gives tactical variance -something which itself adds to the distress of your enemy, something 1 plane type, no matter how good, cannot do. The F/A 18F "Super Hornet" is an awesome machine!

Suggesting a nation like Australia does not require a real air combat capability, is like saying the doors to the mint should be left unlocked. Australia has considerable national, regional and international obligations which require a capability of sufficient breadth and depth. For example, Australia could not have sent 1 solider to East Timor, unless we knew we had certain "real capabilities" if the deployment "went hot". Sadly, one day, such a deployment will go "hot" it is only a question of when. We have been very lucky up to now - full credit to the boots on the ground for it.

Issues of water supply and fighting bush fires belong in another Forum discussion, as they have no real relevance to this discussion. In a nation which crowns itself regularly in "Anzac" glory of days past, the people of Australia should always remember - your only as good as your next war!
Posted by Robo, Friday, 5 January 2007 3:54:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Politicians and defence managers assure that Australia has sufficient air defence capabilities with its combination of F/A 18 and F -111 aircraft. Upgraded F/A18 will serve as suitable replacements for the F -111.
Recent announcements re the purchase of 24 Super Hornets brings these assurances at least under a cloud with a good probability of them lacking any veracity.
A look at published capabilities of Australia’s F/A18 reveal a combat range of 730 kilometres and a interdiction range of 1000 kilometres ( RAAF web site).
Current 2 x Boeing 707 aircraft used as in flight refuelling air craft are insufficient to provide for the in flight refuelling needs of any, but a very small number of deployed F/A18.
New in flight refuelling tankers will not become available until at least 2009 (first one operational) and will still be inadequate when all five are available.
An F/A18 cannot be deployed to the edge of Australia’s economic exclusion zone (EEZ), a distance of between 500 and 700 kilometres, loiter for any time or conduct a single interception, without in flight refuelling support.
If the combat need for this aircraft occurs further than 300/500 kilometres from any supporting base this aircraft operations, a group of Australian’s throwing stones would be all Australia’s defence could offer.
A Super Hornet is not a one on one F-111 replacement. The purchase of Super Hornets does not address the issue of this aircrafts (F/A18 - Super Hornet, any model) lack of range. Even the US Navy has created a fast tanker version of this aircraft in an attempt to address this problem.
Australia has inadequate air defence capabilities. The F-35 will not address the issue of lack of fast jet range (a 1,000 klm combat range is suggested for this aircraft).
Five in flight refuelling tankers will not adequately support up to 100 fast jets (proposed F-35 purchase numbers), plus C-17's and AEW&C aircraft, all capable of and when in operation may require, in flight refuelling services.
Tokens are being used in the defence and security of Australia. Reality and need is not being addressed.
Posted by PaulJP, Friday, 5 January 2007 5:01:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy