Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RAAF purchases Hornets

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • tsv
    replied
    Originally posted by Top_Gun
    remember, it's not the plane but the pilot that wins. Didn't Iraq have the great Fulcrums and other top Russian hardware which did nothing but run to Iran after the first few were blown from the sky?
    50% Agree. IMO the pilot is more important than the plane. And I've got utmost confidence in our pilots. But there are limits to what you can achieve with an inferior a/c.

    BTW how many Fulcrum's were lost?

    Originally posted by CAPFlyer
    Firstly, wherever you got the notion that the F/A-18F is an "outdated" aircraft, you need to go and smack them upside the head with a sledgehammer.

    Secondly, once you get that done, you need to try talking to the US Marines and US Navy pilots who are flying them every day in Iraq and Afghanistan and haven't lost a single one to enemy fire yet. Better yet, talk to the US Navy Agressor Squadron guys who've been shot down a couple dozen times by Super Hornets when playing Su-30s. Best yet, talk to the trio from Langley that found out the hard way that when your opponent knows their airplane, no amount of thrust vectoring will save you from getting killed (3 F-22As were shot down by F/A-18Es during an exercise at Nellis last year).
    Talk to Pilots who've sucessfully flown F/A-18Es against Iraq and Afghanistan? You're kidding! Those countries don't even have an airforce! How could the Hornets possibly be shot down there? Well I guess you did say you're not serious

    I don't doubt an F/A-18E could occasionally have sucess against an F-22A in a war game (or even a war). But the odds favour the F-22A. Rather comprehensively.

    Originally posted by CAPFlyer
    The second point is a serious one. One thing to remember about all of those countries buying SU-30s - they're all using Soviet tactics. That means that their pilots are chained to their GCI (ground controllers) and won't do anything they're not cleared to, not even engage the enemy, so their maneuverability means nothing if they're not cleared to even shoot. Beyond that, in the REAL WORLD, the AMRAAM Plusses that came off the rails on the F/A-18Fs will be hitting those SU-30s before they even knew that the Hornets were out there in the first place, so all the maneuverability in the world will mean exactly nothing.
    Firstly the idea that the SU-30 is only a close in fighter and can easily be defeated BVR is naive. It itself has excellent BVR capabilities and long range air to air missiles. Boeing has proved (using flight simulators) it can defeat the F-15 at any range. And Hornets are not in the same class as F-15's.

    Your point about the tactics may well be true. But the obvious problem is that tactics can be changed.

    There was a story on 60 minutes last night about Australia's decision to purchase the JSF. Below is an extract:

    LIAM BARTLETT: You have spent a lot of hours in the cockpit of fighter planes, if it came to war with one of our regional neighbours, would you be confident that you could beat them in the air behind the controls of the Joint Strike Fighter?

    AIR VICE-MARSHALL (RET) PETER CRISS: No, no. Because already in our region there are formidable, very formidable, predominantly Russian, mainly Sukhoi family variants of aircraft.

    LIAM BARTLETT: Let me get this straight, you're saying most of our regional neighbours will have Russian-made planes that can potentially beat the Joint Strike Fighter?

    AIR VICE-MARSHALL (RET) PETER CRISS: Yes. That's why I am saying.

    LIAM BARTLETT: That's alarming, isn't it?

    AIR VICE-MARSHALL (RET) PETER CRISS: Well, that's why I am alarmed. We're going to go and buy an aircraft, throw it into a region that may or may not be hostile to us then say, 'Well, good luck boys, hope you come back.'

    As you can see the Vice Marshall is not very confident of the JSF's chances of beating the SU-30. Presumably he would be even less enthusiastic about the F/A-18E's chances.

    You can view the full story here; http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/s...story_1879.asp

    Greg is right. Australia cannot afford to have half an airforce. If we're going to have one it must be effective. Which means we should maintain air superiority over our neighbours.

    If we can't afford to do that then maybe we need to consider other deterrant options such as land based missiles or nuclear weapons.

    In the meantime we can only pray we are spared from more dud deals by Brendan Nelson and similar twits who have occupied that post for about 3 decades.

    Leave a comment:


  • CAPFlyer
    replied
    First, I was talking about "tsv" and his "issues" with the purchase, not yours.

    Second, the F-111s are getting to the end of the airframe life. The F/A-18F gives you a direct replacement (as far as payload, range, and roles). The F-35 is a different class of aircraft, more akin to the F-16A than the F/A-18E/F. The aircraft has only 1 engine, doesn't have nearly the range (unrefuelled) and can't carry nearly as much. What it does good is be able to get in and out relatively unnoticed. A Super Hornet is "stealthy" but not "steathly" in the way that the F-22 and F-35 are. So the F-35 will give Australia the ability to make surgical strikes in limited numbers (perfect for small brushfire-type actions which NATO and the UN specialize in) and the F/A-18s work to protect the nation, its skies, and its waters from those who may wish to threaten the homeland.

    What you need to consider here is that the US is trying to get other countries to contribute more to the UN peacekeeping and action forces. Whenever the UN needs someone to put out a brushfire, guess who they call - the US. Whenever NATO needs someone to put out a brushfire, who do they call? Again, the US. They come looking to the US first for soldiers and equipment to use in their actions. Look back at the last 20 years and name for me one major UN operation where the US wasn't the country called on to lead the action and gladly contributed as many troops as were requested. Now look back and see how many times the number of troops needed increased because other countries decided to pull out of the multinational force or because they didn't have the equipment or men to give in the first place. If Australia can take even 25% of the commitment that the US puts forth every year, it would be a huge help to the US's force distribution. We have forces in 15 countries right now on behalf of the UN. If we could drop that to 10, we'd be able to not deploy another 2 or 3 divisions each year and give our soldiers some rest. Iraq and Afghanistan aren't the only places there are problems right now, but they're putting a lot of strain on the US military and trying to keep up our UN commitments as well isn't helping any.

    Leave a comment:


  • Greg Wilson
    replied
    Originally posted by CAPFlyer
    Firstly, wherever you got the notion that the F/A-18F is an "outdated" aircraft, you need to go and smack them upside the head with a sledgehammer.

    Secondly, once you get that done, you need to try talking to the US Marines and US Navy pilots who are flying them every day in Iraq and Afghanistan and haven't lost a single one to enemy fire yet. Better yet, talk to the US Navy Agressor Squadron guys who've been shot down a couple dozen times by Super Hornets when playing Su-30s. Best yet, talk to the trio from Langley that found out the hard way that when your opponent knows their airplane, no amount of thrust vectoring will save you from getting killed (3 F-22As were shot down by F/A-18Es during an exercise at Nellis last year).

    Finally, when the jail cell door closes and you realize that I wasn't being the serious about the first point, be sure to ask for soap on a string.

    The second point is a serious one. One thing to remember about all of those countries buying SU-30s - they're all using Soviet tactics. That means that their pilots are chained to their GCI (ground controllers) and won't do anything they're not cleared to, not even engage the enemy, so their maneuverability means nothing if they're not cleared to even shoot. Beyond that, in the REAL WORLD, the AMRAAM Plusses that came off the rails on the F/A-18Fs will be hitting those SU-30s before they even knew that the Hornets were out there in the first place, so all the maneuverability in the world will mean exactly nothing.
    Well you completely missed at least my point mate.........
    But then again you needed to get all that off your chest.
    Since when has Australia been involved in air combat?
    When is Australia going to be involved in air combat?
    Australia has better places to put its military money at present than having a few aircraft that is halfway between having an airforce and not having an airforce.As I mentioned before we have a history of coming off second best in deals like this and I would imagine this will be no different.
    It is believed that the Department of Defence did not even ask for them,and if this is the aircraft we must have, how does a delivery start date of 2013.....and yep we all know that probably means later than 2017......help us? Australia has committed itself to the JSF programme so we may have expected delivery of the F35 by around this date.
    And because the whole JSF programme was on shaky ground until the UK and Australia committed then why did our brains trust miss the fact we had at least some bargaining power....even if it was slotting us in on early builds.
    Same old story.

    Leave a comment:


  • CAPFlyer
    replied
    Firstly, wherever you got the notion that the F/A-18F is an "outdated" aircraft, you need to go and smack them upside the head with a sledgehammer.

    Secondly, once you get that done, you need to try talking to the US Marines and US Navy pilots who are flying them every day in Iraq and Afghanistan and haven't lost a single one to enemy fire yet. Better yet, talk to the US Navy Agressor Squadron guys who've been shot down a couple dozen times by Super Hornets when playing Su-30s. Best yet, talk to the trio from Langley that found out the hard way that when your opponent knows their airplane, no amount of thrust vectoring will save you from getting killed (3 F-22As were shot down by F/A-18Es during an exercise at Nellis last year).

    Finally, when the jail cell door closes and you realize that I wasn't being the serious about the first point, be sure to ask for soap on a string.

    The second point is a serious one. One thing to remember about all of those countries buying SU-30s - they're all using Soviet tactics. That means that their pilots are chained to their GCI (ground controllers) and won't do anything they're not cleared to, not even engage the enemy, so their maneuverability means nothing if they're not cleared to even shoot. Beyond that, in the REAL WORLD, the AMRAAM Plusses that came off the rails on the F/A-18Fs will be hitting those SU-30s before they even knew that the Hornets were out there in the first place, so all the maneuverability in the world will mean exactly nothing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Top_Gun
    replied
    remember, it's not the plane but the pilot that wins. Didn't Iraq have the great Fulcrums and other top Russian hardware which did nothing but run to Iran after the first few were blown from the sky?

    Leave a comment:


  • tsv
    replied
    [QUOTE=Showtime100]Be happy we are selling you the Hornet, now learn to fly it and you'll be fine.

    Really.

    So you don't think our new squadron of hornets would have any problems defeating a Squadron of SU-30's that several of our neighbours have?

    Leave a comment:


  • Asmir Hamidovic
    replied
    Originally posted by Greg Wilson
    Operation Catalyst..Iraq 1450.
    Operation Slipper... Afghanistan .....550
    Wow i nevere knew that they dont talk about them on the news or anything.

    Leave a comment:


  • Showtime100
    replied
    And you have what to show for your "Success"? You are right though, not many people do worry about Austrailia.... Why is that?

    Leave a comment:


  • Greg Wilson
    replied
    Originally posted by Showtime100
    LOL....they would probably screw that up anyway. Be happy we are selling you the Hornet, now learn to fly it and you'll be fine.
    A couple of million tons of bombs, cruise missiles, napalm, agent orange and whatever else is big and beautiful hasnít been that successful for you over the past 40 years, so donít go worrying yourself about Australia mate.

    Leave a comment:


  • Showtime100
    replied
    Originally posted by tsv
    What are we going to do - sting them to death?.
    LOL....they would probably screw that up anyway. Be happy we are selling you the Hornet, now learn to fly it and you'll be fine.

    Originally posted by tsv
    They should have told the US straight out that we want the Raptor and if you don't sell it to us we'll buy the Euro Fighter.
    I'm sure that would work, why don't you tell someone?

    Leave a comment:


  • uy707
    replied
    Should I would be an Australian tax payer, I would question myself about the ADD. Owing to the many missions entrusted to the RAAF,
    - prevention, including permanant deployments to Butterworth/Malaysia
    - ANZAC air defense + PNG especially since the RNZAF parted with the Skyhawks while retaining the option not to replace them and appoint the RAAF to do the job.
    - probably more to come
    the latter should have conducted the deal as they will be the final user.
    Going along with tsv as Australia should have made some arm-twisting.
    Alain

    Leave a comment:


  • Greg Wilson
    replied
    Originally posted by Asmir Hamidovic
    How many soldires do you guys have over there?
    Operation Catalyst..Iraq 1450.
    Operation Slipper... Afghanistan .....550

    Leave a comment:


  • Asmir Hamidovic
    replied
    How many soldires do you guys have over there?

    Leave a comment:


  • tsv
    replied
    Originally posted by Asmir Hamidovic
    Australia is not in war with anybody they dont have soldires in IRAQ and they havent been in any conflicts.Why would you want to buy one of the most exspensive military aircraft the F-22,there is no need for it.That is where the F-18 come in,Australia just needs some planes if a conflict was to occur with them and some othere country.That is why i think they baught 24 F-18.

    Actually we do have soldiers in Iraq. But not fighter a/c.

    Originally posted by Omar Alex Saffe
    F-18 doesn't seem to be a bad choice for me neither. As Asmir said why buy "THE" best ac (well at least the most expensive one) when you have no reason to go to war ? And F/A-18F are quiet modern and efficient for the needs of the Royal Australian AF.
    We don't have any reason to go to war but surely the idea of having defence forces is to give yourself the ability to defend to yourself if someone decides to go to war with you. Look at the equipment our neighbours have;

    India - SU30's plus MIGS and about to order 126 more modern fighters
    China - Lots of SU30's plus indigenous fighters
    Malyasia - SU30's
    Indonesia - SU30's
    Pakistan - ? F-16s?

    So who are we going to deter? I think we've got New Zealand covered plus Papua New Guinea and Fiji but god help us if anyone else decides to scrap.

    There's just no point coming second in a dogfight (or a war). If we're going to have a defence force it may as well be a capable one. Which is why the Eurofighter would have been a more useful choice IMHO.

    Leave a comment:


  • YYZPICS
    replied
    The super hornet is the most maneuverable aircraft out there without the use of thrust vectoring, who wouldnt want it??

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X