Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Australia To Order 12 F/A-18E/F & 12 EA-18G  
User currently offlinequeb From Canada, joined May 2010, 710 posts, RR: 3
Posted (1 year 8 months 5 days ago) and read 7892 times:

The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress Feb. 27 of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Australia for up to 12 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft and 12 EA-18G Growler aircraft and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $3.7 billion.

http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2013/Australia_13-05.pdf

60 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1778 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 8 months 5 days ago) and read 7867 times:

Quoting queb (Thread starter):
The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress Feb. 27 of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Australia for up to 12 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft and 12 EA-18G Growler aircraft and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $3.7 billion.

http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36...5.pdf

FYI, the Australian decision to purchase will occur later this year. They may elect not to proceed with a Super Hornet purchase at all. The RAAF is on record as being against the additional purchase as they don't want to operate two types of fighter jets. The Australians are just covering their bases and getting the approval now.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 2, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 7726 times:

The RAAF will do as they are told. This is all wrapped up in the continuing F-35 circus and is perforce highly political.


Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7591 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 7493 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 1):
They may elect not to proceed with a Super Hornet purchase at all.

Clutching at straws aren't you, I'd like to see you try back that statement up.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 1):
The RAAF is on record as being against the additional purchase as they don't want to operate two types of fighter jets.

The RAAF will operate what the Australian govt tells them to operate, that's how it works in a democracy.

I suspect that the Aussies are going to end up with the Super Hornet and not get the F-35, otherwise why would they want an additional batch of 24, they are more than capable of doing the job the Aussies need them to do.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1778 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 7468 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 3):
I suspect that the Aussies are going to end up with the Super Hornet and not get the F-35, otherwise why would they want an additional batch of 24, they are more than capable of doing the job the Aussies need them to do.

Not bloody likely. I imagine at best, a purchase with option to return or sell the aircraft to the USN once they get their F-35's.

Politically, both the governing party and the opposition support buying F-35's, and are on record as being supportive. What is more of a concern is a potential gap in coverage between the current Hornet fleet and the introduction of F-35. The Australians will review the situation carefully before committing to additional Super Hornet purchases.

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 3):
Clutching at straws aren't you, I'd like to see you try back that statement up.

No, pointing out the real facts. The US DSCA approval notification doesn't always translate into a purchase. Sometimes, there is a notification for approval, but the end user elects not to purchase. The approval is always sought prior to committing to ease the process if a decision is made to go ahead.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 5, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 7408 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 4):
Politically, both the governing party and the opposition support buying F-35's, and are on record as being supportive.

Because they buy into the idea of industrial offsets as part of the purchase, which means jobs in Oz (or Canada or Netherlands, etc). Not necessarily because they believe what's in the brochure, unlike others.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 7337 times:

This is not a sale. It is a hedge for the F-35 order.

However, it is no idle threat against the F-35 either. You can get away with this over promising within the USA with the jobs created within the congressional districts and all that. But to a long list of countries with their own sovereign governments, it's different IMHO. Maybe many are waiting till the last moment to just not order them, to protect their jobs in the program?

Because yanking away the industrial offsets and jobs in Australia, Canada, or any other nation - I think is too late to do on a large scale and it will only get more difficult as time goes on.

Many cite the F-16 program as an analogy to the international flavor of the F-35 program - regarding international partners and customers. But I can't remember the F-16 being so out of whack more expensive and delayed nor so under performing, as to what was promised, as the F-35 is. Nor things like all heavy maintenance only done by LM in a centralized maintenance center, unlike the F-16. The F-35 and F-16 programs are very different in important ways.

For Australia and in almost all international partners, the politicians who approved the F-35 program in their countries are no longer there. This means LM will have to sell it again to the current leaders to entice them to order it, in a time of global budget cuts. These countries have not ordered the F-35 yet in any meaningful numbers.

In Australia, Julia Gillard has been Prime Minister only since 2010 and she is from the Labor Party in a coalition with the Green Party. A very liberal coalition. That's why I think the chances of that F-18 order being finalized is pretty good, simply because it is the cheapest option and is good enough. Liberals usually are not worried too much about the military and have other higher priorities - usually.

[Edited 2013-03-02 09:51:32]

User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1778 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 7298 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 6):
But I can't remember the F-16 being so out of whack more expensive and delayed nor so under performing, as to what was promised, as the F-35 is.

Ahem:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/120/116765.pdf

GAO report on the F-16 programme from 1977. We had F100 engine stalls, lack of a demonstration of an improved aerial restart capability, and excessive taxi speed. The F-16 also need more room for avionics. There were also concerns regarding survivability, and cost increases.

Follow up report in 1978:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/130/122481.pdf

Full rate production was approved, despite more concerns regarding the F100 engine, survivability, and concurrency.

How about the F/A-18?
http://archive.gao.gov/f0102/114371.pdf

A bulkhead failure, high-oil temperature, software development delays, recurring fuel cell leaks, aircraft roll-rate performance, difficult vertical tail installation, an LPT failure.

...and two crashes in a three month period. By 1988 the unit cost increase was 188% of the target.

Do I need to go on?

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 6):
In Australia, Julia Gillard has been Prime Minister only since 2010 and she is from the Labor Party in a coalition with the Green Party. A very liberal coalition. That's why I think the chances of that F-18 order being finalized is pretty good, simply because it is the cheapest option and is good enough. Liberals usually are not worried too much about the military and have other higher priorities - usually.

Not a finalization. The decision to proceed for Australia with more Super Hornets is later this year:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/0...er-australia-idUKBRE91P02F20130226

Quote:
"No decision has been made, no judgment has been made," Smith told reporters at the opening of the Australian International Airshow in southern Victoria state.

"We'll make that decision in the course of this year, I expect by the middle of this year," he said. "But one thing I won't allow to occur is a gap in our air combat capability."

The Australians have made it clear that more Super Hornets will be a gap filler in case of any capability gaps caused by any potential delays between introduction of the F-35 and the retirement of the regular Hornets. The Australians will review the situation, determine if they can manage the risks, consult with the US on the status of the F-35 programme, and see if they can keep their Hornet fleet operational until F-35 enters service. If the Australians determine that they can manage the risks without an additional Super Hornet purchase, they will not purchase more Super Hornets.

And FYI, the Australians are coming up to a election year, and the Conservatives are expected to win. But F-35 procurement has bi-partisan support:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...ustraliagovt-idUSBRE91R08820130228


User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7591 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 7273 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 7):
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/0...er-australia-idUKBRE91P02F20130226

Did you miss the following sentances in the article you quoted?

Quote:
Smith said Australia is committed to the purchase of an initial two F-35s, but the timing of options for a further 12 and an initial plan to buy a total of 100 remains unclear.

Smith noted the Australian government's decision last year to purchase 12 EA-18G Growlers with radar-jamming electronic weapons that are compatible with the Super Hornet.

"Just as the United States is now effectively operating on a mixed fleet to 2030/35 of Super Hornets, Growlers and F-35s, that potential is there for Australia as well," he said.

In another Reuters article it talks of cutting the order for 100 to 50-70 aircraft, that pretty much puts the F-35 on the slippery slope if you ask me.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/0...er-australia-idUKL4N0BS1JF20130301

Quote:
But defence analysts predict Australia might end up buying only 50 to 70 of the fighters given Canberra is expected to decide in June to double its fleet of Super Hornets to prevent a frontline gap until the F-35 is delivered later in the decade.

The cost of picking up the extra Super Hornets will almost certainly force Australia to cut its F-35 purchases, defense analysts say.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1778 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7242 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 8):
n another Reuters article it talks of cutting the order for 100 to 50-70 aircraft, that pretty much puts the F-35 on the slippery slope if you ask me.

However, another states that an option is that the Australians buy 100 aircraft as planned, but over a longer period of time or in batches. Who knows, it will depend on the upcoming review due to be complete this year. We will just have to wait and see.


User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7591 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 7203 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 9):
However, another states that an option is that the Australians buy 100 aircraft as planned, but over a longer period of time or in batches. Who knows, it will depend on the upcoming review due to be complete this year. We will just have to wait and see.

You're forgetting that this is not a popular purchase with the Australian people, it's somewhat of a political hot potato, both main parties have said they support it, however if one one party can score points over the other by scaling down the purchase (almost a dead cert) or cancelling it they will.

I also suggest you read this interview with the Australian Defence Minister Stephen Smith

http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2...ina-carvalho-abc-news-breakfast-2/


User currently offlineSCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 7201 times:

Super Hornet. Boy, talk about an aircraft with compromised performance. The RAAF would be better off buying the USAF F-111F's sitting in mothballs and waiting for the F-35. The F-35A and F-111F would make a great combo for the RAAF...

User currently offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4889 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 7180 times:

Quoting SCAT15F (Reply 11):
The RAAF would be better off buying the USAF F-111F's sitting in mothballs and waiting for the F-35.

They had recently, buried theirs quite dramatically...    ...

http://resources2.news.com.au/images...1570-f111s-dumped-near-ipswich.jpg



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 7141 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 7):
By 1988 the unit cost increase was 188% of the target.

From the GAO report you linked on the F-18 program:

The Navy's baseline estimate, established in fiscal year
1975, was $12.9 billion. The rise in estimated costs over
the baseline estimate to the $29.7 billion and $41 billion
estimates are attributable to (1) an increase in procurement
quantity, including changes in attack, reconnaissance, and
trainer requirements, (2) inflation, including adjustments for
inflation for the baseline quantity and inflation associated
with the added production aircraft, and (3) other cost growth.
Related to these three factors, the $28.1 billion increase to
arrive at the $41 billion estimate consists of $3.9 billion
(14 percent) for quantity changes, $18.2 billion (65 percent)
for inflation, and $6 billion (21 percent) for other cost
growth.


In fiscal year 1979, tyhe Navy increased the procurement
quantity from 811 to 1,377 aircraft and increased the
program cost estimate by $8.6 billion. Approximately
$3.9 billion of the increase was attributed to the procurement
of the 566 additional aircraft, associated program changes,
land additional support costs. Projected inflation associated
with the added production aircraft and inflation adjustments
for the baseline estimate accounted for the remaining $4.7 billion.


The bulk in the cost increase was due to inflation, which was through the roof over several years in that period, and additional planes from what was planned in the baseline.

Today, the F-18 costs less than 70 million with engines and avionics. The $150 million price tag the Australians are paying includes all sorts of spares, spare engines, spare radars, training, logistical support, pods, and weapons carried. If Australia buys the 24 F-18s, it would at the very least mean a reduction in F-35 buys, unless they increase their defense budget considerably, which I can't imagine they would do.

[Edited 2013-03-02 17:40:36]

User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days ago) and read 7086 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 13):
The $150 million price tag the Australians are paying includes all sorts of spares, spare engines, spare radars, training, logistical support, pods, and weapons carried.

So pretty much what any Air Force would need to operate Super Hornets, unless they are planning buying static displays. $150m a piece for an aircraft designed in the 90's is brutal, I guess they must be really desperate for fighters if they are settling with Boeing military products.


User currently offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4889 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 7067 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 14):
$150m a piece for an aircraft designed in the 90's is brutal, I guess they must be really desperate for fighters if they are settling with Boeing military products.

If that's what they're doing, then by all means keep the Growlers, but switch the rest to this at least...  

.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...boeings-upgraded-f-15e-strike.html

Quote:
"Boeing had a very small presence at the Air Force Association's Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando. But the company did bring this model of an upgraded F-15E Strike Eagle to the show.

Most immediately noticeable is that the aircraft has its two outer-wing weapons stations activated (which the F-15 always had, but aren't normally used)"



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 7044 times:

That F-15 isn't going very far with those bombs and no external tanks, however I'd still rather have that over the SH.

User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1778 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6954 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 10):
You're forgetting that this is not a popular purchase with the Australian people, it's somewhat of a political hot potato, both main parties have said they support it, however if one one party can score points over the other by scaling down the purchase (almost a dead cert) or cancelling it they will.

I also suggest you read this interview with the Australian Defence Minister Stephen Smith

http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2...st-2/

Instead of conjecture, let's actually read what the Australian MOD has worked out. I would suggest you read the Defence Capability Plan, specifically about AIR 6000:

http://www.defence.gov.au/publications/CapabilityPlan2012.pdf

Quote:
AIR COMBAT | AIR 6000
Background
"AIR 6000 will deliver a New Air Combat Capability (NACC) comprising around 100 Conventional Take Off & Landing (CTOL) F-35A Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) and all necessary support, infrastructure and integration to form four operational squadrons and a training squadron.

Australia joined the System Development and Demonstration phase of the JSF Program in October 2002 and through AIR 6000 Phase 1B (approved), undertook a program of detailed definition and analysis activities leading up to Government Second Pass (acquisition) approval for Phase 2A/2B Stage 1, in November 2009.

Phase 2A/2B will acquire no fewer than 72 F-35A to form three operational squadrons and a training squadron, with first deliveries in 2014. Stage 1 (approved) will acquire 14 F-35A and associated support and enabling elements necessary to establish the initial training capability in the US and to allow conduct of Operational Test in the US and Australia. Stage 2 (unapproved) plans to acquire the remaining (at least) 58 F-35A and support and enabling elements, bringing the total to 72 aircraft. Stage 2 is planned for approval in 2014-15.

Australia’s first JSF will remain in the US for a number of years for initial conversion training of Australian pilots and maintainers, and also participation in operational test activities. Australia’s initial JSF are planned to commence arriving in Australia in 2018. They will commence dedicated Australian operational test activities, primarily to ensure effective integration with other ADF air and ground systems.

Phase 2C (unapproved) is the planned acquisition of a fourth operational JSF squadron to bring the total number of aircraft to around 100. The decision to acquire the fourth operational JSF squadron will be considered in conjunction with a decision on the withdrawal of the Super Hornet. A decision on this final batch of JSF is not expected before 2015.

The Australians are buying their F-35's in waves, with the first wave already approved for one squadron. Phase 2 approval is set in 2014-15 for the 2nd and 3rd squadrons of F-35's, and they anticipate that they will review the situation for a 4th squadron after 2015, in conjunction with the retirement of the Super Hornets.

You are right, the Australians haven't fully committed, but based upon the Australian MOD's plans, it is their intention on how they want to purchase.


User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7591 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6951 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 17):
Instead of conjecture, let's actually read what the Australian MOD has worked out. I would suggest you read the Defence Capability Plan, specifically about AIR 6000:

That was published in May 2012, it's now March 2013, plans change, surely you understand that? When that paper was published the Aussie govt weren't thinking about ordering 24 more Super Hornets either, plans change remember.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 19, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6869 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 17):
I also suggest you read this interview with the Australian Defence Minister Stephen Smith

http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2...st-2/

Uhhh, "page not found" (at least by clicking on your link)

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 17):
The Australians are buying their F-35's in waves, with the first wave already approved for one squadron. Phase 2 approval is set in 2014-15 for the 2nd and 3rd squadrons of F-35's, and they anticipate that they will review the situation for a 4th squadron after 2015, in conjunction with the retirement of the Super Hornets.

You are right, the Australians haven't fully committed, but based upon the Australian MOD's plans, it is their intention on how they want to purchase.

AFAIK, only 2 have actually been purchased, to remain as indicated in the US for training. The remaining 12 of the "training 14" I believe are still unfunded -- because like the US, Oz is a little short on cash, and large cuts to the defense budget are coming. When AIR6000 was published, Australia was an economic wunderkind, mainly based on selling coal and uranium and other primary resources when prices were high. That's not the case now, so at a minimum, any F-35 purchase will be much smaller.

MOD can huff and puff and have an "intent to purchase", but major acquisitions require ministerial and cabinet approval, just as they do in Canada. Which is also going to take a big whack at the defense budget. So whether you're talking about 100 or 65 F-35As, good luck with that.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6867 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 18):
That was published in May 2012, it's now March 2013, plans change, surely you understand that?

Plans do change. Sometimes.

http://www.4-traders.com/LOCKHEED-MA...-35-s-future-16369269/?countview=0

Quote:
Australia's conservative opposition, which is expected to win elections in September, said on Thursday it supported Lockheed Martin's troubled F-35 to be the country's next frontline warplane, despite problems and huge cost blowouts.

So what is the real deal down under?


User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7591 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6856 times:

Yet that same article also said

Quote:
Defense analysts predict Australia might end up buying between 50 and 70 of the fighters instead of 100, although Canberra could also buy the full number but over a longer timeframe beyond 2020, depending on a budget recovery.

If they end up with 48 Superhornets you can bet on it that they won't buy 100 F35's.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 6842 times:

To be more specific, Australia's opposition parties are Liberal center-right parties.

FYI, Australia is governed by a center-left coalition between the Greens and Labor and a few independents, not just the Labor party alone. Even if the Liberal Party and the Liberal National Party of Queensland win more seats than the Labor party alone, they still have to have more seats than the entire center-left coalition coalition for Tony Abbott's center-right coalition to govern. Beating the Labor party alone would not be enough to displace Julia Gillard as Prime Minister.

And where is the polling at?

“The coalition is still on target to win the election comfortably,” said Zareh Ghazarian, a lecturer at the School of Political and Social Inquiry at Melbourne’s Monash University.
- That is the current center-left ruling coalition of Julia Gillard.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...l-of-australian-election-year.html

Center-Right supporters, very often seem to think they are going to win, even when there is no data to support that confidence.

Looking forward, if Julia Gillard prevails, will Australia order any more F-35s beyond the 2 it has already ordered? Or finalize the F-18 order and and be done with it? With Australia's economy faltering, even Tony Abbott is saying things like:

“A government which can’t get its own spending under control can’t deliver the kind of strong economic management that is necessary if we’re to have strong jobs growth,” Abbott told reporters in Sydney today.

Doesn't this mean defense cuts?

And how much at risk are F-35 jobs if Australia orders none? I am sure that could be argues all day long. I think a restructuring of F-35 subcontractors would hurt the program even more than it already is. Just one exanple:

Chemring Australia, a unit of British-based Chemring Group Ltd, which is manufacturing air-launched expendable countermeasure flares for the F-35, has invested A$35 million in a facility outside Melbourne to produce the flares. The JFS has a contract with Chemring, a breach of which would cost the JSF program and then they'd have to find someone else to build a factory to produce these flares. Talk about more delays and more expenses.

I am sure the same is true around the world. Suppliers just can't be exchanged at this stage without creating massive disruptions and delays and higher expenses. The JSF program, in that sense, can only bark but not bite.

[Edited 2013-03-03 11:56:49]

[Edited 2013-03-03 11:59:13]

[Edited 2013-03-03 12:13:33]

User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3648 posts, RR: 27
Reply 23, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 6827 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 20):
Australia's conservative opposition, which is expected to win elections in September,

Like the Republicans were supposed to win here last fall. Never count your chickens......


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 24, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 6818 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 22):
Center-Right supporters, very often seem to think they are going to win, even when there is no data to support that confidence.

Like the GOP party boys...Kanban, you beat me to it !   



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 25, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 6909 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 23):
Like the Republicans were supposed to win here last fall.

I don't ever recall hearing that. Doesn't matter who wins, US still loses.  

There haven't been mass cullings of F35 orders just yet so lets not get all excited over nothing.


User currently offlineAcheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1679 posts, RR: 2
Reply 26, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 6857 times:

Quoting SCAT15F (Reply 11):
Super Hornet. Boy, talk about an aircraft with compromised performance.

As if the performance of the F-35 isn't compromised as well.


User currently offlineSCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 6938 times:

Quoting Acheron (Reply 26):

Oh, I'm not saying it isn't, just not as much...
  


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 870 posts, RR: 2
Reply 28, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 6925 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 22):
“The coalition is still on target to win the election comfortably,” said Zareh Ghazarian, a lecturer at the School of Political and Social Inquiry at Melbourne’s Monash University.
- That is the current center-left ruling coalition of Julia Gillard.

Tommy, your assessment of Australian politics is 100% wrong. The Coalition is the Liberal/Nationals and "at this time" are expected to win government in September. Labor is not in a Coalition, they were a minority government that had an agreement with several minor parties and independents to provide the seats required for governance but in every sense Labor is the ruling political party.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 22):
“A government which can’t get its own spending under control can’t deliver the kind of strong economic management that is necessary if we’re to have strong jobs growth,” Abbott told reporters in Sydney today.

Doesn't this mean defense cuts?

Tony Abbott has already outlined his policy with regards to Defence spending, http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/nat...-rsl/story-fncynkc6-1226480786095, which includes returning defence growth to what was previously proposed and unfunded by the Gillard Government. Wisely, he will continue or increase equipment purchases and reduce the bureaucracy. Considering wages are a significant portion of Defence spending there is a lot of fat that can be cut.


User currently offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4889 posts, RR: 1
Reply 29, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 6906 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 16):
That F-15 isn't going very far with those bombs and no external tanks

750 gal CFTs mount ordnance on short pylons.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...-side-v1-thumb-560x1627-173531.jpg

For missions farther out, their MRTTs need some work to earn their keep    .

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 16):
however I'd still rather have that over the SH

   Scuttlebutt is it's PhantomWorks' optionally-piloted ACV.   .

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...15Etop-v2-thumb-560x723-173534.jpg



[Edited 2013-03-03 18:56:58]


"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 30, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 6859 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 28):
The Coalition is the Liberal/Nationals and "at this time" are expected to win government in September

You are restating what I said, regarding the center-right coalition. It is made up of the Liberals and the LNP (Liberal Nationals Party of Queensland). Right? Correct me if I am wrong.


The Center-left is made up of the Labor Party and the Australian Greens (which want to kill the F-35, btw.).

Where am I wrong? We can argue on who who is expected to win all day long. But that is besides the point. Assuming Julia Gillard wins, which many expect (maybe not in the center-right arena), then the question is, what happens to the F-18 order and F-35 orders?


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 870 posts, RR: 2
Reply 31, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 6814 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 30):
You are restating what I said, regarding the center-right coalition. It is made up of the Liberals and the LNP (Liberal Nationals Party of Queensland). Right? Correct me if I am wrong.

No Tommy I am not. What I quoted from you was the following,

Quoting Ozair (Reply 28):
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 22):
“The coalition is still on target to win the election comfortably,” said Zareh Ghazarian, a lecturer at the School of Political and Social Inquiry at Melbourne’s Monash University.
- That is the current center-left ruling coalition of Julia Gillard.

You linked the Coalition in the article stated as being Labor and the Greens, which it most certainly is not.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 30):
The Center-left is made up of the Labor Party and the Australian Greens (which want to kill the F-35, btw.).

There is no Coalition of centre-left. See the wiki page for the Australian House of Reps to get accurate information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_House_of_Representatives
The Greens wish to cancel the F-35, not Labor. Actually the Greens would cancel just about the entire ADF if they were given the chance. They also control a whopping 10 seats out of 226 within the combined houses of parliament.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 30):
Assuming Julia Gillard wins, which many expect (maybe not in the center-right arena),

While 6 months is a long time in politics there are very few even hard core Labor supporters who believe they can win the next election.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 30):
what happens to the F-18 order and F-35 orders?

An aircraft will be purchased irrespective of who wins the election, but the situation is far more complex than anyone on this board is giving it credit. You certainly aren’t doing yourself any favours by trying to use the Australian political system, which you evidently have little comprehension of, to argue your case.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 32, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 6747 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 31):

There is no Coalition of centre-left

Thanks for that. and the clarifications. I am no expert on Australian politics. However, as you said, 6 months is an eternity. If Abbott comes to power, given the desire to reduce the budget and faltering economy, would Australia still order 100 F-35s?


User currently offlinelegs From Australia, joined Jun 2006, 240 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 6738 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 32):
Australia still order 100 F-35s?

I suspect that no one from either side of politics will commit to the full 100 airframe buy, even well after the election.

Scuttlebutt at work says that the further Super Hornet purchase is a very good chance of happening, there have even been a few rumours floating around about how they would be deployed. How that affects the JSF order isn't really covered, though in my opinion reducing the purchase to somewhere in the 50-70 airframe range is probably the smart bet.

And as much as I would love to see a kangaroo roundel on the side of a new F-15, it simply isn't an option. It would cost far too much money to introduce yet another weapon system, and Ive never heard anything further than wishful thinking in the lunchroom about the Eagle.

[Edited 2013-03-04 00:49:37]

User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 870 posts, RR: 2
Reply 34, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 6694 times:

Quoting legs (Reply 33):
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 32):
Australia still order 100 F-35s?

I suspect that no one from either side of politics will commit to the full 100 airframe buy, even well after the election.

Agree, and there certainly isn't a need to. Considering we will get a new white paper this year, and then if the Libs are elected, another 18 months later it will remain in flux for some time.

Quoting legs (Reply 33):

Scuttlebutt at work says that the further Super Hornet purchase is a very good chance of happening

A decision certainly hasn't been made but I agree with you, the chance of a SH purchase is high.

If the acquisition goes ahead, I don't think it will alter the RAAF goal of 100 F-35, merely the time frame. The original SH purchase was always about bridging the gap, hence why they were only funded for 10 years. This would push SH retirement out another 5-10 until the RAAF can get cheaper full rate production slots and mature airframes.

The big issue is how long can the classic hornets last. Legs, do you have any idea?


User currently offlinelegs From Australia, joined Jun 2006, 240 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6680 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 34):
how long can the classic hornets last

Not off the top of my head. Staged withdrawal from about 2015 for a few years rings a bell, but I'd have to double check tomorrow.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1778 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 6674 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 34):
If the acquisition goes ahead, I don't think it will alter the RAAF goal of 100 F-35, merely the time frame. The original SH purchase was always about bridging the gap, hence why they were only funded for 10 years. This would push SH retirement out another 5-10 until the RAAF can get cheaper full rate production slots and mature airframes.

Considering that the original time frames as of the current defence plans were to make a decision to purchase the 2nd and 3rd squadrons of F-35's sometime in 2014-15, and the 4th squadron sometime after 2015, subject to the retirement of the Super Hornets, they still have some time to think things through.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 34):
The big issue is how long can the classic hornets last.

I think this is the big elephant in the room here, how long will the Hornets last.

It will vary depending on rate of usage, the structural integrity of the airframes, etc. The Australians will have to look at every option if they think F-35 will be delayed creating a gap, from another SLEP to more Super Hornets. That's what the review that's due later this year will determine as the best course of option.

Lt Gen Bogdan's recent visit to Australia to brief Australian lawmakers and the RAAF on F-35 progress will also play into this; he's pretty confident that he can make sure that Australia will get their F-35's barring anything that comes out of left field in the timeframe the Australians want.

I believe the Australians never fully did a number of upgrades and refurbishments that would have extended the Hornet fleet's life, such as the centre barrel replacement, like what the USN, USMC, and RCAF did on their Hornets. I think the Australians only did a centre barrel replacement on 10 Hornets, not the original 49 that was planned, compared to the RCAF which did the replacement on 40 aircraft.

The convergence of F-35 delays and the aging Hornets (and the idiotic reduction in centre barrel replacement upgrades a few years back) that is pushing a potential Super Hornet purchase. I would definitely argue that the situation the RAAF is in right now with their tactical air fleet is partially self-inflicted. Without these upgrades and refurbishment, the fleet gets old fast and would then essentially require a further Super Hornet purchase. It's being penny-wise, but pound foolish by not proceeding with a number of upgrades that has led to this situation.

At 4 million a pop for the centre barrel replacement, it would be the most cost effective way of making sure the RAAF won't have a gap in coverage if the F-35 becomes delayed.


User currently offlinestealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5716 posts, RR: 44
Reply 37, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 6657 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 36):
I would definitely argue that the situation the RAAF is in right now with their tactical air fleet is partially self-inflicted

Perhaps but might be partly because of the snake oil sales pitch about the F-35 capability and delivery timeframe.



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1778 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6659 times:

Quoting stealthz (Reply 37):
Perhaps but might be partly because of the snake oil sales pitch about the F-35 capability and delivery timeframe.

No, it's pure penny pinching on the part of the Australians. The Canadians heard the same pitch regarding F-35, and we have elected to upgrade 40 CF-18's with the centre barrel replacement and did a whole host of other refurbishment work on our CF-18 fleet a few years back. Our upgraded CF-18's are easily good till to 2017-2020 as a result, despite ours being older than the RAAF's Hornets.

The issues the Australians are facing their their Hornet fleet is really self-inflicted because they made a totally different decision, compared to Canada, which did elect to do the centre barrel work, and refurbishment.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2162 posts, RR: 4
Reply 39, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6613 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 38):
The issues the Australians are facing their their Hornet fleet is really self-inflicted because they made a totally different decision,

To be fair, the Australia are that much closer to The Spratleys than Canada. And if things go hot, they will will have to bear the burden a little longer until the US forces can arrive.

Hope their decision will be good for them which ever they make.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7591 posts, RR: 4
Reply 40, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 6543 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 36):
Considering that the original time frames as of the current defence plans were to make a decision to purchase the 2nd and 3rd squadrons of F-35's sometime in 2014-15, and the 4th squadron sometime after 2015, subject to the retirement of the Super Hornets, they still have some time to think things through.

Clearly the current defence plan is not being adhered to, they haven't purchased the second batch of 12 yet. So what leads you to believe the rest of the plan will be followed?


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1778 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6457 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 40):
Clearly the current defence plan is not being adhered to, they haven't purchased the second batch of 12 yet. So what leads you to believe the rest of the plan will be followed?

Stage 1 already has approval for 14 F-35's. It's stage 2, which will acquire at least 58 F-35's that hasn't received approval, because its due for a decision in 2014-2015. You may be thinking of the 12 that were deferred to start delivery in 2014.


User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7591 posts, RR: 4
Reply 42, posted (1 year 8 months 23 hours ago) and read 6375 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 41):
Stage 1 already has approval for 14 F-35's.

But they have only ordered 2.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 41):
You may be thinking of the 12 that were deferred to start delivery in 2014.

The Aussie govt haven't even placed an order for the deferred 12, how can they be deferred if they haven't even placed an order? it'smentioned in one of the linked articles above.

Plans change, the Aussie govt hasn't their plan to date.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1778 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (1 year 8 months 22 hours ago) and read 6356 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 42):
The Aussie govt haven't even placed an order for the deferred 12, how can they be deferred if they haven't even placed an order? it'smentioned in one of the linked articles above.

Plans change, the Aussie govt hasn't their plan to date.

They have; the original order was for 14, signed off in 2009:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...hters/story-e6frg8yo-1225803790418

12 were deferred by 2 years:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...fence/story-fndbwnla-1226346325432


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 44, posted (1 year 8 months 19 hours ago) and read 6307 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 43):
They have; the original order was for 14, signed off in 2009:

They have not ordered 14.

The Prime Minister and Defence Minister Stephen Smith confirmed they would delay the purchase of 12 multi-role Joint Strike Fighters for the RAAF by two years,...

From your own link. There was no order for 14. There was an order for 2.

[Edited 2013-03-05 01:46:43]

User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1778 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (1 year 8 months 18 hours ago) and read 6303 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 44):

They have not ordered 14.

The Prime Minister and Defence Minister Stephen Smith confirmed they would delay the purchase of 12 multi-role Joint Strike Fighters for the RAAF by two years,...

From your own link. There was no order for 14. There was an order for 2.

Read the first link:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...hters/story-e6frg8yo-1225803790418

14 F-35's were ordered. 12 were delayed.


User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7591 posts, RR: 4
Reply 46, posted (1 year 8 months 9 hours ago) and read 6193 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 45):
14 F-35's were ordered. 12 were delayed.

So who are you going to believe The Australia newspaper or the Australia Defense Minister Stephen Smith, who very clearly said on the 21/02/13 the following:

Quote:
We have committed ourselves contractually to two Joint Strike Fighters. We’ll receive those in 2014 in the United States for training purposes. We’ve announced that we will take another 12, effectively our first squadron, but we have not made a judgment as to when we will place the orders for those.
http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2...ina-carvalho-abc-news-breakfast-2/

Now I'll take the word of the man who is signing the cheque rather than some journo who wrote an article which is well out of date. Only 2 have been ordered, that's 2, not 14, 12 more have not been ordered.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 47, posted (1 year 8 months 4 hours ago) and read 6130 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 45):
Read the first link:

I did. Nothing in that article says 14 were ordered. Nothing.

With elections coming up in September and the economy ailing and everyone talking about government spending cuts, I can't imagine an F-35 order before the election. If Julia Gillard orders the 24 F-18 SH, as a cheaper alternative, it'll tie the hands of even an Abbott administration.

Maybe the 2 F-35s will be sold to someone else if they decide to skip the F-35 and save money.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 48, posted (1 year 8 months 4 hours ago) and read 6115 times:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opin...uture/story-e6frg76f-1226588701874

Very pro F-35 article that throws the kitchen sink at supporting the F35 in Australia.

But the most important reason is missing - why does Australia need it? Who is the enemy that requires such huge amount of defense resources to be spent? The threats posed by New Zealand or Papua New Guinea or perhaps Indonesia - which has no weapons capable of reaching anything of significance in Australia anyway?

Why does Australia need the F-35 for? Perhaps some supporters can give a good answer to this. And why would the F-18 not be sufficient to handle any threat against Australia?


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 49, posted (1 year 8 months 3 hours ago) and read 6116 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 48):
Why does Australia need the F-35 for? Perhaps some supporters can give a good answer to this. And why would the F-18 not be sufficient to handle any threat against Australia?

Why did they bother ordering the Super Hornets in the first place?


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 50, posted (1 year 8 months ago) and read 6064 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 49):
Why did they bother ordering the Super Hornets in the first place?

Good question:

Australia has no military enemies, nor does it have an squabbles with anyone. I has 3 neighbors, all of which are separated by quite a bit of ocean from Australia:

1. New Zealand
2. Papua New Guinea
3. Indonesia

- The closest thing New Zealand has to a fighter or bomber is the propeller driven P-3 Orion patrol aircraft. New Zealand is doing just fine and is no threat to Australia, nor does it feel the need to have any fighters of its own.
- Papua New Guinea has no Air Force at all and they are doing just fine with that.
- Indonesia has no planes that can threaten anything of significance in Australia, nor will they probably ever have them. The Su-27 and SU-30 and the F-16A/Bs don't have the range from any Indonesian base. Australia is actually selling Indonesia some of its planes (C-130H) to Indonesia.

[Edited 2013-03-05 20:49:29]

User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7591 posts, RR: 4
Reply 51, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 6013 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 49):
Why did they bother ordering the Super Hornets in the first place?

Nice to see you don't have an answer to Stephen Smiths statement that Australia has only ordered 2 F-35's  

So I hope you agree only 2 are on order, not 14.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1778 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5980 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 46):
http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2...ina-carvalho-abc-news-breakfast-2/

Now I'll take the word of the man who is signing the cheque rather than some journo who wrote an article which is well out of date. Only 2 have been ordered, that's 2, not 14, 12 more have not been ordered.

Somehow, the Australian MOD, and the previous PM disagree; they have 14 approved:

Quote:
Stage 1 (approved) will acquire 14 F-35A and associated support and enabling elements necessary to establish the initial training capability in the US and to allow conduct of Operational Test in the US and Australia.

Also, this Australian MOD press announcement says 14 F-35's:

http://www.defence.gov.au/minister/90tpl.cfm?CurrentId=9753

Quote:
The Government has approved acquisition of the first 14 Conventional Take-Off and Landing (CTOL) Joint Strike Fighters and infrastructure and support required for initial training and testing, at an estimated cost of $3.2 billion.

“Approval of this first batch of JSF aircraft is evidence of the Rudd Government’s strong commitment to defence and our commitment to implementing the Defence White Paper,” Senator Faulkner said.
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 48):
Who is the enemy that requires such huge amount of defense resources to be spent? The threats posed by New Zealand or Papua New Guinea or perhaps Indonesia - which has no weapons capable of reaching anything of significance in Australia anyway?

It's the Chinese enigma that's the concern. The Australians are a major US ally in the South Pacific region. And with Indonesia, it's trust, but verify.

The Australians view some of their neighbours as being politically unstable; they have termed the area to be the "Arc of Instability". On top of that, the Australians have a number of multi-lateral defence arrangements with Singapore and Malaysia. As a result, the Australians take their defence very seriously.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2162 posts, RR: 4
Reply 53, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 5969 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 52):

It's the Chinese enigma that's the concern.

  

The intrusion of the Chinese into the Spratley (oil reserve) brings them into the Australian sphere of influence.
Or so I was told.

One of the reason why the Australian bought the the Wedgetail . . . the ability to detect Chinese cruise missiles.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7591 posts, RR: 4
Reply 54, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 5935 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 52):
Also, this Australian MOD press announcement says 14 F-35's:

Ok do you not understand the difference difference between approving something and actually ordering something, the Australian defense ministe rjust over two weeks ago said 2 have been ordered, only 2, not 14, the fact that the govt has approved the purchase of 14 is irtrelevant, considering they have only ordered 2, the seconb batch of 12 are part of the approved 14 but they have not yet been ordered, do you get it now?


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 55, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5891 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 54):
Ok do you not understand the difference difference between approving something and actually ordering something

With blind F-35 support, I doubt such a distinction matters so some here, any more that the press release quoted was from 2009. Apparently some live in the past and refuse to come into the present.



Quoting bikerthai (Reply 53):
The intrusion of the Chinese into the Spratley (oil reserve) brings them into the Australian sphere of influence.

Why would Australia care who controls the Spratlys or what happens there? They are thousands of miles away from the nearest Australian coastline, they are well north of Singapore and at about the same latitude as Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Some are claimed by:

1. Philippines
2. Brunei
3. Malaysia
4. Vietnam
5. China
6. Taiwan

Australia has no bone in that dispute. From Melbourne or Sydney to the Spratly Islands, it's over 3,000 nm with 3 countries between Australia and those islands. It's over 1,400 miles from Darwin. Australia has no claim there. Why would Australia start a shooting war with China over that? Nonsense. The Spratly Island dispute is no threat to Australia. We are talking huge distances here.

And why would China attack Australia? What on earth for? Countries don't start wars for no reason.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 52):
The Australians view some of their neighbours as being politically unstable;

Which of the 3 neighbors are a threat to Australia? New Zealand, Papua New Guinea or Indonesia?

[Edited 2013-03-06 09:37:23]

[Edited 2013-03-06 09:37:57]

User currently offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4889 posts, RR: 1
Reply 56, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5862 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 52):
It's the Chinese enigma that's the concern.

Indeed...particularly when they start saying things like these...    ...

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...pares-j-15-to-fa-18-hornet-383100/

Quote:
"The chief designer of the Shenyang J-15 fighter has compared the aircraft to the Boeing F/A-18 Hornet, and suggests that the developmental J-31 could one day serve aboard Chinese aircraft carriers.

In an interview with Chinese state news agency Xinhua, Chinese aircraft designer Sun Cong said that the J-15 is 'generally close to the US F/A-18, reaching world class standards'.

He adds that the J-15 could have a combat radius of over 1,000km (540nm) if powered by domestic engines. This comment could corroborate reports that the J-15s conducting flight tests aboard the aircraft carrier Liaoning are powered by Russia's Saturn AL-31F, and not the domestically produced Shenyang WS-10A."


Quoting bikerthai (Reply 53):
The intrusion of the Chinese into the Spratley (oil reserve) brings them into the Australian sphere of influence. Or so I was told.

Yes...even if the above claim about the J-15 turns out to be optimistic...    !

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 55):
Why would Australia care who controls the Spratlys or what happens there?

Because whoever gains control of the Spratlys would presumably also control the sea lanes around it (perhaps a country or two, too)...and be that much nearer to Oz?

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 55):
Australia has no bone in that dispute. From Melbourne or Sydney to the Spratly Islands, it's over 3,000 nm with 3 countries between Australia and those islands. It's over 1,400 miles from Darwin. Australia has no claim there.

Yet we see Australian forces in the Middle East and elsewhere which are twice removed from there.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 55):
The Spratly Island dispute is no threat to Australia. We are talking huge distances here.

But it may be a threat to its interests. Countries oceans away had fought for control of the territories around here since the time they sailed into these waters.



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 57, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5828 times:

Quoting SCAT15F (Reply 11):
Super Hornet. Boy, talk about an aircraft with compromised performance. The RAAF would be better off buying the USAF F-111F's sitting in mothballs AF...

I think we all know which one would be easier to maintain and support.

[Edited 2013-03-06 11:49:42]

[Edited 2013-03-06 11:53:45]

User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 58, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5800 times:

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 56):
But it may be a threat to its interests

Specifically, what interests are you referring to?

I have yet to hear any specifics from F-35 supporters, despite asking this several times. Not on threats to Australia, nor threats to its interests. Nor why the F-18 SH can't do he job sufficiently of protecting Australia from the threat situation posed to Australia by New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and Indonesia or its interests.


User currently offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4889 posts, RR: 1
Reply 59, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5777 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 58):
Specifically, what interests are you referring to?

Those informing the scope of this review.....

http://www.defence.gov.au/oscdf/adf-posture-review/



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 60, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4198 times:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l/asd_09_12_2012_p04-01-494206.xml

Incorporation is planned for 2014, beginning with production Lot 37. So far the Type 4 AMC is planned for only new-production Navy aircraft, “but it will become the baseline for any international offering,” says Kevin Fogarty, Boeing director for F/A-18 and EA-18G mission systems.

Sounds pretty capable and ready in 2014.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Australia To Order 12 F/A-18E/F & 12 EA-18G
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Report: Oman To Buy 12 New Tranche 2 Typhoons posted Sun Nov 13 2011 19:08:25 by art
Singapore To Purchase 12 More F-15s posted Mon Oct 22 2007 14:14:03 by Lumberton
Boeing Delivers First EA-18G To USN posted Sun Oct 7 2007 15:28:15 by Cancidas
CIA/USAF Wants To Remove A-12 From Minnesota Museu posted Fri Jan 12 2007 16:53:36 by Lt-AWACS
RAF To Order 22 Chinooks - Cuts To Pay For Them posted Tue Dec 15 2009 04:30:40 by Ant72LBA
Israel To Order C-130Js posted Tue Jul 28 2009 10:47:51 by Michlis
EA-18G And S-3 Viking posted Wed Mar 4 2009 06:38:44 by EBJ1248650
Qatar To Order C-17s! posted Tue Jun 10 2008 00:40:45 by Kaitak
Report: Libya To Order Rafale posted Tue Jan 16 2007 11:53:41 by Lumberton
FAB To Order 50 Casa 212-400 posted Thu Aug 24 2006 00:53:15 by DEVILFISH

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format