Quoting Ozair (Reply 48): The MRH-90 costs significantly more to sustain than expected. |
I am not aware of that.
Quoting Ozair (Reply 48): Do you think the Minister, knowing what has happened since, would make the same decision again? |
You would hope so, but that does not translate to ordering the AH-64.
Quoting Ozair (Reply 48): As for the F-111, would you please tell me what engine other than the TF30 was ever installed? |
The TF30 is not one engine, it is a family of engines, it is like saying the CFM56 or RB211. Several different engines in the TF30 family were fitted to the F-111, two different engines to the C models, and two engines to the G models.
Quoting Ozair (Reply 48): There is no way to twist this, the F-111 was not survivable in a modern battlespace and it simply wasn’t worth the investment to attempt to correct this. |
All F111s have had electronic self protection of some form, they came with AN62 radar warning receiver, AN28 chaff/flare dispenser, AN34 Infrared Tail Warning system, the C models also carried the AN94, G models the AN137 electronic countermeasures. Echidna was flown on the F111 in the lat 1990s, in 2004 the ELTA-8222 was added.
Outside 3AD with ALQ131 fitted
Quoting Ozair (Reply 48): Just so we are clear, you are attempting to link an increase in Chinese coast guard and fishing vessels, which you have provided no evidence has actually happened, to the retirement of the F-111? |
And you have no evidence to show they don't. There is nothing from the RAAF on its AP-3C, coastwatch, JORN, or Pine Gap activities. The lack of public information is not evidence that something is not happening.
Quoting Ozair (Reply 48): Seriously, what do Chinese fisherman and a research station in Antarctica have to do with this? |
Because they are not fisherman, and it is not a research station. Suppose you also believe the the statement China gave the Australian government last week during an official visit to say there was no militarization of the islands in the South China sea.
Quoting Ozair (Reply 48): Since Australia will never have command authority over these aircraft I don't see what your point is. |
Nor does Australia have command over its airspace or waters at this time because of the capability gap.
Quoting Ozair (Reply 48): Since Australia will never have command authority over these aircraft I don't see what your point is. |
That is true, however it is ignorant to suggest there is no common interest. That is the rational behind the basing of marines and now aircraft.
Quoting GDB (Reply 49): P-8's can carry AGM-84's, already RAAF have them on P-3's. |
Correct me if I am wrong, the Chinese HQ-9 surface to air missile as installed on its ships has twice the range of the harpoon ?