View Full Version : Aussie Airforce
Should have Australia instead of just buying 24 superhornets. Should we have sold all our F/A-18s ( theres about 70 in all) and replaced them the superhornets. And as our true strike fighter bought 40 Sukhoi SU-34 Fullback it has a similiar range and weapon load as the F-111. I know the advanced US weapons we have are incompatible with Russian ones thats what is the beauty of having the superhornets they can use those weapons. And with these two aircraft they will still be advanced enough to last a long time along side the F-35.
So what do you think???
goose36
03-12-2007, 06:00 AM
there is no way we would ever buy russian aircraft. the super hornet doesn't stand up very well to the latest model SU-30, but our weapon sytems and training give us the edge in this region. i think we should get 70 raptors to replace all our hornets but that will never happen. the raptor would be a much better strike platform then the JSF, but the yanks will never sell it. the next five or six years will be quite interesting for us.
velvet-cream
03-12-2007, 06:05 AM
It is extremely unlikely that Australia would be rolling around in Russian aircraft. I'm not an expert on the Airforce, but I wouldn't want to be flying in a Russian aircraft if I'm operating in a joint task force with US warplanes.
That's just asking for a blue on blue.
:)
What makes the F22 a better strike platform Goose?
Violet Fashion by Mindy
03-12-2007, 08:09 AM
Bring back the Mirages!
Navor
03-12-2007, 11:51 AM
Jsut get 6 Sqn of JSF a16 Birds + on OCU and you will be fine a long time.
As long China isnt planing to get 3-4 CVBGS iny our Waters you realy could deal with the 80 Sukhois in you direct Neighbourhood
Yimmy
03-12-2007, 11:56 AM
Bring back the Mirages!
Didn't they tend to keep crashing in Australian service?
perdurabo
03-12-2007, 12:17 PM
Bring back the Mirages!better take their newer brother the Rafale
We would if they had the range/price/interoperability/capabilty/commonality with our major partners in the world. But unfortunately for you, Rafaele is not the most ABCA common aircraft.
goose36
03-13-2007, 01:46 AM
What makes the F22 a better strike platform Goose?
the F-22 can fly further , faster , and more cary more internally then the JSF as well as being fully stealth with a internal load. the yanks are toying with the idea of upgadding the raptor for strike missions just like they did with the F-15, the raptor is a proven fith gen, true stealth fighter. it makes sense to upgade rather then invest more into a bird that has only flown twice, has more drama's then the seasprite and is still 8 years off.
D-gin
03-13-2007, 01:52 AM
the yanks are toying with the idea of upgadding the raptor for strike missions just like they did with the F-15
Gotta a link with that info???
the raptor is a proven fith gen.
How is the F-22 Raptor proven, All it's done is war games, It has not seen any combat.
goose36
03-13-2007, 01:56 AM
that is true, it has only "played" in war games and it kicked everyone's ass against one of the most powerful airforces in the world but yes it has not seen combat, so yes you could say it is not proven.
The F-22 is not what the RAAF needs or wants in a air frame. Dont even think about the F-22 as a ground attack platform for the RAAF let alone as a fighter platform.
goose36
03-13-2007, 03:33 AM
why not, as a fighter its perect. and if developed well would be a great strike fighter too, the yanks wont sell it, and we cant afford it, they are the only reasons. if we could afford it and then the yanks were willing to sell it, please tell me how it is not right for us, i fail to see how the most advanced western fighter would not be right for as a a fighter.
Onslaught
03-13-2007, 04:16 AM
^
What he said. Waiting for the answer...
Because the cost and time to establish such a advanced capability would be detrimental to the overall RAAF fleet and thus not actually increase our capability in the near future. With the JSF and a common airframe the ability to have a excellent A&L system is greater and thus allow us to operate at greater intensities for greater periods of time.
goose36
03-13-2007, 05:07 AM
and how long do you think the JSF will take to come on line?
thay have allready droped JDAM's and are progressing toward laser guided and stand off weapons, it wont take half the time to develop this "ADVANCED CAPABILITY" as you say, yes it is bloody expansive but the thats what the best fighter and possibly the strike fighter cost's, ****en heaps.
i once again fail to see how by having one air frame doing both jobs we wont be able to operate at "greater intensities for greater amounts of time".
A&L.....?
perdurabo
03-13-2007, 06:46 AM
We would if they had the range/price/interoperability/capabilty/commonality with our major partners in the world. But unfortunately for you, Rafaele is not the most ABCA common aircraft.
but still is damn sexy p-)
It is not for sale....get over the F22....we are getting the Super Hornets until the JSF arrives......do you get it?
The RAAF is postured for the JSF....it would take years to bring the F22 into service let alone operational use....why not get what the RAAF really wants?
Opening Batsman
03-13-2007, 07:40 AM
I agree with XIE - will people stop harping on about the raptor? We are physically incapable of getting it. And if we were, we wouldn't get it anyway. People just see the D3TLA of the skies and think it is perfect for all.
goose36
03-13-2007, 08:11 AM
i fully understand we cant get the raptor,yes it maks sense that we will get the super hornet although we will be ouclassed in our region, but the raptor will be a better strike platform, that is the point i am trying to make, and we could get it up and running this decade,if sold to us, not 2012 like the JSF if were lucky, it only first flew the other day mate. look at south east asiam all the big players are upgrading big time, i just dont think the JSF will be what it is meant to be, ****...the yanks might pull the plug on it yet.
the JSF is not the best fighter when put up against the latest SU-30, either is the super hornet, but thats what were getting because there's nothing out there besides maybe the latest F-15 or typhoon for the strike role, but we have two cances of getting the none, and **** all.
hey Mr XIE, what coy lones you hanging around.
goose36
03-13-2007, 08:42 AM
I agree with XIE - will people stop harping on about the raptor? We are physically incapable of getting it. And if we were, we wouldn't get it anyway. People just see the D3TLA of the skies and think it is perfect for all.
besides they wont sell it, please tell me how it's not perfect.
oldsoak
03-13-2007, 10:21 AM
What is your understanding of the term "fighter" ?
Opening Batsman
03-13-2007, 10:29 AM
besides they wont sell it, please tell me how it's not perfect.
JSF shows its style
By Barry Rollings
Volume 49, No. 03, March 08, 2007
STATING THE FACTS: The Program Manager New Air Combat Capability, AVM John Harvey, addresses the media briefing at Russell Offices against a backdrop of the new Joint Strike Fighter in flight.
Photo by Kevin Piggott
'Tests making good progress'
THE Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) offers the Air Force a more versatile range of capabilities than the F-22, says the Program Manager New Air Combat Capability, AVM John Harvey.
The two fifth-generation aircraft are both highly capable, but the F-22 was specialised more in the air-to-air role and could not conduct the full range of air-to-air and air-to-ground tasks that Australia needs, AVM Harvey told a briefing at Russell Offices on February 21.
“While we tend to focus to a certain extent on the platform itself, the total air combat capability is more than just a platform,” AVM Harvey said.
“It’s a total system that the JSF will be integrated into. For Australia, integrating with the AEW&C aircraft, the new tanker aircraft, the ground support systems and the totally networked ADF will be what provides us with a capability edge well into the future.”
“The JSF has a wider range of sensors, can carry larger weapons, and a wider range of weapons compared with the F-22.”
Addressing media speculation about why Australia should not opt for an all-F-22 fleet, AVM Harvey said it was clear that if the F-22 could do everything, the USAF wouldn’t need the JSF as well.
“So they recognise the F-22 can’t do everything,” he said.
“For those who argue that the F-22 would be a cheaper solution, why then does the USAF plan to buy 10 times as many JSFs as F-22s.
“Clearly, the F-22 is not cheaper. Our assessment is the F-22 costs around twice as much as the JSF and that was supported by a recent Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) report.
“In the context of the recent US President’s Defense Budget that went to Congress, it’s true there was a proposed reduction in the ramp-up rate for the acquisition of JSF in the early years of the program, but there is no plan for the US Services to reduce the total number of aircraft they will acquire.”
“There will be some cost implications associated with the reduced ramp-up rate, but these were taken into account in our submission to Government at First Pass last year.”
The JSF Project continues to make good progress with the first test aircraft recently completing its seventh test flight. It is now undergoing a scheduled hardware and software upgrade and will fly again in early March.
“In parallel with the first JSF aircraft flight testing, the 737-based Cooperative Avionics Test Bed (CATB) is conducting flight tests. The CATB will incorporate the full JSF avionics suite and to date has conducted 14 test flights for 42 hours of flight.
“There has also been a fair amount of press discussion recently about the consideration of the potential acquisition of a squadron of Super Hornet aircraft. Defence has always made the point – and it is still consistent with our long-term aim – that an all-JSF fleet will be the core of our air combat capability. But we’ve also acknowledged that the transition to that is quite a complex task with a lot of moving pieces involved.
“There’s the ongoing sustainment of the F-111, working out when they should retire; a number of upgrade projects to the F/A-18, plus the AEW&C and the Vigilair programs. There are quite a few items there and we’ve maintained options in the background all along in case we needed to do something if it looked like there would be too much risk of a gap in capability during transition.
“When the JSF was considered in the context of First Pass [approval], Government looked at the options and they asked us to flesh out one of those a bit more – which was the Super Hornet option. We are providing more detail on that and Government will decide whether or not they think that’s required in the near future.”
To critics of the F/A-18 Super Hornet as a future aircraft, AVM Harvey made the point that the Super Hornet was a highly-advanced fourth-generation aircraft, which would be in service with the US Navy until around 2030; gradually being replaced by the JSF, starting in about 2015.
“So, the Super Hornet is really the US Navy’s frontline aircraft and will be for quite some time yet. It’s a highly capable aircraft and certainly capable of dealing with the likely threats that we see out there in the medium term.”
http://www.defence.gov.au/news/raafnews/editions/4903/topstories/story2.htm
If the RAAF says it, I'll believe them.
oldsoak
03-13-2007, 01:33 PM
I think the RAAF have got it about right. The SH are good kit, and are availiable now. It can probably carry anything the JSF can, it can take on anything that the neighbours are likely to be flying in the next 10-15 years and spares will be relatively cheap as long as its in the US inventory. OK, its not stealthy or as modern as JSF, but OZ is unlikely to be going downtown Tehran on day 1. If it does, it will be with the US and a host of others. Furthermore, do we know if Aus is going to be happy with JSF costs if these are affected by production runs and cutbacks in numbers purchased ? It might be that buying into JSF later in the day might bring savings. Who knows, there might even be a revolution in stand-off weaponry in the next few years which will make the cheaper SH an even better buy.
goose36
03-14-2007, 04:05 AM
please, dont get me wrong the, JSF will be a great fighter/strike aircraft. i have never said it wasn't. just compared to a upgraded raptor[if it happens] it would come in second place, but i think i made my point about the raptor so i will drop that subject. the super hornet is lightyears ahead of our current birds but will only just top anything in our region if we start talking the latest SU-30 types being used by indo, malay and china. our training, weapon sytems and tactics should see us through any scrap we get in with any of those boys.
oldsoak
03-14-2007, 05:17 AM
The PRC are unlikely to get embroiled with Australia when they havent settled Taiwan. To get involved with the PRC, you'd either have to go there or they come south - either way its a very long way to fly aircraft. If they do get aircraft carriers, then the best defence is going to be long range anti ship missiles or the Collins subs.
Malaysia is unlikely to go to war with Aus - its beyond their sphere of interest. They are more likely to kick off with their immediate neighbours. Indonesia will be the mostly likely candidate - but it will be taking on more than Aus if it goes to war. I would put my money on the RAAF here in terms of what it can do until the US turns up. I'd love to say UK, but you'd be in the bar by the time we got there ! Still, given a few weeks notice, we'd be able to get a SSN with Tomahawks down there.
If Singapore got invaded and invoked their defence treaty, then believe it or not , you'd be fighting alongside the PRC on account of the large numbers of ethnic Chinese in S'pore.
Either ways, it looks like Aus will be well able to dish it out if need be. She's got a good hand and she's going to get better.
Calanen
03-14-2007, 05:40 AM
The PRC are unlikely to get embroiled with Australia when they havent settled Taiwan. To get involved with the PRC, you'd either have to go there or they come south - either way its a very long way to fly aircraft.
Im just glad that to get to us they have to go through every other country in Asia. Might get slowed down by Vietnam and Japan...
And why take Australia over when you could just buy it? That's what will happen, not too far down the track.
Opening Batsman
03-14-2007, 05:42 AM
And why take Australia over when you could just buy it? That's what will happen, not too far down the track.
Well yeah, that makes perfect sense.
Nobody is going to invade Australia. If Indonesia even tried, they can have the north coast and then be incapable of moving across the centre, not to mention America would probably give them a swift kick up the arse from the rear.p-)
the super hornet is lightyears ahead of our current birds but will only just top anything in our region if we start talking the latest SU-30 types being used by indo, malay and china. our training, weapon sytems and tactics should see us through any scrap we get in with any of those boys.
Point in fact. The JSF will allow us to operate within a battlespace environment as we plan for and our TTPs/Doctrine supports. It is all about creating a radar detection system both ground and air based, seaborne assets, land assets and air assets to work as one to defeat any movement towards our coast line. Our radar can and does detect US stealth technology so lets not worry to much about SU-30s.
JSF with Wedgetails, Tankers, Ground Radar, AWD will be more than enough to protect our E,S&L gap!
velvet-cream
03-14-2007, 07:22 AM
I think most of you are on the money. No country is going to invade Australia in the forseeable future. By that I mean anytime up to 10 years or so. I justify that statement by the fact not many surrounding countries have a force capable of invading Australia. And if even if a neighbour becomes hostile right now, it would take years of military build up to create a credible invasion force.
Musoria doesn't exist. Although at times in the last 10 years relationships with Indonesia have been strained, I doubt Indonesia has realistically thought about invading Australia.
To the best of my knowledge, only the good old US of A has a blue water navy and military capable of mounting an amphibious invasion. Since the US is pretty much tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq, it probably doesn't have the logistics and troops to invade Australia. Oh, yeah and I forgot to mention the US is one of Australia's closest allies, so that rules out a US invasion.
So in short, there is no immediate threat to mainland Australia from any other nation state. It doesn't mean we should be complacent about our defence and we should still update our air force. But we should look at the reality of how we will be using the RAAF in the future.
I doubt we will need the latest and greatest air superiority fighter to defend the vast Australian skies from enemy Migs. (as I doubt the RAAF would be "defending" mainland Australia)
Instead, the RAAF would be fighting a battle over someone else's land, and probably against a failed state / freedom fighters or a third world country. Which means the RAAF would probably be in a transport role and/or CAIRS. (think of all RAAF deployments in recent times)
Would an expensive "super fighter", fit into this picture? Only if we were fighting against a sophisticated enemy air force. And if we were fighting against a sophisticated air force, you can guarantee we won't be fighting without the USAF or RAF. And in that scenario, we can just piggy back off them. (yeah, I know its stingy of us!)
So do we need the F22 raptor? It would be nice to have if it was offered to us and if we could afford it. But it is definitely not necessary.
That's my 2 cents. (and no, I'm not in the RAAF, so for the RAAF guys out there feel free to shoot me down if I'm wrong)
Opening Batsman
03-14-2007, 07:44 AM
so that rules out a US invasion.
And the fact that due to ANZUS, they would be obliged to go to war with themselves if they attacked us.p-)
goose36
03-14-2007, 08:02 AM
mr cream , you hit the nail on the head.
goose36
03-14-2007, 08:12 AM
Point in fact. The JSF will allow us to operate within a battlespace environment as we plan for and our TTPs/Doctrine supports. It is all about creating a radar detection system both ground and air based, seaborne assets, land assets and air assets to work as one to defeat any movement towards our coast line. Our radar can and does detect US stealth technology so lets not worry to much about SU-30s.
JSF with Wedgetails, Tankers, Ground Radar, AWD will be more than enough to protect our E,S&L gap!
i'm not talking about our ability to detect, we can do that quite well and have done so for years.
i'm talking about the hornet's ability fight a BVR or WVR engagement with the flanker and win. yes with all our latest toys being wegatail. tanker and AWD that seems like a pretty one side'd fight, but without them i think it would be a differnt picture, it hardly seems likely that such a fight would take place in the near future however it is a capability that we should have.
We will never fight in that situation, ever! It is like saying the AK74 has overmatch on the F88 so we should get SR25 to all members.....
goose36
03-14-2007, 08:24 AM
never say never, it is remote but we should be able to.
and the ak thing you wrote, dude the 47 does not out range or us even though it is 7.62.
500m effective with AK74 v 300m (current doctrinal planning range) for a F88?
goose36
03-14-2007, 04:44 PM
are you really going to tell me that a 74 with a smeller round out ranges the f-88, you do know that they made that so they say the mursorians always out range us crap. doctrine will be 400 for the individual and 600 for sect with new AGOG. you really need to stop reading Pam's.
goose36
03-14-2007, 04:48 PM
if i knew how to post pics i would show you my gat wiht the ACOG
goose36
03-14-2007, 05:13 PM
http://www.ausairpower.net/media.html#Hot_Topicshttp://www.ausairpower.net/media.html#Hot_Topics
No I am telling you that the current doctrine and planning ranges as per the CATC is 350m.
goose36
03-14-2007, 10:15 PM
well that might still be the written answer but thats not what were working off nor is it realistic just like a lot of our other doctrine, we are shooting out to 600m these days quite well. we are a little of topic here but it is still a good subject. what do you think section planning range should be, or what are you capable of with in service rifle and optics.
I aint special, get a 70mil group.
We should plan not for some suavy guru shooter with ACOG (read: Inf Pl with new kit). We should plan for Driver Blogs from 26 Tpt Sqn, firing after being ambushed mid-convoy. You think he can effect out to 600m?
velvet-cream
03-14-2007, 10:42 PM
Yes I do believe doctrine gives the enemy weapons a longer planning range. But I see no problem with that, if it trains us to plan and fight smarter.
As for the effective range, i'm sure most of us can hit a mansized target well beyond 300m. But remember what effective fire means.
Off the top of my head, it's defined as being able to place 1 round within 1 meter of a target every second. And I'm sure most professional soldiers would be able to do that with a steyr up to 300m. But do you think most soldiers could fire a round every second and hit a target 500m away? Probably not. That's why a section of steyrs can have an effective range of ~500m.
goose36
03-14-2007, 10:45 PM
now where talking about a different ball game, a trucky and a grunt should and have different shooting standards, and different kit. when our new optics go mainstream any unit with these will have higher standards and shoots to qualify each year.
i believe at the moment we can and have[training] put effective fire out to 500m as a section. with a bit more range time and our new optics that can be increased to 600m however, the round has minimal effect on target past this point and some would even say at this range.
velvet-cream
03-14-2007, 10:47 PM
I aint special, get a 70mil group.
We should plan not for some suavy guru shooter with ACOG (read: Inf Pl with new kit). We should plan for Driver Blogs from 26 Tpt Sqn, firing after being ambushed mid-convoy. You think he can effect out to 600m?
Yes, planning ranges should be for the lowest common denominator. It would be silly to go into battle and hope for the best.
goose36
03-14-2007, 11:18 PM
a infantry section is capable of effective fire out to 500-600m, at the moment there are no specific shoots for This range besides field firing eg, section in defense. a infantry rifleman should be a better shot then Mr blogs at 3CSSR, that is our bread and butter. therefore we should plan for what we are capable of, not a cook that just passes LF6 every year. it might never be written army doctrine but it will be the teaching in the very near future, this does not mean that the Cook will have to shoot our shoots, it would be unrealistic and unnecessary
velvet-cream
03-14-2007, 11:26 PM
a infantry section is capable of effective fire out to 500-600m, at the moment there are no specific shoots for This range besides field firing eg, section in defense. a infantry rifleman should be a better shot then Mr blogs at 3CSSR, that is our bread and butter. therefore we should plan for what we are capable of, not a cook that just passes LF6 every year. it might never be written army doctrine but it will be the teaching in the very near future, this does not mean that the Cook will have to shoot our shoots, it would be unrealistic and unnecessary
The army should consider having regular shoots beyond 300m for arms corps soldiers. It's not just about tight groupings. Soldiers need to learn good range estimation, aiming off etc that is required for shooting at such long distances.
For the other services, I think a 300m range it adequate. Keep it simple for them - aim reticle at the centre of mass and squeeze...
goose36
03-14-2007, 11:34 PM
they will do soon, yes arms core should shoot and train differently.
we are so off topic.
Bring back the Mirages!
Haha....I was an ADGie back when the Miracles were flying. Every time they went up SAR went on stand-by.
they will do soon, yes arms core should shoot and train differently.
we are so off topic.
What cores should do this increased shooting qual?
You all make good points, I don't like how people have ostrich fever. the replacement of the F-111 and F/A-18 are supposed to last past 2015 are some of you able to look that far into the future and see no threats?? If thats true then why have a airforce or navy.
As I asked in my first post should we replace our F/A-18s with the superhornet? to be later replaced as our primary air superorityfighter F-35 and possibly sent to a secondary fighter role to supplement the F-35.
The problem is the replacement of the F-111 as good as the F-35 and the superhornet are they dont fill the role of the F-111. The only airframe that fills the role adequately atm is the SU-34 it has similiar range and loadout. As for blue on blue problems I'm sure our defence forces are professional enough for that to be able to minimise it.
Realistically the Aussie airforce primary role is to last long enough for the USAF and USN reinforcements to arrive in the case of Australia is being attacked. But that dosen't mean we shouldnt have a strike fighter to be able to strike back hard and have to rely on the US to defend Australia or maybe we should just buy some tomahawk capable ships instead
goose36
03-15-2007, 05:00 AM
[quote=XIE;23What cores should do this increased shooting qual?[/quote]
well the arms cores to start off with who would receive new weapon system or optics first. then if all cores were given new optics they could attempt these shoots, I'm not having a go at all non arm's cores shooting ability it' just we shoot more and are generally better.
goose36
03-15-2007, 06:45 AM
i'll give you a hint....duty first.
Digrar or Chops are going to smack some heads when they get here.
HAHAHA! So your core motto is Duty First. Nice core you are in.
Back to the Air capability for the RAAF/ADF.
Can someone say UAV with loiter capability? That is what I reckon we need to be looking at....
ShotOver
03-15-2007, 07:47 AM
Core? Good work.
digrar
03-15-2007, 08:22 AM
Corps! Numpties.
I hope I aint suspected of using core in place of Corps. I was clearly baiting this fella!
XIE
ShotOver
03-15-2007, 08:33 AM
I hope I aint suspected of using core in place of Corps. I was clearly baiting this fella!
XIE
Yep, same here.
digrar
03-15-2007, 09:03 AM
A likely story....
Violet Fashion by Mindy
03-15-2007, 09:43 AM
I hope I aint suspected of using core in place of Corps. I was clearly baiting this fella!
XIE
Pfft excuses!!!
p-)
Robbee
03-15-2007, 10:02 AM
The only way out is in!
http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/1652/thecorevi0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Robbee
03-15-2007, 10:38 AM
If a foreign power started massing troops anywhere near Australia, there would be some carrier group "exercises" in the South Pacific scheduled pretty quickly. No way the Aussies are ever going to have to go it alone.
goose36
03-15-2007, 05:16 PM
I hope I aint suspected of using core in place of Corps. I was clearly baiting this fella!
XIE
and i was clearly baited!
Ballistic
03-15-2007, 09:10 PM
i fully understand we cant get the raptor,yes it maks sense that we will get the super hornet although we will be ouclassed in our region, but the raptor will be a better strike platform, that is the point i am trying to make, and we could get it up and running this decade,if sold to us, not 2012 like the JSF if were lucky, it only first flew the other day mate. look at south east asiam all the big players are upgrading big time, i just dont think the JSF will be what it is meant to be, ****...the yanks might pull the plug on it yet.
the JSF is not the best fighter when put up against the latest SU-30, either is the super hornet, but thats what were getting because there's nothing out there besides maybe the latest F-15 or typhoon for the strike role, but we have two cances of getting the none, and **** all.
hey Mr XIE, what coy lones you hanging around.
Exactly what do you base that on ?? How do you know that the F-35 is "not the best fighter when put up against the latest SU-30" when it is still nowhere near operational ?
Please don't tell me you have been reading AusAirPower and actually take every single piece there as gospel !
The Rhino Block2 with it's AESA radar coupled with the Wedgetail AEW&C's is a potent air to air platform, and when the cruise missiles come into service coupled with the MRTT's, will have a capability close to the F-111 but will actually be able to DEFEND itself (doctrine is that F-111's do not take on strike missions without F/A-18 support if I remember correctly). The Rhino also has a lower radar cross section which can only help in BVR engagements.
The F-22 is not the best option for Australia. It has limited air to ground capabilities and pretty much no anti ship capability. It would raise our air to air capability significantly without doubt, but the cost would be little to no air to ground strike capability, that is a trade off the RAAF and the current Govt (whom seem to have a MUCH better grasp of Defence issues than Labor) are not willing to take.
If we were to have a CAG of maybe 2 - 3 F-35 squadrons and 2 F-22 squadrons, that would be much more appealing but unrealistic. But as it stands now, the Rhino's and F-35's will make a good mix.
i'll give you a hint....duty first.
Infantry of course? ...:)
digrar
03-16-2007, 02:07 AM
Making fun of my Regiment. :|
Making fun of my Regiment. :|
LRPVs going home in the back of a divvy van!
LRPVs going home in the back of a divvy van!
Huh? What are you guys on about? *whistles and looks about innocently*
goose36
03-16-2007, 03:29 AM
no no, Aus Airpower is a little one sided i think. one must look at all the info ans not a raptor sponsored site. i tend to look toward janes....yeh, once everything goes operational[ wagtail, MRTT,SH] we should have something similar to the F-111 that can defend itself and should be able to hold it's own. but just comparing data, which i will post, you will see the flanker has the upper hand in all but the cross section and very low speed maneuvering. everybody here has said that the SH will never go 1v1 alone with no AWAC or tanker, or outside the range of the AWD, but that is being bloody naive. and yeah if the **** hit the fan the yanks would be down here quicker then a AC/DC groupie, so we should be able to hold who ever off. all I'm trying to say is that i think the latest flanker variants will out perform a SH.
why is everyone so quick to say the raptor is not suited for strike or air to ground. it has already drop ed all JDAM types and there upgrading it's software to include air to ground op's. is has already been labeled the worlds best bomber by some high ranking US officers
http://www.ausairpower.net/F-22A-JDAM-1256635-S.jpg
F-22A Raptor assigned to the 27th Fighter Squadron of the 1st Fighter Wing, Langley, Virginia, the first operational unit to fly the F-22A, releasing a GBU-32 JDAM satellite/inertial smart bomb. The US Air Force intends to replace the F-117A Nighthawk stealth fighter with the F-22A providing a precision strike capability against the most heavily defended targets. Two F-22A squadrons are to be assigned to the 49th Fighter Wing at Holloman, New Mexico, replacing all existing dedicated F-117A strike aircraft. Since the F-22A was conceived during the 1980s, its basic role has expanded considerably. Early production F-22As will be used both as a penetrating strike fighter and air combat fighter, and medium term planning envisages an Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance role, Suppression of Enemy Air Defence role, and an Electronic Attack derivative. (US Air Force).
ShotOver
03-16-2007, 03:34 AM
Mate, we can't get the F-22, they yanks cannot sell it by law. So just drop it.
goose36
03-16-2007, 03:47 AM
Mate, we can't get the F-22, they yanks cannot sell it by law. So just drop it.
well aware of that dude, the point i have been trying to make is it will and is planned to be a kickarse strike platform.
caridon
03-16-2007, 07:32 AM
ok my (slightly nationalistic) idea.
Take a mix bag of JAS39 and Eurofighter.
The JAS can handle close in operations and eurofighter for longer missions.
Ad some eryeye systems and you get a whole lot of airforce for very litle money.
The point here is that this stuff is far superolur to anything australi might need to fight in the forseable future but much cheper to buy and run than JSF and F-22
that way you can by more planes and have them in the air mor of the time (nd no matter how good a F-22 is it can only be in one place at the time.)
/C
Robbee
03-16-2007, 09:21 AM
Here's a quick comparison engine for the spec orientated out there.
http://www.airtoaircombat.com/compare.asp
Let's say there is a hypothetical Indonesia vs Australia conflict with no other countries involved. Is it conceivable that the Aus. military (in particular the RAAF) would run out of munitions before they ran out of enemies?
Why make a whole, "we don't have WEDGETAIL" situations. It is like saying, if we get one Private (P) and one Indonesian Whatever (P) we would loose!
oldsoak
03-16-2007, 10:44 AM
Here's a quick comparison engine for the spec orientated out there.
http://www.airtoaircombat.com/compare.asp
Let's say there is a hypothetical Indonesia vs Australia conflict with no other countries involved. Is it conceivable that the Aus. military (in particular the RAAF) would run out of munitions before they ran out of enemies?
No. There are two ways to attack Aus - by air or by sea. Air attacks would get detected and taken out at range. The RAAF has a good few BVR missiles in its armoury - a lot more than the oppostion would be able to have aircraft. Attack by sea would have to be in the form of small scale hit and run raids to have success - larger sea borne attacks would get be subject to attack by RAAF Orions and RAN assets.
Robbee
03-16-2007, 11:26 AM
No. There are two ways to attack Aus - by air or by sea. Air attacks would get detected and taken out at range. The RAAF has a good few BVR missiles in its armoury - a lot more than the oppostion would be able to have aircraft. Attack by sea would have to be in the form of small scale hit and run raids to have success - larger sea borne attacks would get be subject to attack by RAAF Orions and RAN assets.
Thanks for the clarification. After looking up Indonesia's air capabilty, I see that there aren't many planes at all. My bad, I should have done my fact checking before asking the question.
That being said, Indonesia has 23 combat jets, of which only 10 could assault the Australian mainland.
Why on earth would anyone consider 24 RAAF Super Hornets inadequate for the task?
oldsoak
03-16-2007, 12:53 PM
There is an arguement - , Aus is a large place with a relatively small population. This means that there can be a lot of territory between airbases, major ports or garrisons. The fear is that there are simply not enough resources to be able to mount credible defence for all of Aus simultaneously, and that the numbers will only allow for air defence of major towns and cities - ie important places whose infrastructure will support air bases etc, or who fall within range of the airbases.
Now, an attacker will normally go for a high value target - which normally means something in or around a city that would affect Australian war effort or economy in a major way. It can therefore be argued that you can ignore the rest of Aus and concentrate your defence around these areas. Given a good surveillance sytems ( OTH radar, Global Hawk, ELint Orions, satellite etc ) and the usual force multipliers like AWACs, Tankers etc, it is possible to planand implement a flexible defence to make the most of what you have. The Aussies have been looking at this for years , so they'll have something up their sleeves.
goose36
03-16-2007, 01:10 PM
Why make a whole, "we don't have WEDGETAIL" situations. It is like saying, if we get one Private (P) and one Indonesian Whatever (P) we would loose!
you still dont get do you.....if i wasnet so drunk right know i would say why....wait a bit and i will.
goose - I do get it. Australia wont ever fight in a 1 - 1 situation. We may have inferior (on paper) aircraft to our neighbours but we have (on paper) a large capability overmatch when you add the Wedgetail, OTH Radar, Orion, Coalition partners resources.
goose36
03-18-2007, 06:35 AM
look mate, your pretty bloody naive to think that every time you go into battle you must have all your asset's to back up your main force to accomplish your task, you still need to be good enough to do it alone if need be, many people have learned the hard way by thinking differently.
have you ever heard of jamming or counter IRS missiles that today have ranges well over 150nm. these days everyone knows that who ever has the most information will win, so everyone developed ways to stop there enemy's from gaining this info or stopping the enemy's from sharing it through jamming or counter IRS missiles, or direct targeting of the support assets so they that would be at a more Evan playing ground.
Robbee
03-18-2007, 11:29 AM
Was the F-15 ever in contention for this "stopgap" contract?
The P-40 was on paper a inferior aircraft. Still were flying combat missions in 1945! It was the TTPs/ability/quality of the pilots and support system that kept them in the air fighting. That is how we will have to win the next fight. We cant afford to have some 5th Gen fighter and all the other wizz bang extras. Compromise is the key and something that Australia has and always will have to do.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.