NationStates Jolt Archive

Should they:

Wait to purchase the F-35 Lightning II.
Purchase 24 F/A-18 Hornets as a stopgap measure whilst waiting for the F-35 Lightning II to come.
Try to persuade the U.S to sell F-22 Raptor.
Purchase the Suoki 30.
Purchase the Eurofighter Typhoon.
Try to get any of those built at Australia.

Should they:

[postoption=1]Wait to purchase the F35s
Purchase 24 F18s as a stopgap measure whilst waiting for the F35s to come
Try to persuade the U.S to sell F22s
Purchase the Suoki 30s
Purchase the Eurofighters
Try to get any of those built at Australia

uh, if youre trying to get a poll up, use thread options.

anywho, the sukoi and F22 options arent really there, eurofighters are pretty old, and i dont think theyre going to be involved in any large scale conflict soon, so id say wait for the F35s.

Poll is up.

Anyway, you'd be suprised by the amount of Sukhoi 30s that are being exported; Russia is really ramping up the fighter plane trade.

The Typhoon is actually pretty new the other modern european fighter (the Dassault) isn't that good compared.

I admit the U.S is VERY hesitant about selling the F22 to Australia.

I'd wait also but it seems the RAAF is nervous about the planes the Indonesians have been buying (Sukhoi 30) and we all know once the Indonesians get one up on Australia it means the END OF THE WORLD! :rolleyes: .

What is a eurofighter?

What is a eurofighter?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter

This.

I think the RAAF should man up and make their own decisions. Honestly. It seems like too major a decision to be left up to a poll on a random forum.

The Su-30 rocks and it is cheaper than the EFA or the american fighters, but the RAAF would have to switch most of its systems to the Russian standards, at least for the fighter component, or build a Westernised version of the Su-30 (mmhhh....).
Anyway, what sort of opposition do they expect? I think that a Gripen could do the job.
If they are to choose between the EFA, the F-22 and the F-35, I'd say that the EFA is the best option; while expensive, it is easy to fly, faster than the F-22 and more maneuverable than a Su-35. Plus, its missiles are the best in the Western system. BVRAAM, Skyflash, Aspide/Spada...

I forgot: the Rafale could be a good idea. It can operate from carriers also!

or build a Westernised version of the Su-30 (mmhhh....).


Yeah, but it'd cost about 3x as much and would have only a marginal increase in function. :D

Poll is up.

Anyway, you'd be suprised by the amount of Sukhoi 30s that are being exported; Russia is really ramping up the fighter plane trade.

The Typhoon is actually pretty new the other modern european fighter (the Dassault) isn't that good compared.

I admit the U.S is VERY hesitant about selling the F22 to Australia (what is the bet that other countries will get it though?)

I'd wait also but it seems the RAAF is nervous about the planes the Indonesians have been buying (Sukhoi 30) and we all know once the Indonesians get one up on Australia it means the END OF THE WORLD! :rolleyes: .

it's call not wanting to blow out of the sky our own fly boys

it's call not wanting to blow out of the sky our own fly boys

Why is there all this talk about "F22" this and that? we all well know that America publicly discloses future superior aircraft years after its braintrusts are finished polishing it all up, so why arent we worrying about whats next?

I think the RAAF should man up and make their own decisions. Honestly. It seems like too major a decision to be left up to a poll on a random forum.

do think they do that :rolleyes:

Yeah, but it'd cost about 3x as much and would have only a marginal increase in function. :D

If India can get to produce their own Su-30s then it wouldn't be too hard to design a seperate cockpit. It'd be more of a maintenance thing than anything.

Why is there all this talk about "F22" this and that? we all well know that America publicly discloses future superior aircraft years after its braintrusts are finished polishing it all up, so why arent we worrying about whats next?

don't know don't care i leave that up to the RAAF Boys all i care is it the F88 or F89 that i be given to carry in the Army if i get in (thats went i get around to sending the paperwork to sign up)

it's call not wanting to blow out of the sky our own fly boys

Most of modern fighter plane fighting (Interdiction?) is done with missiles, cannons for the most part are unused (and in quite a few modern planes they have a version with no cannon or a disabled one [due to not being able to remove it due to balance problems]) so it would not really be a problem of sight.

All the planes would be running their ID codes because of that.

Yeah, but it'd cost about 3x as much and would have only a marginal increase in function. :D

I know.:(

don't know don't care i leave that up to the RAAF Boys all i care is it the F88 or F89 that i be given to carry in the Army if i get in (thats went i get around to sending the paperwork to sign up)

hah... by then planes will be flown from the ground!:D

"In Soviet Russia, plane flies you!"

hah... by then planes will be flown from the ground!:D

"In Soviet Russia, plane flies you!"

cheek :p

hah... by then planes will be flown from the ground!:D


Yea, stop recruiting pilots and give control to the almighty NERDS!:D

Nerd power!

I was reading this one book a while ago where the pilot was in the plane and flew it... by THOUGHT! hah!

he sensed all of the normal things like damage and airspeed in his head and could process attacks/defense like a computer... his downfall was he acted like a computer.

good book.

Yea, stop recruiting pilots and give control to the almighty NERDS!:D

Nerd power!

To quote Bill Gates:

"Fear the nerds!"

Could we have Flying Cyber Emus in the future?

don't know don't care i leave that up to the RAAF Boys all i care is it the F88 or F89 that i be given to carry in the Army if i get in (thats went i get around to sending the paperwork to sign up)

Yeah, you really should get around to that, didn't you get the paperwork over a month ago?

I think the RAAF should get the Su-47...

Yeah, you really should get around to that, didn't you get the paperwork over a month ago?

I think the RAAF should get the Su-47...

end of last month
Su-47 look to funny for us we dont want to give NZ one more thing to have ago at us about

I was just wondering who is a big enough threat to Australia to warrant such spending on aircraft?

Indonesia (they are buying the Su-30), anyone the U.S.A tells us is 'teh ebil mooslum terirists'.

Hmmm, wait, thats what a lot of the more angry/militant people here say about Indonesia.....

Could we have Flying Cyber Emus in the future?

I think that the Brits have tested an EFA flown by some sort of IA. It worked.

I was just wondering who is a big enough threat to Australia to warrant such spending on aircraft?

all of those above us

Should they:

Wait to purchase the F-35 Lightning II.
Purchase 24 F/A-18 Hornets as a stopgap measure whilst waiting for the F-35 Lightning II to come.
Try to persuade the U.S to sell F-22 Raptor.
Purchase the Suoki 30.
Purchase the Eurofighter Typhoon.
Try to get any of those built at Australia.

I'd say either just stick with Hornets for now (much cheaper!) or else go for some Eurofighters.

While the Raptor is aweome, I have many doubts about the F-35. Russian stuff is good, but it would created logistical issues to have a mixed airforce...though India does well enough I suppose.

all of those above us

You mean, all the guys who don't walk upside-down?:D

The stupid thing is that the planned replacement strike craft that we have to have (as the proposed strike replacement), the F-18 Hornet (Super hornet i think), is not as good as the Su-30 (Su-30 is much better).

To buy (not build, U.S wouldn't allow us to do that) 24 it would cost about 4 billion (AUD).

the planned cost of 100 F35s would be about 12 billion (AUD). It seems a rather expensive stopgap measure.

The argument about a mixed airforce isn't really a big deal as the F35 planes that may be bought (decision was postponed from 2006 to 2008) were meant to replace the ENTIRE fighter fleet (Including any carrier types I think). All that would be left is the transports.

You mean, all the guys who don't walk upside-down?:D

hey its you lot who like walking upside down not us :p

The stupid thing is that the planned replacement strike craft that we have to have (as the proposed strike replacement), the F18, is not as good as the Su-30 (Su-30 is much better).

To buy (not build, U.S wouldn't allow us to do that) 24 it would cost about 4 billion (AUD).

the planned cost of 100 F35s would be about 12 billion (AUD). It seems a rather expensive stopgap measure.

just like when we did not buy second hand M1 tanks

just like when we did not buy second hand M1 tanks

Yeah, the ADF sucks at effective spending policy. Those particular tanks were unneeded.

Anyway, if you want really good 2nd hand stuff you go to Belarus. Everyone knows that :rolleyes: .

Btw, how much do the Typhoons cost? I figured from the (future) export to Saudi Arabia it is anywhere from 80 million (USD) to 130 million (USD) for each unit

Yeah, the ADF sucks at effective spending policy. Those particular tanks were unneeded.

Anyway, if you want really good 2nd hand stuff you go to Belarus. Everyone knows that :rolleyes: .

i hope i don't end up in platoon of short people thanks to the ADF

do think they do that :rolleyes:

Have you read the thread? Do I have to source what you are currently reading?

They should make their own.

Have you read the thread? Do I have to source what you are currently reading?

an i did not see where it says this is the RAAF we need your help in picking a new plane

an i did not see where it says this is the RAAF we need your help in picking a new plane

You have to read the small print.

an i did not see where it says this is the RAAF we need your help in picking a new plane

I am the RAAF. Fear my antiquitated aircraft and desire to bomb things!

You have to read the small print.

an i'm little johnny

They should make their own.

That would be the best thing (the reason why we managed to get so many F111s instead of having to pay lots for them back when they were really good aircraft). It is also the reason why India can afford to update their air fleet (Sukhoi planes).

The U.S.A is worried that if we built their premier plane, the F-22 then the chinese might steal the plans (like that hasn't happened in the U.S).

We won't be able to build the F-35 for the same reason I think (that and greed)

We probably would be able to build Su-30s here if we gave Russia a nice royalties fee as well as buying some of their left over Su-30s (about 15 I'd say).

That would be the best thing (the reason why we managed to get so many F111s instead of having to pay lots for them). It is also the reason why India can afford to update their air fleet (Sukhoi planes).

The U.S.A is worried that if we built their premier plane, the F-22 then the chinese might steal the plans (like that hasn't happened in the U.S).

We won't be able to build the F-35 for the same reason I think (that and greed)

We probably would be able to build Su-30s here if we gave Russia a nice royalties fee as well as buying some of their left over Su-30s (about 15 I'd say).

shit we make our own ships and subs why not make our own planes

Because the U.S Iron triangle is both fearful of espionage and hungry to make money (they make the U.S air/navy force feel superior to the world, thus purchase more of the only plane no one else can have).

and there land forces are just cannon fodder

The RAAF shouldn't buy a strategic fighter at all.
They should pay the US or Europeans to let RAAF pilots train on F22's or Eurofighter, and not buy until there's a forseeable need for a strategic fighter.

Thanks for asking.

If India can get to produce their own Su-30s then it wouldn't be too hard to design a seperate cockpit. It'd be more of a maintenance thing than anything.

As well as new IFF systems.

We won't be able to build the F-35 for the same reason I think (that and greed)

Um...take a look sometime at how many contracts Australian industry's gotten for the F-35 program.

Now, despite the fact that I think the F-35's a damn fine aircraft, it's just not affordable for countries like Australia. New Hornets? Meh. They're great if you've got aircraft carriers, but they're pretty pricey as well. If I were running the Defense Department in Australia, I'd take what some might consider to be a crazy route. I'd scrap plans to buy the F-35 (though still stay on the development program so as to have access to some of the technology), and I'd go with an option not even included in the poll here: buy Gripens. They're the best bang for your buck.

Why bother paying U.S or E.U to train pilots on their planes if we would be buying a strategic plane of the upper tier and so by the time we got around to buying a plane those would be out of date.

Part of the problem is that the planes should have been shelved years ago but we kept them in service by judicious use of upgrades. We need to replace them all soon (even if it was with the same type) though we could get away with another 8-12 years (hence waiting for the new fighter would be good and if it was built here it would be even better.

The main thrust is that the ADF thinks that any weakness in military strength would be capitilised upon immediately, that or losing face to Indonesia and we all know that cannot happen.

So it turns into (well, continues) an arms race.

The phenomenally expensive F-22 is a great plane, but, like I said, it's phenomenally expensive.

I'm leery on the F-35, although it's an excellent plane, for certain.

I like the Hornet, although it's aging, no way around that fact.

Typhoon's decent enough as well, although without the challenges of an aging plane.

Russian planes are a no-go for Anglophones. It's like violating some sort of sacred rule or something.

I like the Hornet, although it's aging, no way around that fact.

I would assume, that were Australia to go for more Hornets, they'd buy the newer F/A-18E/F Super Hornets.

The phenomenally expensive F-22 is a great plane, but, like I said, it's phenomenally expensive.

Also not available for sale (probably not for quite a while). It is about twice the cost of a F-35

I'm leery on the F-35, although it's an excellent plane, for certain.

It is a good plane but there has not been that much real world use. It would be a much better deal if it could be built here (U.S seems to have a bit of a phobia about letting tech into other countries).

I like the Hornet, although it's aging, no way around that fact.

Also the Su-30 can deal with them. Super hornets can also be dealt with but to a lesser degree.

Typhoon's decent enough as well, although without the challenges of an aging plane.

It is the no. 2 plane (F-22 is no. 1). Apparently handles well and it, along with the Raptor can supercruise with no real difficulty

Russian planes are a no-go for Anglophones. It's like violating some sort of sacred rule or something.

Australia is hopefully 'multicultural' enough to allow the use of russian equipment. It is a good plane also and when considering the economics one of the better deals for modern equipment considering it may be possible to build them here.


As well as new IFF systems.

IFF systems can be programmed to send a particular signal, that shouldn't be too much of a problem. Hell, you wouldn't even need to change the core IFF system.

Um...take a look sometime at how many contracts Australian industry's gotten for the F-35 program.

As far as I know, not only have the ADF/government put off saying they will buy it for certain until 2008 but it seems that they will be built at the U.S manufacturing plants.

Now, despite the fact that I think the F-35's a damn fine aircraft, it's just not affordable for countries like Australia. New Hornets? Meh. They're great if you've got aircraft carriers, but they're pretty pricey as well.

As well as inferior when compared to Su-30. I agree that they are also very pricy. Four billion (AUD) for only 24 planes? It takes a third of the (proposed) F-35 budget to buy a quarter of the planes, which are already approaching frontline obsolence

If I were running the Defense Department in Australia, I'd take what some might consider to be a crazy route. I'd scrap plans to buy the F-35 (though still stay on the development program so as to have access to some of the technology), and I'd go with an option not even included in the poll here: buy Gripens. They're the best bang for your buck.

We'd only get the technology required to repair them (we are on tier 3 of funding, only 146 million [AUD] so we would get nothing if we opt out of buying the planes). i must say this about the F-35 though: they do not seem to have as large a fuel tank as should be warranted in this region (as we would be launching most sorties from airfield bases rather than carriers).

I have to admit, numbers still are a huge factor and until now I have never heard of the Gripen. They only come to 60% the price of a F-35 and I am unsure how well they can deal with the current (fifth I think) generation fighter aircraft. Also tie in the RAAF wanting the fanciest toys in the region.

Par of the problem with that kind of thinking though is that the (more) modern aircraft can evade current missiles better and would stand a better chance against future missiles so with the limited amount the RAAF could field (as they would require more fuel, weapons and pilots) it might prove to be too much to be in supply.

We can all agree on one thing (hopefully); The Dassault Rafale should not be considered at all.

I would assume, that were Australia to go for more Hornets, they'd buy the newer F/A-18E/F Super Hornets.

Yeah.

I would assume, that were Australia to go for more Hornets, they'd buy the newer F/A-18E/F Super Hornets.

Agreed, it'd be plain stupid to get the inferior version, though it is still expensive.

hey its you lot who like walking upside down not us :p

No way, we europeans made maps with north on the upper side of the page, and this shows that it's you the one walking upside down.;) ;) ;)

IFF systems can be programmed to send a particular signal, that shouldn't be too much of a problem. Hell, you wouldn't even need to change the core IFF system.

Actually, they can't really. Take a look at the work that had to be done on the legacy aircraft in use by Poland and Hungary, for example. IFF and comms had to be redone completely.

As far as I know, not only have the ADF/government put off saying they will buy it for certain until 2008 but it seems that they will be built at the U.S manufacturing plants.

Yeah, they keep putting off a final decision, as do all other nations participating in the program, in order to have leverage to get a bigger slice of the industrial pie. Yes, the aircraft themselves will be assembled in the US, but many of the components are going to be produced by the other nations involved in the program.

As well as inferior when compared to Su-30. I agree that they are also very pricy. Four billion (AUD) for only 24 planes? It takes a third of the (proposed) F-35 budget to buy a quarter of the planes, which are already approaching frontline obsolence

The Su-30 is way overrated, not to mention the shaky question of maintenance and flow of replacement parts.

We'd only get the technology required to repair them (we are on tier 3 of funding, only 146 million [AUD] so we would get nothing if we opt out of buying the planes). i must say this about the F-35 though: they do not seem to have as large a fuel tank as should be warranted in this region (as we would be launching most sorties from airfield bases rather than carriers).

The F-35 does suffer from the range issue. Mid-air refuelling can solve that, though.

I have to admit, numbers still are a huge factor and until now I have never heard of the Gripen. They only come to 60% the price of a F-35 and I am unsure how well they can deal with the current (fifth I think) generation fighter aircraft.

Wow...never heard of the Gripen? :eek:

They could deal quite well. They're the best network-centric fighter aircraft out there. I'll try to dig up the article my former magazine published on it and post a link (I hope).

Also tie in the RAAF wanting the fanciest toys in the region.

Well, if you're going to spend your money based on that, then there's no point in this discussion now, is there? You'll be shelling out for F-35s.

Par of the problem with that kind of thinking though is that the (more) modern aircraft can evade current missiles better and would stand a better chance against future missiles so with the limited amount the RAAF could field (as they would require more fuel, weapons and pilots) it might prove to be too much to be in supply.

Now here's a common misunderstanding. In this scenario, it's not the aircraft itself but the electronic countermeasures (ECM) with which it's equipped that make it better at evading modern missiles. For that, you really have to go with US ECM, with Russian being your last choice.

We can all agree on one thing (hopefully); The Dassault Rafale should not be considered at all.

The Rafale's a very capable aircraft, but it's just not being produced in the numbers required to make it economically viable.

Most of modern fighter plane fighting (Interdiction?) is done with missiles, cannons for the most part are unused (and in quite a few modern planes they have a version with no cannon or a disabled one [due to not being able to remove it due to balance problems]) so it would not really be a problem of sight.


EFA, Rafale and Flanker variants all have a cannon.

Actually, the Soviets tried the no-gun approach (Su-15, MiG-25), but they abandoned it and went for a computer-controlled cannon system.

No way, we europeans made maps with north on the upper side of the page, and this shows that it's you the one walking upside down.;) ;) ;)

But what about all the people on the equator?

EFA, Rafale and Flanker variants all have a cannon.

Actually, the Soviets tried the no-gun approach (Su-15, MiG-25), but they abandoned it and went for a computer-controlled cannon system.

The United States also tried the no-gun approach with the F-4, up until the E model. We too found that a gun was an important inclusion.

EFA, Rafale and Flanker variants all have a cannon.

Actually, the Soviets tried the no-gun approach (Su-15, MiG-25), but they abandoned it and went for a computer-controlled cannon system.

The Americans also tried no-cannon fighters in Vietnam - the pilots hated them. Missiles are all well and good, but in a tight furball you want to have something to SHOOT. It can be the difference between winning and dying.

What Aus should do is lean on the US, play the "look, we're the ones who always go in with you, ya know? So relax a few rules for us" game and get a few F-22s - 24 or so would do. Then wait until the F-35 is ready for a full replacement of or F-18s. After all, we're helping to fund that project.

That way, we'll have great top cover and the F-18s can handle ground attack work.

Well, I understand there's a fear of getting into a great conflict, but with modern intelligence agencies, I think it would be pretty difficult to not realise that a country with modern aeroplanes (figured it'd be appropriate to spell like a limey) is going to war. Both world wars, there was pretty much an advance notice before the fighting escalated to bring the Brits into the fray. I think they can wait, or buy a few here and there just to replace some of their crappiest fighters that require higher maintenance (ever play any business sims, like Railroad Tycoon 3?) costs. Besides, the conflicts we've been getting into (Iraq? Afghanistan? What kind of joke "airforce" would these clwons have? Iran? North Korea? Ha.) the air power is cannon fodder. Jesus, Iraq was still trying to use anti-aircraft from WWII!

Which poses an interesting question, how would you aim for a jet with AA fire like that?
"I hear it coming, let's start firing... uhhhh... there, right now, and hope he flies into it."
:mp5:
*jet engines zoom by*
"Is that a missle? Crap."
:headbang:
*big boom, anti-aircraft fire stops*

They could deal quite well. They're the best network-centric fighter aircraft out there. I'll try to dig up the article my former magazine published on it and post a link (I hope).


Just searched for it with no luck. Seems my former employer obliterated all of our work from their servers. I could only find excerpts and sites that hosted the beginning of the article, but for the latter, you'd have to buy access to the sites to read the rest. :(

I've got it on a disc around here somewhere, I think, though. Might take some time to find it. *grumble*

But what about all the people on the equator?

They're constantly turning cartwheels to keep up.

EFA, Rafale and Flanker variants all have a cannon
Actually, the Soviets tried the no-gun approach (Su-15, MiG-25), but they abandoned it and went for a computer-controlled cannon system.

However in many cases now the cannon is disabled (the british Typhoons will have the cannon disabled, it can be enabled but they do not plan on using it.)

Yeah, they keep putting off a final decision, as do all other nations participating in the program, in order to have leverage to get a bigger slice of the industrial pie. Yes, the aircraft themselves will be assembled in the US, but many of the components are going to be produced by the other nations involved in the program.

Are you sure? That sounds a lot like how the Typhoon is being made.

The Su-30 is way overrated, not to mention the shaky question of maintenance and flow of replacement parts.

In some cases it is overrated. It is still an extrememly good piece of equipment that can out do the Super Hornet. Maintaining them would require learning some different aspects of the plane I admit but with Russia ramping up the military exports of modern equipment even if we did not build basic replacement parts here they would be relatively easy to get, as well as more than likely being cheaper (due to larger economics of scale). I myself would wait and see if a new version comes out soon.

The F-35 does suffer from the range issue. Mid-air refuelling can solve that, though.

That would be alright when flying for a sortie on a country with an no air dominance capability but when used against an equal force it is horrible. Especially on strike aircraft (refuelling really should be used only for bombers or transports).

Well, if you're going to spend your money based on that, then there's no point in this discussion now, is there? You'll be shelling out for F-35s.

I don't like it any more than you do. Just the reality of the situation

Now here's a common misunderstanding. In this scenario, it's not the aircraft itself but the electronic countermeasures (ECM) with which it's equipped that make it better at evading modern missiles. For that, you really have to go with US ECM, with Russian being your last choice.

Why do you go Russian as a last choice? they have significantly increased the scope and ability of their military technologies. The big export push they are doing is specifically to fund their army and military research.

The Rafale's a very capable aircraft, but it's just not being produced in the numbers required to make it economically viable.

AFAIK It has a slower max speed (worse for strike) and cannot peform a supercruise when loaded with its combat load

You do seem to know your stuff, pleasure learning:D .

Jesus, Iraq was still trying to use anti-aircraft from WWII!

Which poses an interesting question, how would you aim for a jet with AA fire like that?
"I hear it coming, let's start firing... uhhhh... there, right now, and hope he flies into it."
:mp5:
*jet engines zoom by*
"Is that a missle? Crap."
:headbang:
*big boom, anti-aircraft fire stops*

You have no clue what you're talking about. You are dismissed.

Are you sure? That sounds a lot like how the Typhoon is being made.

You kept citing Risottia there, but you were actually quoting me. :p

In some cases it is overrated. It is still an extrememly good piece of equipment that can out do the Super Hornet. Maintaining them would require learning some different aspects of the plane I admit but with Russia ramping up the military exports of modern equipment even if we did not build basic replacement parts here they would be relatively easy to get, as well as more than likely being cheaper (due to larger economics of scale). I myself would wait and see if a new version comes out soon.

A. The Super Hornet is more versatile (better at ground attack, for instance), and you just can't guarantee the necessary support from Russian industry. Take a look at India history with its MiGs. It was a clusterfuck.

That would be alright when flying for a sortie on a country with an no air dominance capability but when used against an equal force it is horrible. Especially on strike aircraft (refuelling really should be used only for bombers or transports).

Bah, the USAF uses mid-airrefuelling for many of its combat aircraft, with no detriment whatsoever.

I don't like it any more than you do. Just the reality of the situation

True, but we can all hope for rational decision-making, can't we? ;)

Why do you go Russian as a last choice? they have significantly increased the scope and ability of their military technologies. The big export push they are doing is specifically to fund their army and military research.

Oh, the Russians are very good at offensive weapons technology, but their ECM leaves a lot to be desired. Hell, they're still using the old Hot Brick IR countermeasures on their chopper fleets. You know, the same ones that protected them oh-so-well in Afghanistan in the '80s?

AFAIK It has a slower max speed (worse for strike) and cannot peform a supercruise when loaded with its combat load

True, but the Rafale's a balanced aircraft. It can perform strike and interdiction, though niether superbly. If you want a purely strike aircraft, get one. If you want a multirole aircraft, the Rafale's really not that bad. It's just suffering from economy of scale in terms of production.

You do seem to know your stuff, pleasure learning:D .

Thank you. I was the managing editor and a reporter for a magazine that covered military technology for eight years. I figure I had to have picked up some knowledge in all that time. ;)

Sorry about that, I am a bit tired and had a cut+paste attack. Also I am running off information aquired from wikipedia and the links from it (along with some google of course). That and newspapers.

If I remember right Iraq had inferior planes in 1st gulf war and had no fighter planes (or next to none) in the 2nd one.

But if you refuel in the air wouldn't you be in danger of an easy attack (if not the fighter the tanker)?

With the whole russian question I was hoping for either the planes or the replacement parts to be made in Australia (to keep costs down, not nationalistic tendencies). I though thats why India decided to go back for Russian equipment this time; because they could build it in their country.

Well, China will probably end up developing a plane that has the best of NATO tech and Russian tech. Of course all tech would be aquired legit ;).

How difficult would it be to change IFF codes in the newer planes though? You'd think that they should be easier to change.

With the Rafale it seems that the Typhoon can do it better. At an increased price of course.

I also read that the (JAS?) Gripen was sold below what it should have been sold for because they expected that they could export it relatively easily.

Thank you. I was the managing editor and a reporter for a magazine that covered military technology for eight years. I figure I had to have picked up some knowledge in all that time.

That, or you could have next to no knowlege and be managing one of those hideously budget overrun research projects. I think I like the knowlege better.

Sorry about that, I am a bit tired and had a cut+paste attack. Also I am running off information aquired from wikipedia and the links from it (along with some google of course). That and newspapers.

No prob. ;)

If I remember right Iraq had inferior planes in 1st gulf war and had no fighter planes (or next to none) in the 2nd one.

They had 'em, but they didn't bother scrambling 'em. They knew they'd lose. They tried hiding them, but a lot were destroyed on the ground.

But if you refuel in the air wouldn't you be in danger of an easy attack (if not the fighter the tanker)?

You don't do it near a target zone.

With the whole russian question I was hoping for either the planes or the replacement parts to be made in Australia (to keep costs down, not nationalistic tendencies). I though thats why India decided to go back for Russian equipment this time; because they could build it in their country.

Well, there's that, but they've also traditionally purchased Russian (previously Soviet) equipment. Purchasing more keeps their force interoperable.

Well, China will probably end up developing a plane that has the best of NATO tech and Russian tech. Of course all tech would be aquired legit :winkeyes:

Oh, of course. ;) China's actually developing a fighter in conjunction with Pakistan, based mostly on Russian tech. And yup, you guessed it. It's kinda crappy.

How difficult would it be to change IFF codes in the newer planes though? You'd think that they should be easier to change.

You'd think that, sure. Turns out it's not, though.

With the Rafale it seems that the Typhoon can do it better. At an increased price of course.

The problem with the Typhoon is that, as it's currently configured, it's primarily and interceptor. It's not until later batches that it'll get real ground-attack capabilities.

I also read that the (JAS?) Gripen was sold below what it should have been sold for because they expected that they could export it relatively easily.

JAS 39, and yes, it probably should go for more, because it's a great aircraft, but they were trying to get themselves a market for it, so they cut the price a bit. The more that are sold, the cheaper they are to produce. Simple economics really. And the Gripen's done relatively well on the export market.

That, or you could have next to no knowlege and be managing one of those hideously budget overrun research projects. I think I like the knowlege better.

Nah, out of work now, since our corporate masters at the time decided to kill our contract to publish the magazine, but that is what I used to do, up until a little under a year ago. :)

who exactly is a threat to australia anyway? why don't they just disband?

who exactly is a threat to australia anyway? why don't they just disband?

That is the most short-sighted post in this thread yet.

Isn't there also that rogue Malaysia fear?

EDIT: Fuckin' timewarps.

who exactly is a threat to australia anyway? why don't they just disband?

Well, a standing army is usually a good idea against outside threats.

With Australia there seems to be two main elements of fear that prompt the increase of military budget:

A) Not having U.S as an ally (so more bases are built here and greater political and military ties are formed).

B) An invasion by Indonesia. Indonesia was (and still is to some extent though it is more just pressure) ruled by the military and the ADF (as well as a few Australians) believe that Indonesia has nothing better to do than to invade Australia.

There are other reasons but those fit in nicely.

They had 'em, but they didn't bother scrambling 'em. They knew they'd lose. They tried hiding them, but a lot were destroyed on the ground.

Serbia/Yugoslavia did a good job with their hide and seek of war material and equipment.

You don't do it near a target zone.

I'd like to see the tactitian who came up with a plan like that. I am just saying that it increases risk, especially if you are launching a sortie over a large distance and the enemy knows what you are doing.

Well, there's that, but they've also traditionally purchased Russian (previously Soviet) equipment. Purchasing more keeps their force interoperable.

Well, Russia seems to be moving into the cutting edge weapons/vehicles after it go rid of its glut of soviet era equipment

Oh, of course. ;) China's actually developing a fighter in conjunction with Pakistan, based mostly on Russian tech. And yup, you guessed it. It's kinda crappy.

Now it is. Just wait until a few design feature from F-35, F-22 are 'observed' and transplanted on the next model

You'd think that, sure. Turns out it's not, though.

Why? Is it to stop someone purposely using stolen planes in the event of war?

The problem with the Typhoon is that, as it's currently configured, it's primarily and interceptor. It's not until later batches that it'll get real ground-attack capabilities.

I see. Well, in your opinion, is it worth the money? I ask this because i got 80-130 million dollar price tag for a unit.

JAS 39, and yes, it probably should go for more, because it's a great aircraft, but they were trying to get themselves a market for it, so they cut the price a bit. The more that are sold, the cheaper they are to produce. Simple economics really. And the Gripen's done relatively well on the export market.

Has it? Wikipedia has let me down again.

Nah, out of work now, since our corporate masters at the time decided to kill our contract to publish the magazine, but that is what I used to do, up until a little under a year ago. :)

Damn.

Isn't there also that rogue Malaysia fear?

Not really, it seems to have gone into a 'we won't talk to you and you won't talk to us' phase. Indonesia is much closer, more largely populated and we have spats with each other.

That and it is the only nearby country that could pull off a sneak attack.

They should just ask themselves what strike aircraft would Jesus buy? My guess would be that the bearded one from Nazareth would probably go for the Eurofighter for its range and dogfighting capabilities.

I think the military would prefer a bit more seperation of church and state.

Serbia/Yugoslavia did a good job with their hide and seek of war material and equipment.

And the US learned from that debacle.

I'd like to see the tactitian who came up with a plan like that. I am just saying that it increases risk, especially if you are launching a sortie over a large distance and the enemy knows what you are doing.

Still, you don't do it when there's the risk of attack.

Well, Russia seems to be moving into the cutting edge weapons/vehicles after it go rid of its glut of soviet era equipment

It hasn't. It can't afford to.

Now it is. Just wait until a few design feature from F-35, F-22 are 'observed' and transplanted on the next model

Paranoia.

Why? Is it to stop someone purposely using stolen planes in the event of war?

Perhaps. I honestly don't know, but that would seem sensible. I think, though, that it's more likely that IFF systems are designed to be relatively simple, so as to not require a lot of computing power, and are, thus, only set for certain frequencies. Just a guess, though, admittedly.

I see. Well, in your opinion, is it worth the money? I ask this because i got 80-130 million dollar price tag for a unit.

No, the Typhoon's a joke, in my not-so-humble opinion. It has no real ground-attack capabilities (at least, in the current batches). It's an interceptor. And how many dogfights do we see these days?

Has it? Wikipedia has let me down again.

Beyond Sweden, you've got Hungary, the Czech Republic, and South Africa. Not bad at all on the export market for a Swedish aircraft.

Damn.

Yeah, it sucks, but oh well.

And the US learned from that debacle.

Depends on which Gulf War it was.


Still, you don't do it when there's the risk of attack.

Hence the problem that it cannot go on long range sorties independent of fuel

It hasn't. It can't afford to.

That is why it sold almost all surpluss soviet equipment and also the reason why a lot of their arms production services are selling to other countries; so they can fund their army more

Paranoia.

It may be slightly paranoid but that is how it works. China wants to become a more prominent country in the world so it is playing a game of catch-up by securing resource deals, expanding trade routes, researching its own material and acquiring other countries research and secrets.

Perhaps. I honestly don't know, but that would seem sensible. I think, though, that it's more likely that IFF systems are designed to be relatively simple, so as to not require a lot of computing power, and are, thus, only set for certain frequencies. Just a guess, though, admittedly.

That would make sense but as long as proper schematics of the IFF were used it should be possible to make an IFF that uses a different code.

No, the Typhoon's a joke, in my not-so-humble opinion. It has no real ground-attack capabilities (at least, in the current batches). It's an interceptor. And how many dogfights do we see these days?

Not many nowadays because the only countries being attacked have massively inferior air forces. Which ones have overwhelming ground attack capabilities?

Other - don't bother, because you're only ever going to actually need to fight Indonesia or New Zealand, ever, and if you had a Sopwith Camel you'd be able to annihilate the NZ's airforce and win that war.

For dealing with the Indonesian air force, a spud gun is possibly overkill, and you could cut back on air defence spending by gathering up some rocks from the Outback and having a child ready to throw if ever anything shifty-looking flew over.

That is the most short-sighted post in this thread yet.

meh. i was being intentionally glib. there is no real threat to australian territory, but i do understand there will always be a perceived need for military capability as a deterent in case there ever is a threat, and for other purposes. just one of the things that make this world system of nation-states such a shame to me.

Other - don't bother, because you're only ever going to actually need to fight Indonesia or New Zealand, ever, and if you had a Sopwith Camel you'd be able to annihilate the NZ's airforce and win that war.

For dealing with the Indonesian air force, a spud gun is possibly overkill, and you could cut back on air defence spending by gathering up some rocks from the Outback and having a child ready to throw if ever anything shifty-looking flew over.

Once - you would have been pretty right. Unfortunately, Indonesia is modernising it's Air Force. And they're buying reasonably good aircraft (nothing wrong with Russian design work and engineering. They're still a bit behind on the avionics and ECM though).

meh. i was being intentionally glib. there is no real threat to australian territory, but i do understand there will always be a perceived need for military capability as a deterent in case there ever is a threat, and for other purposes. just one of the things that make this world system of nation-states such a shame to me.

I'd prefer it as well if there was less money spent on armies and weapons programs.

Australia doesn't need fancy expensive military equipment. Don't bother spending the millions more for the F-35. Just buy the F/A-18, and you're set with a capable fighter for the next 15 or so years.

Oh, and the US will never agree to sell anyone the F-22 in the next decade. Not even the UK. Besides, its so damned expensive, the US is the only one that can afford more than half a squadron.

The Americans also tried no-cannon fighters in Vietnam - the pilots hated them. Missiles are all well and good, but in a tight furball you want to have something to SHOOT. It can be the difference between winning and dying.

What Aus should do is lean on the US, play the "look, we're the ones who always go in with you, ya know? So relax a few rules for us" game and get a few F-22s - 24 or so would do. Then wait until the F-35 is ready for a full replacement of or F-18s. After all, we're helping to fund that project.

That way, we'll have great top cover and the F-18s can handle ground attack work.


F-22's cost the US Air Force 200 million USD apiece. 24 of them would be 4.8 Billion USD. now how much we'll charge Australia is something different. Do you REALLY want the F-22 that bad if your on a budget?


Get the F-15C, and work on upgraded it, its still a very capable airframe and would be more than a match for the SU-30

The F-35 is gonna be the next decade's F-16, it'll be a good airplane, with lots of versions and mods available and lots of technical and logistical support.

So I reckon it's worth it.

The F-22 on the other hand is a joke. It couldn't pass any sort of cost/benefit analysis...the only reason the US Air Force is flying them is because it would have been embarrassing to just say "all right, this is getting silly, we'll wait for the F-35 and be a bit sensible".

The F-22 is THE fighter plane for now, due mainly to the stealth abilities.

The U.S won't sell it because the countries who would buy it probably will be the ones the U.S wants to impress (with it's military) such as China, Britain, Japan and Russia (if they ramp up their arms sales). All who would also love a chance to have one to reverse engineer the tech, though any country would love to do that they'd would be the only ones to buy enough to have a 'crash'.

That and by having a physical version of it any muggins could work out a way to better track it (and make missile targetting systems particular to that aircraft).

Get the F-15C, and work on upgraded it, its still a very capable airframe and would be more than a match for the SU-30
Lacks the capabilities. It's a fine airframe as it is, to keep on, but not a viable choice to purchase new for the 21st century. Too stuck in the 4th generation, so, for upgradeability, I'd stay with Su-30. I'm not an aerospace engineer, rather naval architect, but I know some, and these areas aren't unrelated; so some observations, mine and not mine on what airframe to choose.
All modern fighters are semi-monocoque, but with different bias towards frame or monocoque (for ground analogy, frame-based is how trucks and good SUV are built, and monocoque is used in conventional small cars). Due to more sturdy and frame-based construction, Su-27 platform easily handles various modifications - up to such radical as forward-swept wings. It also adds damage tolerability compared to more skin-relying frames. Taking Su-30 and Su-35, they are also designed with large and powerful radars in mind - specifically against stealth tech. The more versatile frame of Su-30 can be turned into practically anything, easily handles carrier operation, can handle even primitive and rough catapult once installed. Together with MiG-29, one of the most weather-tolerant as well.
F-15 was a specialized ADF, and the advantage is that the frame is lighter, but the price for that is drawbacks in other areas. Pretty much the same reason as why F-35 is developed rather than modifying F-22: it can't handle modification, it's too embedded. Taking American analogy to Su-27, while F-15 really looks closer, actually Su-27 is more like a bigger F-16, being, with minimal modifications, multirole.
And, considering the upgradeability, the real reason for contracting with Sukhoi is that Su-30 is what half of the world will work on upgrading for next two-three decades. On the other hand, US will work on F-35 and F-22, not the shifted out F-15. Sukhoi and Rosoboronexport are also much more cooperative and attentive to the client's needs than the American export system where you have to beg them to just agree to sell it.

However, purchasing Russian equipment for a Western country may be a major faux pas. Or a strong political statement of independence - "If you don't sell, we buy from another bidder" is the logic used by independent countries.


The F-22 on the other hand is a joke. It couldn't pass any sort of cost/benefit analysis...the only reason the US Air Force is flying them is because it would have been embarrassing to just say "all right, this is getting silly, we'll wait for the F-35 and be a bit sensible".
Not as simple. Aircraft production is not a mechanism which takes in a coin and spits out a plane. It's an industry which must work, otherwise it falls apart - loses the capability. If US didn't order planes, the factories would have to fire workers and mothball or dismantle their advanced production facilities, making F-35 production impossible without extra 5 years spent rebuilding the industry. Same thing with shipbuilding, BTW. So the USAF had to order aircraft. In fact, it's likely that without "training" on F-22 the production of F-35 wouldn't become possible.
Russia has fully faced the experience for stopping the industries just for a while. Now they have to cooperate with other countries to restore them.


The U.S won't sell it because the countries who would buy it probably will be the ones the U.S wants to impress (with it's military) such as China, Britain, Japan and Russia (if they ramp up their arms sales). All who would also love a chance to have one to reverse engineer the tech, though any country would love to do that they'd would be the only ones to buy enough to have a 'crash'.
Not just that. Everyone has spies, and not much of F-22 is a secret, but it is more about technological abilities rather than secret construction. It's more about whether you can afford very expensive lines for its production, highly-skilled manual work, expensive materials, and, as a result, 200 million dollar jets. But there's another reason.
Remember what happened with IAF Lavi? As long as it seemed just a toy for Israel, US gladly cooperated in its development. When it became apparent it would be able to defeat F-16 on the market, US made the development collapse.
Now, what would happen if one of the countries improved F-22 and started to sell it, legally, or just operate a better jet than US? Well, it would look very unpleasant. Especially since most development costs were paid by US.


But, generally, back to the topic, what to purchase is a political decision. A choice affecting what camp Australia allies with. Purchasing US equipment assumes staying closer to them, but at the same time denying independence. Buying from Europe isn't a major thing, and is like "we're still on your side, but not your colony". Contracting with Russia means voicing support for multipolar world.

the capabilities of the Su-30 over the F-18E isn't enough that pilot training would more than make up for them.


As big as indonesia is, I highly doubt that their pilots of the new Su-30's will get the training necessary to take on the RAAF. The RAAF as long as it trains its pilots adequately should be more than powerful enough to take on the Indonesians.


And as far as modifying the F-15 goes to be multirole, the F-15E is a good example of an all weather multi-role aircraft from the F-15 series.


But when it comes to dogfighting, its all in the training, BVR is a very nice capability but when it comes down to knifefighting range, Pilot training is very important. The US learned this lesson very painfully over Vietnam, which is why we have Red Flag and Top Gun schools for our pilots.


And seriously if a muslim nation like indonesia went on the offensive against Australia, do you really think the US, british and Japanese governments would sit idly by(japan might, but if indonesia knocks australia off, the Phillipines and Japan might look tempting to them)


So regardless of what the RAAF buys, if war is to come, you can expect US support to irradicate the Indonesian AF before it can fully get in the fight.

the capabilities of the Su-30 over the F-18E isn't enough that pilot training would more than make up for them.


As big as indonesia is, I highly doubt that their pilots of the new Su-30's will get the training necessary to take on the RAAF. The RAAF as long as it trains its pilots adequately should be more than powerful enough to take on the Indonesians.

They wouldn't get the same level of training but they would use their vehicles more often, being a country made up of lots of islands after all

And as far as modifying the F-15 goes to be multirole, the F-15E is a good example of an all weather multi-role aircraft from the F-15 series.

There needs to be a new multipurpose developed; using the same old probably would work that well.

The F-18 is more expensive than the F-35 for less capability. I wonder if cheaper missiles from other countries would also be good?

But when it comes to dogfighting, its all in the training, BVR is a very nice capability but when it comes down to knifefighting range, Pilot training is very important. The US learned this lesson very painfully over Vietnam, which is why we have Red Flag and Top Gun schools for our pilots.

Most common fighting between two planes now-a-days is through missiles. Canons would only be better for ground/helicopter attack.

And seriously if a muslim nation like indonesia went on the offensive against Australia, do you really think the US, british and Japanese governments would sit idly by(japan might, but if indonesia knocks australia off, the Phillipines and Japan might look tempting to them)

Indonesia has not much interest in Philipines or Japan. However Australia and Indonesia have hada rocky history, Australia has large amounts of raw materials (unlike Japan), Australia has a smaller population needed to pacify and whilst the army training is very good and all, a concerted push made by Indonesia (circa 10-5 years from now) would more than likely work. The only other country that may be invaded by Indonesia would be Malaysia.

U.S would more than likely help, unless australia decides to try to completely ignore the U.S before the war and Indonesia allows them preferrable deals.

So regardless of what the RAAF buys, if war is to come, you can expect US support to irradicate the Indonesian AF before it can fully get in the fight.

Only problem is that U.S has no air bases (as it rightly shouldn't). I am not sure where their air bases are

not really they have a hard time in the desert

Who has a hard time in the desert? The Indonesians?

why aim so low and unimmaginative. why not negotiate with little furry green things from alpha centauri for first contact advance scout ufo's? those disc shaped ones with the TOTAL cloaking device!

=^^=
.../\...

Who has a hard time in the desert? The Indonesians?

they would
would have quoted that part but had unwant guests show up

However no one really lives in the desert, the air bases are nearer to the cities than the deserts.

It is more the distance via air than anything that would stop an invasion, supply lines and stuff like that.

However no one really lives in the desert, the air bases are nearer to the cities than the deserts.

It is more the distance via air than anything that would stop an invasion, supply lines and stuff like that.

but they have no desert warfare training that i know of so if they land just pull back to there


no look at world war two with all the landings that went on

I was just wondering who is a big enough threat to Australia to warrant such spending on aircraft?

They fear Chinese expansion.

They should find some dragons to ride on.

They should find some dragons to ride on.

I thought that Chinese culture had their dragons not flying?

Chinese expansion is a good way to get preferential deals from China and the U.S; China wants resources, willing to pay a lot, U.S afraid to lose support for allowing U.S in Australia (which it can further use to apply pressure around the world to keep its interests).

but they have no desert warfare training that i know of so if they land just pull back to there
no look at world war two with all the landings that went on

Only problem with that is we would be going to an area in the centre of the country, we would be better off going south to Victoria or Tasmania to be out of range. We can't be like Russia with that.

Should they:

Wait to purchase the F-35 Lightning II.
Purchase 24 F/A-18 Hornets as a stopgap measure whilst waiting for the F-35 Lightning II to come.
Try to persuade the U.S to sell F-22 Raptor.
Purchase the Suoki 30.
Purchase the Eurofighter Typhoon.
Try to get any of those built at Australia.
Is the F-35 designated as the Lighting II?
I'd heard originally the F-22 was going to be named that but some knobs watched Jurrasic Park and thought that would be better.

They wouldn't get the same level of training but they would use their vehicles more often, being a country made up of lots of islands after all



There needs to be a new multipurpose developed; using the same old probably would work that well.

The F-18 is more expensive than the F-35 for less capability. I wonder if cheaper missiles from other countries would also be good?



Most common fighting between two planes now-a-days is through missiles. Canons would only be better for ground/helicopter attack.



Indonesia has not much interest in Philipines or Japan. However Australia and Indonesia have hada rocky history, Australia has large amounts of raw materials (unlike Japan), Australia has a smaller population needed to pacify and whilst the army training is very good and all, a concerted push made by Indonesia (circa 10-5 years from now) would more than likely work. The only other country that may be invaded by Indonesia would be Malaysia.

U.S would more than likely help, unless australia decides to try to completely ignore the U.S before the war and Indonesia allows them preferrable deals.



Only problem is that U.S has no air bases (as it rightly shouldn't). I am not sure where their air bases are


1.) not quite sure how that makes sense, they'll be operating out of an airbase. If the Aussies get more flight and training time they will be more profecient.


2.) Meh, don't really have an answer there

3.) wasn't aware of the actual unit or operating price on the Super Hornet

4.) BVR was supposed to be the norm 40 years ago, and regardless of the technological edge a missile has over a cannon, Technology will fail, Countermeasures may work. The missile may miss. Nothing is full proof. There is still no effective counter measure to a 25-30mm HE round. And with the high speeds that aircraft close at dogfighting is still a possiblity.

5.) Army to Army Indonesia may win, but last time I checked Australia was still part of the commonwealth?(i may be wrong on this, i don't keep careful track of Australia) so they can expect support from Britain at the very least.
If Air superiority is denied to both sides(neutral airspace) getting troops from Indonesia to australia will be difficult at best impossible at worst. Taking out a few troop transports/Amphibious Assault vessels in a fleet and that tends to take the steam out of the attack.

6.)As long as Aussie Troops are fighting alongside American Troops elsewhere you will see the US military willing to move to defend Australia

7.) It wouldn't be a problem to move US aircraft to operate out of Australian Airbases. The USAF has plenty of experience with operating out of forward airbases and if Australia really had concerns about Indonesia there would probably be a plan in place. And for immediate relief and Close air support we could fly B-1B's and B-52's out of Diego Garcia, hell maybe even Guam.