NationStates Jolt Archive

This is the follow up to the "What Should the RAAF DO?" thread that died awhile back. Australia has ordered 24 Super Hornets as an interim to replace their aging F/B-111s until the new F-35s arrive in a few years.

Thoughts or comments?

Source (http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/NelsonMintpl.cfm?CurrentId=6437)

Well the F-111 is a beast of an aircraft but its old and outdated. The F-35 will certainly be what they need and the F/A-18F, as much as I hate the Super Hornet, isn't a bad interim fighter choice but it isn't the best.

I think that they should have gone with the Shukoi Su-27. With the state of the Russian economy, the would have gotten the planes-support-training-spares cheaper than the FA-18. And keep in mind, that the Su-27 and Mig-29 were specifically designed to defeat the F-15,16,18!!!

Vic

I think that they should have gone with the Shukoi Su-27. With the state of the Russian economy, the would have gotten the planes-support-training-spares cheaper than the FA-18. And keep in mind, that the Su-27 and Mig-29 were specifically designed to defeat the F-15,16,18!!!

Vic

There was never a chance in hell that Australia, the great arse-kisser of Amercia, would purchase Russian planes. Even purchasing something from the Brits or the EU would have been pushing it.

The Russian airplanes are not compatible with NATO equipment.

Ergo, no good idea.

When it the JSF going become reality? I think it's in prototype stage at the moment.

guns are bad.

Well the F-111 is a beast of an aircraft but its old and outdated. The F-35 will certainly be what they need and the F/A-18F, as much as I hate the Super Hornet, isn't a bad interim fighter choice but it isn't the best.

How can you hate the Super Hornet? :confused: It's a damn fine aircraft.

I think that they should have gone with the Shukoi Su-27. With the state of the Russian economy, the would have gotten the planes-support-training-spares cheaper than the FA-18. And keep in mind, that the Su-27 and Mig-29 were specifically designed to defeat the F-15,16,18!!!

Somebody needs to lay off the crack.

When it the JSF going become reality?

2011 though I'd put money on 2015 since nobody meets the schedules

2011 though I'd put money on 2015 since nobody meets the schedules

That probably depends on what version you want.

If you want the kind that is not VTOL, probably closer to the proclaimed deadline. If VTOL, way further out.

How can you hate the Super Hornet? :confused: It's a damn fine aircraft.



Somebody needs to lay off the crack.

No, don't smoke crack. However, it would be cheaper for the Aussies to fill the gap, rather than spend all that money on the Super Hornets, and then forking out more money on the JSF in a few years.

But of course, why should we expect any government to try to save their taxpayers a wad of money?

Y'all be safe out there.

Vic

guns are bad.

It's not a gun, it's an aircraft.

I would have prefered the F-22 Raptor as the interim until the F-35 is ready, even if it is a little more expensive, Super Hornets can't stand up to modern Russian aircraft. I also think it's up for debate if the F-35 will be any better than some Eurofighters...

I would have prefered the F-22 Raptor as the interim until the F-35 is ready, even if it is a little more expensive, Super Hornets can't stand up to modern Russian aircraft. I also think it's up for debate if the F-35 will be any better than some Eurofighters...

There is absolutly no way that the US will be exporting the F-22 anytime before 2020.

There is absolutly no way that the US will be exporting the F-22 anytime before 2020.

Why is that?

It's not a gun, it's an aircraft.

Why do we even need aircraft. Other then for Johnny's arse-licking adventures in Iraq, we don't have a whole lot of use for them. As far as I can see, the only military responsibility that Australia should have is peace-keeping in some of our smaller neighbors such as East Timor. Why do we have to waste 2.5% of our GDP trying to competing against Russian technology? Are we scared of the enormous threat of Micronesia, French Polynesia and New Zealand?

Why do we even need aircraft. Other then for Johnny's arse-licking adventures in Iraq, we don't have a whole lot of use for them. As far as I can see, the only military responsibility that Australia should have is peace-keeping in some of our smaller neighbors such as East Timor. Why do we have to waste 2.5% of our GDP trying to competing against Russian technology? Are we scared of the enormous threat of Micronesia, French Polynesia and New Zealand?

Because that's just what the kangaroos want; for you to disarm yourselves! Then nothing can stop their conquest! :p

Why do we even need aircraft. Other then for Johnny's arse-licking adventures in Iraq, we don't have a whole lot of use for them. As far as I can see, the only military responsibility that Australia should have is peace-keeping in some of our smaller neighbors such as East Timor. Why do we have to waste 2.5% of our GDP trying to competing against Russian technology? Are we scared of the enormous threat of Micronesia, French Polynesia and New Zealand?

Dude, think before you type. Australia has 0 fighter planes in Iraq. Good work! Tool....

How can you hate the Super Hornet? :confused: It's a damn fine aircraft.


It's a bit too slow for a fourth-generation fighter, and it's bound to lose against any other modern fourth or fifth generation interceptor, like the F-15, the EFA or the Su-27.

Agreed, it can do its job, expecially as multirole, but I still regret that the US dropped the F-15 canard variant. That would have given the western bloc an aircraft comparable with the latest Su-27 variants.

And, by the way, I love the good old Aardvark. The only Mach-2 capable bomber of the western bloc.

Dude, think before you type. Australia has 0 fighter planes in Iraq. Good work! Tool....

Australian aircraft were involved in the invasion. (http://www.awm.gov.au/iraq/raaf.asp)

It's a bit too slow for a fourth-generation fighter, and it's bound to lose against any other modern fourth or fifth generation interceptor, like the F-15, the EFA or the Su-27.

Why? The F-15 and Su-27 in particular are from the same generation, and all carry equivalent AA weaponry.

Dude, think before you type. Australia has 0 fighter planes in Iraq. Good work! Tool....

How is that better? At least if we were using them it wouldn't be money straight down the tube! How many times do you reckon we'll actually use those planes in their lifetime?

It's a bit too slow for a fourth-generation fighter, and it's bound to lose against any other modern fourth or fifth generation interceptor, like the F-15, the EFA or the Su-27.

Agreed, it can do its job, expecially as multirole, but I still regret that the US dropped the F-15 canard variant. That would have given the western bloc an aircraft comparable with the latest Su-27 variants.

And, by the way, I love the good old Aardvark. The only Mach-2 capable bomber of the western bloc.

You're just a little too impressed by specs. I suspect Janes is kind of like the U.S. EPA mileage ratings ... a little inflated.

There are a couple other things that make one aircraft superior to another. The first is maintainability. If you can't have the aircraft at 90 Full Mission Capable (FMC) every day, it isn't worth having. The F-111s had reached the point, much like my beloved steed the A-6 Intruder, where they just couldn't meet the demands that were placed on them. My bet is that the F-18F is much more easily maintained and that spares are far more available than for any other Soviet/Russian fighter.

The next quality that makes one aircraft superior to another is the guy in the front seat. No one, except maybe -- maybe emphasized, is trained better than an American pilot. I don't know what sorts of training the Australians get, especially after they leave flight school and depend on the squadron for recurring training, but I suspect it is still head and shoulders above what the folks flying SUs and MiGs are getting.

Why do we even need aircraft. Other then for Johnny's arse-licking adventures in Iraq, we don't have a whole lot of use for them. As far as I can see, the only military responsibility that Australia should have is peace-keeping in some of our smaller neighbors such as East Timor. Why do we have to waste 2.5% of our GDP trying to competing against Russian technology? Are we scared of the enormous threat of Micronesia, French Polynesia and New Zealand?

The second word of your second sentence should be 'than', not 'then'.

I think that they should have gone with the Shukoi Su-27. With the state of the Russian economy, the would have gotten the planes-support-training-spares cheaper than the FA-18. And keep in mind, that the Su-27 and Mig-29 were specifically designed to defeat the F-15,16,18!!!

Vic

First, the F/A 18F is a multi-role attack aircraft, as compared to the Sukhoi model, which is primarily a fighter platform. The Australian government is not looking for a primary-role fighter.

Also, the Su-27 is not easily compatible with NATO systems, which are the dominant paradigm in the Australian defense capabilities today.

How is that better? At least if we were using them it wouldn't be money straight down the tube! How many times do you reckon we'll actually use those planes in their lifetime?

Plan for the worst, hope for the best and you'll rarely get caught with your pants down.

We need an effective airforce indeed! Considering out coastline is huge and our navy spends most of it's time in other nations, yes - we do. Up north Indonesia has the best of Russian ships, planes and also some US stuff.

Speaking as an American the Super Hornet is not a bad choice. It is a good all around aircraft that can switch from fighter mode to ground attack by a push of a button. The Australians were looking for a good multirole aircraft and the Super Hornet fits the bill.
It is not the aircraft I would have chosen. the FA-18 is a carrier based aircraft so it is going to have a strengthened undercarriage which the Australian Air force would not need. The FA-18s Air to air capability is good but not great. Assuming pilots of equal skill, if the FA-18 goes up against a Mig-29 the FA-18 will be out matched. Also cost wise American aircraft are usually more expensive then their European or Asian counterparts.
I would have gone with the Swedish built Gripen. The Gripen is a good solid multi role aircraft that can match any other modern jet fighter out their.
It also can use road ways and rougher ground as airstrips which would be a huge advantage with the long stretches of highways in Australia.
Also cost wise you could buy three Gripens for the cost of two FA-18s.

First, the F/A 18F is a multi-role attack aircraft, as compared to the Sukhoi model, which is primarily a fighter platform. The Australian government is not looking for a primary-role fighter.

Also, the Su-27 is not easily compatible with NATO systems, which are the dominant paradigm in the Australian defense capabilities today.

I would bet that the Soviets have made every effort to exploit captured territory. There would be nothing more frustrating to an out-of-gas pilot, or useless to a theater commander, than a dozen tanker trucks full of JP-4, none of which could be used to re-fuel his jet.

No, don't smoke crack. However, it would be cheaper for the Aussies to fill the gap, rather than spend all that money on the Super Hornets, and then forking out more money on the JSF in a few years.

But of course, why should we expect any government to try to save their taxpayers a wad of money?


Buying Russian aircraft wouldn't save the RAAF any money at all. In fact, it'd likely be more expensive, as they'd have to set up completely new maintenance and logistics support, not to mention completely retrain personnel (and I'm not talking about just pilots). The RAAF already has Hornets. Buying Super Hornets is the perfectly logical move.

... but I still regret that the US dropped the F-15 canard variant. That would have given the western bloc an aircraft comparable with the latest Su-27 variants.

You mean the NASA test plane? That wasn't a variant, it was a one-off testbed with no connection to military programs, never intended to be made a combat aircraft.

It's always better than to have and not need than to need and not have.

Anyway, the F-15E (or any of the new export models) would be better as an interim until the JSF comes online if you're going for performance only. However, the Super Hornet simplifies the training process for Australian pilots and I'm not sure how much commonality the Super Hornet has with earlier models, but I'll bet at least some of Australia's spares and tools will find use on the Super Hornets.