With that, he does have his sources. Even if he comes up with some really odd conclusions. There are things that he has to be informed on; or that someone "in the know" told him.
Take for example his opinion piece the other day, and this:
"Second, some of the remaining big-ticket items from the 2009 White Paper need to be discarded in favour of more modest alternatives. Think along the lines of an air force built around 60 F/A 18 Super Hornets rather than 100 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters..."
One does not need a tin-foil-hat to consider that it is possible that the number of 60 was not pulled out of thin air or part of Thomson's imagination.
I believe it is possible that you are looking at a fall-back plan by Defence when faced with limited future budgets, an unworkable F-35 program and the really bad idea of pushing old classic Hornets through the refurb mill (again) to make them last out to the 2020's. Whatever happens, Australia's most expensive flying club, must go on.
Status-quo is something hard to deal with. How would 60 fall into the current legacy Hornet RAAF squadron structure when 71-72 are needed?
It is still workable with some adjustment.
The F-35 may show up someday. However, it is unaffordable and ineffective for any non-anti-access scenario done better by the Super Hornet. Both are unsurvivable for emerging Pacific threats.
Ponder the finer details of squadron conversion amongst yourselves.
16 comments:
There is another guy I agree with the statement, the WWW Submission: 4. Air Force/Air Power. Sent on Monday, 4th August 2008 to the Defence White Paper.
I’m not sure who he is, which probably remains anonymous.
I’ll put some of the description whats been sent.
“Because of Australia’s land mass, a large twin engine fighter is the practical choice for Australia’s needs, and basing them in locations around Australia which would provide protection and cover for most or all of Australia’s coastline, with a practical 30 minute response to almost any location on our coast”.
“This would mean a fighter capable of Mach 2.5, like the F-22 or the F-15. The F-15, even today, when Australia builds new Eagles on licence from Boeing, can provide a massive amount of capability compared to the lightweight Hornets. The F-15s can be based at 3 locations in Western Australia which currently has no fighters based here and can be based on average of 2 locations per state. With a requirement for around 200-210 airframes, and with around 1500 Air to air missiles and 2000 bombs, Australia will be comprehensively set up for a secure Air shield. Even the Sukhois which now outpace the Hornets will now be matched by the aquisition of the Eagle”.
“The F-35 JSF is a single engine fighter but is not as practical as a large twin engine fighter. New Zealand, Singapore, Korea and Japan would be ideal locations for a single engine fighter. All of those countries have the F-15 except for New Zealand which chose to disregard its Air Force and now is unable to even shoot down airliners if terrorists gain control of the cockpit. Considering the countries in Asia who we are strong friends with have bought the F-15, says a lot for this superiority fighter aircraft”.
If you want to find out more information go to Australian Government, Department of Defence search engine type in Submission: Air Force/Air Power PDF file and hopefully you’ll get the idea.
Regards Peter
Exactly, if you were going to purchase another 60 aircraft, surely you would go for the F15SE, and not the Super.
Australia and the surrounds is a big place.
That would all depend on how "silent" the SE actually is.
Personally, I would have delivered around 75 incrementally upgraded F-15AU to RAAF at the get go (instead of 60 Supers, or 100 F-35s), starting around 2010, as AUS's more prudent and strategic recap plan.
That, coupled with some UAV assets for long endurance maritime patrol.
going forward however... I seriously think the most strategic and most calculated plan would be to secure a long-term low-cost advanced Super Hornet procurement option. i.e., low ball the hell out of Boeing. Use every bluff in the book, as well as realistic alternative options.
The offset however, would be in the systems this follow-on Super Hornet will employ, as well as the jointly-developed next-gen stand-off munitions.
That component of the equation will be necessary if to remain relevant at all going forward.
Contemplate something like: block II+ Super (with Type IV mission computer), complete with CFT and IRST-tank. Add next-gen APG-79 upgrade capabilities (passive and active). Top off with joint-developed asymmetrical next-gen munitions such as a multi-mission AIM-174 (w/ dual-sensor), plus, perhaps the proposed Air-Air Stunner round (as reportedly required as an advanced jointly-developed (Raytheon/Rafael) medium range replacement for the AMRAAM).
Add an Elta self-protection jamming pod to a fuselage station, with the other fuselage station incorporating a MALD-J?
This bird couldn't be evading missile shots when doing Mach 1.5 at 40k feet, nor could it make sustained high-G turns or high rate of climb -- both helpful for air supremacy.
Yet, if carefully and cleverly adapted, it would truly game-change capabilities over the current expected F-35 bird expected by around 2018 in any hypothetical FY18 Red Flag.
This SUper+ Hornet would cleanly own a block III F-35 with standard systems and 4x AIM-120D.
The figure of 60 looks like it is based on reducing the size of the three current front line Classic Hornet squadrons from 14 or 16 aircraft to 12 Super Hornets.
The orginal formula for the purchase of 75 Classics was something like this: 3x16 aircraft in the front line squadrons + 12 in the Operational Conversion Unit + 15 (25% of 3 squadrons + the OCU) in reserve to cover deep maintenance and attition.
So a 60 strong F/A-18E Super Hornet force could be structured along the following lines: 3x12 in the front line squadrons + 12 in the OCU and 12 in reserve.
Incidentally, RAF fighter squadrons usually have 12 aircraft each.
"This SUper+ Hornet would cleanly own a block III F-35 with standard systems and 4x AIM-120D."
How on earth would it do that if it couldn't see the F-35?
Narrow-band, mostly front-aspect F-35. Not such a big deal. AMRAAM being a single-point of failure, WVR where a Super is better than a very limited flight envelop and buggy Just So Failed.
Now that's like saying the f-35 cannot fly at night!
That soon changed to "oh, that's not really night, it's only twilight".
Now the F-35 has many hours in pitch black darkness.
Time marches on.
Good ideas all of these, I especially like the F15SE idea. Now lets get back to reality - the reason we bought the Super Hornet to replace the F 111 was because Andrew Peacock (Former Federal Leader of The Liberal Party) is Boeings' salesman in Australia, and John Howard was Prime Minister. Unfortunately these are the sorts of things that often make a difference in Defence procurement. So the current ALP Government may in fact open up more options, biut I suspect they will go for the easy option - more Super Hornets, and fewer of them to keep the price down.
The same Labor government that promised to officially ask for F-22s and then slashed the Defence budget?
Makes sense anonymous. Except for the small fact that Boeing also manufactures the F-15...
In fact as Northrop Grumman actually produces the majority of the Super Hornet airframe, not to mention the higher cost of the F-15, it is highly likely that Boeing would have made far more money from selling us F-15's than they did from selling us Super Hornets...
If it really were as simple as you portray, you'd think Boeing would have used it's almighty influence to sell us F-15's and make themselves a larger profit in the process?
For large land mass countries like Australia and Canada, only an F-15 variant makes sense given the unavailability of the F-22. Yes, the F-15 is more expensive than the F-18, but compared to the F-35 the F-15 is a bargain. Speed, payload and range still matter, and with the latest tech available for the F-15 such as GE-132 engines, JHMCS, and APG-82 an F-15AU would be a highly capable aircraft.
I think the Australian air force is showing a lot of responsability as the USNavy did a decade ago. The combination of MESA/AESA Radars, ATFLIR Sensors and Growlers, and long range intelligent bombs it`s the way of the future, not just the hiper-expensive day one stealth technology of the past decade to pass by over the target. Silent Eagles are Stelth just in frontal view, Super Hornets already have better degree of stealth in the frontal view and some stealth all around, and their live cicle cost it`s much cheaper. The Growlers and SH international road map with extra internal gas will have longer range and combined will be hard to kill even for raptors. Canada should do the same.
BTW, I`m loocking for infomation about the SH vs Su-30 during the Pitch Black 2012.
Does anybody knows the results? I have translate a Malasyan blog with my google translate and it looks they were equal in dogfith? is this accurate? what about Beyoud visual range?
Thanks
One problem you may have there is ROE. For example, India with exercises using the MKI in Nellis and the U.K. only flew EMCON, (radar off), so-as to protect security of the radar capability.
So, I could be wrong, but I would expect the same with other new SUs used in exercises with other countries.
Thanks for the answer. So if I understand you, all we can find it's about dogfights reusults?
Any way, I'm trying to find any information from Australia about the dogfight results but there is nothing.
I'm a truly fan of the Super Bug and I want to know if my prediction was write...hehehe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gX_vZB-2nE&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Post a Comment