Posted on 01/01/2008 1:16:40 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Ian McPhedran: Super Hornet stings Brendan Nelson
Ian McPhedran
January 01, 2008 12:00am
AUSTRALIAN taxpayers have been scheduled to cough up a huge $22 billion during the next decade to buy two completely separate fleets of jet fighters.
These planes will almost certainly never fire a shot in anger.
The first $6 billion will buy and run 24 Boeing Super Hornet fighters over the next 10 years. The planes are due to start arriving late in 2009.
The second $16 billion will purchase a fleet of up to 100 Joint Strike Fighters from Lockheed Martin to take care of the nation's air defence for the next 30 years.
It is the most expensive single defence project in Australian history.
But it is the Super Hornets generating immediate political heat, which will surprise no one.
The Super Hornets are designed and built to operate from aircraft carriers.
Australia doesn't have an aircraft carrier, so why are we buying them?
That's obviously the question that new Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon has put to our defence chiefs.
He's no doubt wondering why former defence minister Brendan Nelson ignored expert advice from the RAAF and Defence that we did not need a "gap filler" in case the JSFs (due from 2013) runs late.
The Super Hornet issue is back on the table, as expected, as part of a sweeping equipment purchase review.
The debate over the fighters had degenerated into a slanging match.
It's between the "old and bold" of RAAF fighter pilots who are passionately opposed and the new generation of Top Guns who dismiss their concerns as "so 1970s".
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...
Ian McPhedran, like every other journalist in Australia, knows nothing about defence and neither do the idiots who he gets his ‘information’.
The lack of military/security knowledge in Aussie journalists is epic.
I'd guess the presence of the planes, in the first place, would be a good reason for that.
They said the same of the Hornets back in the 80's (which ended up dropping bombs in support of Australian and allied troops during the invasion of Iraq.)
Don’t ever hesitate to possess the very best, especially when it concerns your very survival. When the next Asian bully arises and they’re climbing right up your arse you will have no time to acquire a weapon of choice. In those circumstances would you rather have a bloody rusty bucket to fend off the heathens or would you like to heft a razor sharp saber with which to hand them their heads?
That doesn’t even begin to touch the philosophical difference between providing a secure home for your grandchildren and digging their grave and telling them to jump in and piss on them anyway because what did they ever do for you. Is it really so hard to understand?
No I doubt they ever are used in Anger ...Most people have no idea, that when it comes time to act we don't have ungided, mis applied Anger.
We have professionals, whose training and sense of duty direct their actions. They disconnect themselves from their emotions and complete their missions, later when the emotions hit and they reflect upon what they have done its rarely Anger they feel, after all; they are human too.
First: Personally, I appreciate your efforts to keep us all here on this forum up to speed on what’s going on in international defense issues.
Second: Australia has troops engaged, in the field, right now. And, Australia will have troops engaged, in the field, for the foreseeable future. Australian forces should be able to expect Australian air support while in combat.
This combat against the expansionist caliphate has every potential to spread into areas of concern for the Australian government well within the next decade.
This concept of not needing them soon because they don’t need them right this very second is foolishness in the extreme.
Also, if Australian combat air forces can not integrate with the US naval fleet’s combat control and information system, then they will be fighting alone and without integrated support.
Same goes for India in the next decade +. If they’re not able to fully integrate with US data link systems, then no matter how cool or cheap their purchase look to be on paper, their pilots and airframes will be worse than useless when push comes to shove.
When purchasing a modern combat or combat support aircraft, the airframe is only one part. The avionics and data linkage are HUGE force multiplier or nullifier.
If they can get “good enough” capability from somewhere else, good for them. If they’re crapping on themselves to save a dollar or to play political “gotchas” then they’re only hurting themselves as well as killing their own war fighters.
Life extends zero mercy or forgiveness to the weak and the stupid.
The Aussies need aurcraft carriers, but they have a stopgap for that right now: the US Navy. I’m sure they are fully integrated with our military and could base off of our carriers if necessary.
The primary issue here for Australia is whether the Super Hornet was upto scratch as a replacement for the F-111.The threat perceptions in the region have changed & Australia needs a better aircraft.THat they have realized it is a good thing-but if they don’t do anything about it,it will be foolish.About integrating with the USN,well then all US allies have to buy USN-compatible weapons-that frankly sounds foolish-Australia is most likely to opt for a US system in any case.
About India-will the US offer the (expected levels) of technology transfers & also guarantees of spare parts supplies in the future.The blunt fact is that India has different expectations in it’s neighbourhood to think on the same plane as Uncle Sam-the least of which is Pakistan.India’s fleet of British Sea King helos & Sea Harrier jets were almost grounded after the 1998 nuclear tests because supply of US built spares siezed,while it’s indegnious fighter programme suffered a delay of almost 5 years because L.M & G.E were prohibited from supporting it.
So does India have the requisite level of trust in the US that it has in the Russians?Or even the Europeans & the Israelis??Frankly,not yet.
So what airframe _do_ “the Aussies” want? Near as I can tell from all the discussion, it’s the Flanker, which with a couple of upgrades will be superior to the F-22. (At least, if you believe the Aussie forums that are discussion the horrible, terrible, inferior, so-bad-they-can’t-believe-anyone-uses-it Super Hornet vs the Flanker.)
The “experts” in Australia ideally want the F-22.That’s both impossible & impractical in most ways.The F-15E would frankly be the best fit.
The Flanker,with any degree of upgrades will still be inferior to the F-22.The only chance it would have is at close-range,but then pilot skill would become crucial.
The only people who are talking about Australia getting anything Russian are not real defence “experts”.
What we want is an immediate replacement for the F-111 and replacement in 2012-2015 of our legacy Bugs.
There really isn’t a replacement for the Pig in long range strike so in the end it came down to either the Super Hornet or F-15 (similar to the K or SG model). Both have their pros and cons.
The ideal post 2015 RAAF would have a mix of F-22/F-35 but there is no way the US is selling F-22 so the planned all F-35 force will have to do.
Cost will always be an issue of concern. As will sustainable resupply of spare parts. Because of our current national schitzophrenia, I, personally, doubt whether a US model would be best bang for the buck, but there are fully compatible suppliers that have a more stable track record.
I did not mean to imply that “US only” was the most viable and best option. For now, and for the next decade (at the very least) our government will be too on again, off again, to be worthy of any real long term reliably in national arms and armament issues.
But, the fact will always remain, the premier combat capability resides in US compatibility in avionics and data linkage.
Our fleet(s) will be the immensity combat capable power in the Asia Pacific area for decades to come.
UK suppliers might be a best bet until we get our own crap settled enough to be back in the long term trust category.
But for Ausies to be saying they have no need of something newer and more robust/package adaptable than the F111 right now is ludicrous. The Ausies are in this fight right now. Ausie diggers should be able to expect Ausie pilots flying Ausie airframes in support of Ausie actions right now. Also, there is absolutely zero rational reason to assume that the current issues in southern Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and even Vietnam wont demand Ausie intervention within the next decade. The muzzie caliphate is on the march and expanding into every possible nook and cranny in the Asia/Pacific area.
I do agree with you that a US airframe may not be best bet at this time. But, compatibility with US data sharing should be an absolute minimum consideration for Ausie near-term and projected future purchases.
The main argument I’ve heard from Ausies is the F111’s ability to fly low to avoid air defense.
I’m not an airdale, so I might have this wrong, but there’s been “look down, shoot down” radar on aircraft for at least 20 years now. And, any modern combat aircraft can fly low “nap of the earth” if need be to avoid ground based radar. The F111 isn’t uniquely capable in that category these days.
There’s also the issue of long time airframe stress, avionics upgrades, spare parts. Of course, retraining is a consideration. New aircraft require new training, but that’s a one time thing. After the current pilots are trained up, then it’s done as a consideration/concern. Each new batch of pilots have to be trained, regardless of the aircraft.
I never said that a US airframe is not the best bet for Australia at the moment-far from it.If my views were of any consequence,I would have opted for an F-15E variant like the Korean F-15K or the new jets for Singapore.YEARS AGO.
Talking about India,I don’t think it’s likely that India will buy the Russian Mig-35(too many eggs in a Russian basket).
Both the Eurofighter & Swedish Gripen are designed for interoperability with US forces.Both aircraft carry considerable US Systems & weaponry as well.Even the French Rafale could possibly mount the Link-16 datalink & it already carries US Paveway series bombs(which India plans to assemble under license).So you don’t necessarily need to buy American to be alongside Uncle Sam.
I had no idea that Korea was making combat airframes for export.
I know you mentioned the F-15E. I was only trying to clarify my own thinking on the issue.
I’m not a airdaleian, so my knowing is real limited, but I’d think the F15 package is still a bit too dated and lacking in flex for today’s Pac Rim needs.
Mostly, I wonder at Ausie unwillingness or inability to deploy their own air units to support their own ground forces currently engaged in combat operations. Seems to me, they’d want to have the opportunity to shake out the rust and update their SOPs to current needs.
Australia will be a front line area on this war, sooner or later. No opportunity to practice their technical oriented warfighters should be passed up. No matter how much time is spent in milti-national military cooperation and coordination efforts, it’s never enough to be good enough.
And, of course, it’s New Years Eve and I’m 3/4 lit on cheap whiskey, so I doubt any of the above makes any sense at all.
to your post #15.
I am, of course, a hard core American Nationalist, but I really don’t expect any foreign nation to spend hard cash on the US brand, just to have the US brand. If we can’t compete successfully for the buyer’s choice, then that’s our problem.
My only concern, as a nobody with no juice who doesn’t matter in anything, is that those who will be standing against our common enemy have the ability to take full advantage of what our investment in technical capability will offer.
Allies who can’t inter-operate and who have incompatible inventories are such a pain in the tail pipe.
Nope,South Korea doesn’t make the F-15K.It’s a customised variant of the F-15E,developed for South Korea(K for Korea).
It’s arguably the best long-range multi-role fighter today.It’s range/payload capability are better than the SuperHornet & you could squeeze in a new AESA radar,which can be equal to the Super Hornet’s APG-79.Not to mention that it’s air to air performance is also better,which is why countries still buy it & no one has purchased the Super Hornet yet(if the Aussie deal flops).
If that’s all true, then the Ausies would be foolish not to deal with the Koreans.
The Koreans don’t have much to do with the F-15K given that it contains very few South Korean systems(as far as I know),so the Aussies only have to deal with the Yankees building it.The only thing is that the F-15K was designed for the ROKAF’s requirements.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.