Replies

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.

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.